Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
News

Cringely's 2002 Predictions 159

Posted by CmdrTaco from the looking-in-the-crystal-ball dept.
An anonymous reader submitted Cringley's 2002 predictions. Nothing totally unexpected: XML will explode (hasn't it already?) and Microsoft will keep their mits in every big deal in the tech industry. Other stuff too, like the return of VCs and IPO frenzies (yawn), and that Rich Media won't quite make it yet in 2002.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Cringely's 2002 Predictions More

Cringely's 2002 Predictions

Comments Filter:

  • This from... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by iGawyn ( 164113 ) on Sunday January 06, 2002 @02:39PM (#2794180) Homepage Journal
    This from the man who agreed with Steve Gibson about how raw sockets in WinXP was going to destroy the internet. Seeing as how slashdot still exists, I think he may be just a little bit off base.

    Gawyn

    • Re:This from... (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Actually, you might be surprised. I'm in the middle of working out some code on a raw socket exploit, and it doesn't even require a script kiddie getting a stupid user on IRC to run an executable (it propagates by the UPnP vulnerability, enabled by default and still shipping on XP around the world). The great part is, it can also run as a trojan executable or forced on the user in some "buggy" ActiveX code. It has no problem installing as a normal user thanks to some holes left a little too open in XP, not that most users don't add themselves to the administrator category to make life easier, anyways. I'll never stop being amazed at what Microsoft will ship to try to make money on, it's truly a disgusting product.
      • So you're saying that Steve Gibson may be right? Even so, with the raw sockets exploit, UPnP propogation, "spoofed DDoS attacks gone rampant", and everything else Gibson predicts, the internet will continue fine.

        Unless something extraordinarily stupid happens, such as some of the major internet backbones being exposed and targeted by DDoS attacks, the internet will continue just fine, with sites vanishing for a while, then re-appearing, as they currently do.

        Gawyn

        • Why do the DDoS attacks need to be spoofed?

          It seems to me that a clever outlook worm, i.e. one that attached itself to valid outgoing attachments, could infect a large number of machines and simply begin making valid http requests to a few servers could be sufficient.. Enough machines requesting enough data will drop any connection to it's knees..

          • It doesn't have to be (Score:2, Informative)

            by iGawyn ( 164113 )
            A DDoS attack is damaging, either spoofed or non-spoofed, but Gibson's main premise is that, with the inclusion of raw sockets into WinXP, spoofed DDoS attacks will conquer the internet, be untraceable and unblockable, and generally bring around the end of the world as we know it.

            For more info on paranoia, read here [grc.com]. Then, before the marketing spin catches a hold of your soul, read here [grcsucks.com].

            Gawyn
        • I think what Cringely said was that Microsoft left this hole open intentionally in order to create that "super worm". Then when the worm actually appears, to use that as a pretext to ditch the insecure TCP/IP protocol that allowed such a worm to be spawned (this is MS talking, mind you), and move to a more secure MS-TCP or MS-IPv6. And that will be the death of the internet.

          Far fetched I know, but similar things have been tried before.
    • This from the man who agreed with Steve Gibson about how raw sockets in WinXP was going to destroy the internet. Seeing as how slashdot still exists, I think he may be just a little bit off base.

      Well, he was on the right track... Sure the internet is still going, but WinXP could have destroyed the internet (through the uPNP flaw, not raw sockets, but still...)...

      Although I do agree with you that anyone who agreed and supported Steve Gibson's insane arguments does lose quite a bit of credability...

    • Re:This from... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Tokens ( 516526 )
      RAW sockets in WinXP do not shut down Internet by themselfs. But by Microsoft allowing access to them by normal users, it opens possibilities for someone to write a serious DOS virus or worm. Until someone does, there should be no problems. But just because WinXP has been around for a few months doesn't mean the flaw will have no impact. Only the future can tell.
      • I believe you still need local admin rights to the pc in order to access raw sockets.

        "Because of security concerns under Windows NT, only members of the Administrators group may create raw sockets." (http://grc.com/dos/sockettome2.htm)

        But I think gibson was screeching about how in XP Home, everyone is an admin by default. So unless you meant that "normal users" = "WinXp Home users" then the above needs correction.

  • 2001 (Score:3, Informative)

    by Oily Tuna ( 542581 ) on Sunday January 06, 2002 @02:43PM (#2794188) Homepage Journal
    2001's predictions [pbs.org]

    he might be 70% right on the obvious stuff, but his stock predictions are 0% right, so I won't take any notice of the new ones
    • Seems like he was mostly wrong about 2001: MS didn't settle. The recession DID happen. The recession was NOT over by the third quarter.
  • From the article:

    10. Finally, I think last year's prediction for Cisco Systems will come true this year. I wrote "The answer to every problem with the Internet will continue to be 'pay more money to Cisco.' At current prices the stock is a bargain."

