4 ms·

I'm thinking on a higher level - what we have is exactly that the data is on servers and that people do not have control over their own hardware. And that the

I'm thinking on a higher level - what we have is exactly that the data is on servers and that people do not have control over their own hardware. And that the cheap hardware is good enough.

pvg 7y ago
I'm not following how that's different from WebTV. The memo predicts a product like WebTV and that product materializes almost instantly. In the enterprise space, 'thin client' was already every second word out of Larry Ellison's mouth.
- majormajor 7y ago
  > When faced with the choice between a $500 box (RISC CPU, 4-8Mb RAM, no hard disk, …) and a $2KPentium/P6 Windows machine, the 2/3rds of homes that don’t have a PC may find the $500 machine pretty attractive! WebTV wasn't the compelling product the author was concerned about. The open internet and more open hardware won then (to MS's benefit, for the author). But the modern phone is that more compelling alternative.
  - pvg 7y ago
    There are a lot of things that turned out to be more compelling than WebTV but predicting WebTV doesn't make the author 'prescient' about them either. The claim was about the prescience not the compellingness.
    - majormajor 7y ago
      The prescient bit to me was "the web could displace windows if it becomes full featured and there's a compelling alternative form factor to the PC." Tons of people predicted webTv-like systems, but predicting MS losing power was much less common.
      - notahacker 7y ago
        tbf loads of people predicted MS would lose power in the nineties. They just thought it would be due to desktop Linux
      - pvg 7y ago
        Ok but the comment I was responding it did not say that. As to the MS thing, I'm not sure that's all that accurate either. It's certainly striking that someone wrote this and presented it at a high level within Microsoft when they did. But it also isn't that far from the way the future of the web was framed outside of Microsoft. If anything, it's a reminder of the outsized role Microsoft used to play just in 'mindshare'. A great deal of discussion about the internet and the web revolved around how it might affect Microsoft, how it might be an opening for (or not) for Microsoft competitors and how Microsoft would respond. I don't think either Google or Apple today loom quite as large in people's perceptions.
  - pjc50 7y ago
    The open internet winning was to Microsoft's detriment at the time, which was why they fought it so hard and why IE was so broken but difficult for corporate users to abandon. Microsoft wanted ActiveX to win.
pjc50 7y ago
What the original author was worried about was a world where it was no longer the case that 99% of consumers had to pay OEM license fees to Microsoft to do these things. And by and large that came to pass - the web is a free platform.

I'm thinking on a higher level - what we have is exactly that the data is on servers and that people do not have control over their own hardware. And that the cheap hardware is good enough.

pvg 7y ago

I'm not following how that's different from WebTV. The memo predicts a product like WebTV and that product materializes almost instantly. In the enterprise space, 'thin client' was already every second word out of Larry Ellison's mouth.

majormajor 7y ago
> When faced with the choice between a $500 box (RISC CPU, 4-8Mb RAM, no hard disk, …) and a $2KPentium/P6 Windows machine, the 2/3rds of homes that don’t have a PC may find the $500 machine pretty attractive! WebTV wasn't the compelling product the author was concerned about. The open internet and more open hardware won then (to MS's benefit, for the author). But the modern phone is that more compelling alternative.
- pvg 7y ago
  There are a lot of things that turned out to be more compelling than WebTV but predicting WebTV doesn't make the author 'prescient' about them either. The claim was about the prescience not the compellingness.
  - majormajor 7y ago
    The prescient bit to me was "the web could displace windows if it becomes full featured and there's a compelling alternative form factor to the PC." Tons of people predicted webTv-like systems, but predicting MS losing power was much less common.
    - notahacker 7y ago
      tbf loads of people predicted MS would lose power in the nineties. They just thought it would be due to desktop Linux
    - pvg 7y ago
      Ok but the comment I was responding it did not say that. As to the MS thing, I'm not sure that's all that accurate either. It's certainly striking that someone wrote this and presented it at a high level within Microsoft when they did. But it also isn't that far from the way the future of the web was framed outside of Microsoft. If anything, it's a reminder of the outsized role Microsoft used to play just in 'mindshare'. A great deal of discussion about the internet and the web revolved around how it might affect Microsoft, how it might be an opening for (or not) for Microsoft competitors and how Microsoft would respond. I don't think either Google or Apple today loom quite as large in people's perceptions.
- pjc50 7y ago
  The open internet winning was to Microsoft's detriment at the time, which was why they fought it so hard and why IE was so broken but difficult for corporate users to abandon. Microsoft wanted ActiveX to win.

pjc50 7y ago

What the original author was worried about was a world where it was no longer the case that 99% of consumers had to pay OEM license fees to Microsoft to do these things. And by and large that came to pass - the web is a free platform.