    No, I don't own any Cisco stock.


    I don't get it. Why listen to predictions if the author himself doesn't do what he expects everyone to do...

    • You shouldn't (Score:2, Insightful)

      by iGawyn ( 164113 )
      You shouldn't trust him, as he most likely views his predictions thing as nothing more than a game, and certainly doesn't take them seriously himself. If he did, he'd have sold his MS stock and bought lots of Cisco. That or he's lying about the Cisco stock that he supposedly does not own.

      However, since he said he sat at the sales division meeting, wouldn't that mean that he had some stock, or maybe they just invited him for the hell of it.

      Gawyn
      • On the other hand, it's not a good idea to trust the stock predictions of somebody who does own stock in the company that they recommend, because it is in their own interests that others invest in it. A bit of a catch-22, don't you think?

        How about we just stop listening to stock predictions?
    • I imagine it's to prevent a conflict of interest. In the professional press, it is often considered a conflict of interest to make observations and recommendations about companies or technologies in which you have some financial stake. That way, we (the public) can be confident in the objectivity of the writer.

      At least that's the theory.

  • MP4 (Score:2, Interesting)

    by The Great Wakka ( 319389 )
    Will the MP4 format have copy protection? And will it be really cool? And will it be released multi-platform? All these and more....
    • Will the MP4 format have copy protection?

      Probably, if the MPAA, RIAA, radio & tv broadcaster association, etc. have anything to say, they'll demand ways to copy protect, track, bill, and pop-up spam you to pieces. This is of course why Microsoft is succeeding, so far, with Windows Media, because they're whores who could care less about the consumer and are busy making sure that the above named groups are all happy as clams. Then they give it away free and gullible consumers adopt it as a standard and MP4 has a long up-hill battle, with or without the blessings of the Nazgul.

  • Maybe he doesn't research his predictions very well, but Covad pulled out of Bankruptcy..
    • ... Covad pulled out of Bankruptcy

      Not really -- Covad filed what is known as a prepackaged bankruptcy (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-000064425aug08 .story) , where the debt holders have already agreed to trade some or all of their debt for equity and some cash, reducing the amount of debt service the company had to support. From where I'm sitting, there was no question that Covad would reemerge from bankruptcy.

  • Stealing banks' business... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mgkimsal2 ( 200677 ) on Sunday January 06, 2002 @02:50PM (#2794212) Homepage
    Look for further stratification as the banks come to realize that Redmond's goal is to take a piece of every online transaction, which is to say Microsoft intends to steal the banks' business.

    I'm not sure many banks will see it that way, at least initially. I'm sure many will see this as a standardization push which will increase user spending online, meaning more transactions, and banks will still get a cut of transactions (maybe less if MS is taking a cut too). Is a smaller share of a larger userbase greater than a larger share of a smaller userbase? I think banks will pick the former...
    • The banks, well, two of the four I have spoken to in the past 2 months, ARE onto this one.

      And this is at local business banking manager level. They are querying the entire charging and revenue structure of online businesses, wishing to take on as many of the stages as possible in an effort to get maximum revenues by taking smaller individual commissions on each step.

      4 or 5 1.5 or 2.0% fees mounts up pretty quickly. I wouldn't be surprised if some of them started getting in on the delivery aspects soon to offer a single stop trusted, secure, long standing vendor for handling online transactions.

      How often do you hear 'our security is as good as that used by the online banks' People trust banks. They could make a serious inroad into some of these markets from the opposite angle to MS.

      MS has the consumer computing market sown up - banks have the consumer confidence / trust sewn up.

      Which are YOU more likely to get to look after your ecommerce site? I'd go for a bank over a MS passport system every time - IF the service was up to scratch.

      Some of the UK banks are taking this massively seriously. Dont underestimate the level of change thats going to hit banking over the coming few years. And with the markets offering negative returns, the banks are finding their coffers expanding as people go for the safe option of long term high interest savings accounts. They have money to play with.
  • What is key here is the deal for Cox Cable to buy AT&T's cable TV unit. If that goes through (and I think it will), Cox will try to make its big investment pay off by competing for local and long distance phone service over its cable system.

    Actually, Comcast is buying AT&T's cable unit, not Cox.

  • CSCO and Cringley (Score:4, Insightful)

    by bdavenport ( 78697 ) <spam@sellthekids.com> on Sunday January 06, 2002 @02:53PM (#2794222) Homepage
    What I got wrong the last time out was I wrote that the recession would be over by now, that Microsoft would be a bad stock to own, and that Cisco would be a good one.

    Finally, I think last year's prediction for Cisco Systems will come true this year. I wrote "The answer to every problem with the Internet will continue to be 'pay more money to Cisco.' At current prices[emphasis mine] the stock is a bargain."


    there are a lot of things Cringley is - an asute business man, he is not. CSCO was at a high around $86 in Sept 2000 [yahoo.com]. That was the pinnacle for the company. Since then it has been proven that their plan to buy small companies - 20 to 25 a year - was not a fantastic growth plan for the .BOOM. With their price low (around $20 currently), don't look for CSCO to have a way to continue their old strategy. also, though a large percentage of the internet runs on their equipment, during a slow recession cycle, look for companies to hold their equip a little longer than previously. couple that with the fact that swtiches, routers, etc don't need constant upgrades like PCs and Servers and you are looking at a slow growth year for CSCO.

    so is $20 a good price to get in on? prolly - but it isn't going to pop and hit $80 in the next 12 months, so as long as that is not your plan, sure, by some. i avg'd down in nov. if you own some CSCO this is a prime time to do that.

  • Yawn!?! (Score:4, Funny)

    by phreakmonkey ( 548714 ) on Sunday January 06, 2002 @02:55PM (#2794232) Homepage
    I am with most of the community so far on the ho-hum-ness about this guys predictions, but I take exception to the following line by the poster:


    Other stuff too, like the return of VCs and IPO frenzies (yawn)


    How can you yawn at that idea? Obviously you don't live in work in the real world if you find the idea of the tech industry rebounding and causing hoards of cash to be thrown back into it boring!!!

    • He calls that a yawn because he has already sold out, and has no other ideas to sell.
  • So Bob says that Cox is going to grab AT&T's cable TV division, eh? Is that supposed to be TWO predictions in one? Given that Comcast already has inked a deal with AT&T for a $72 billion merger with the Broadband division (which includes cable tv)...is Bob trying to tell us that he believes the deal is going to fall through and Cox will do better?

    Or is Bob just behind the times?

  • Mits? (Score:5, Funny)

    by daeley ( 126313 ) on Sunday January 06, 2002 @02:58PM (#2794247) Homepage
    Microsoft will keep their mits in every big deal in the tech industry.

    Hmm. I'm surprised this article wasn't from the loking-in-the-crystal-bal dept.

    mit [dictionary.com]

  • Decent Predictions... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Hercynium ( 237328 ) <HercyniumNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Sunday January 06, 2002 @02:59PM (#2794252) Homepage Journal
    ...are just educated extrapolated from the past.

    Frankly, I think that predictions on business trends and technology are the toughest to make since in the past ten years or so things have changed so darn quickly. If anything, the old rules of business still apply, but with some new loopholes and tricks being found by avid entrepeneurs. To predict the direction of technology right now though is sheer guesswork.

    From what cringely says in the article, it seems that he is completely ignoring the most important issues of physical infrastructure, market appeal, consumer demand, and even the continually growing influence of open-source and other public developments in technology. Despite the apparent 'lock-in' of proprietary technologies, I'm betting that most of mr. cringley's predictions will be stimied by the significant development of truly interoperable software, much of which will be contributed by the open-source community.

    • I too think he is missing consumer demand.

      For example, the success of MP3 has created a demand for component sized quiet PC boxes that can output to a TV using a remote control instead of a mouse. I believe some manufacturer will come to the market with this black or chrome box this year (or at least I hope they do.)

      Because right now all the talk I hear is people creating their own boxes, or hacking old boxes or using laptops for such a device. The hunger is there for such a consumer box. It's one of those undercurrents that the people in the boardrooms are missing.

      Such as P2P. It will still be strong and people will still want it cheap, and if RIAA shutsdown others, more will take their place.

      I believe Linux will get bigger, maybe not in the US, but in the rest of the world which is seeking cheaper solutions for office and consumer PCs.

      The sad thing is that media companies and manufacturers are always spending huge bucks trying to find what it is that people want. Why don't they just look around or ask them?
  • From 2000 [1]:
    Microsoft will NOT settle with the Department of Justice.

    From 2001 [2]:
    Microsoft WILL settle with the Department of Justice.

    From 2002:
    And Microsoft will make itself a part of every deal, everywhere, no matter what happens with its anti-trust case.
    Don't bet against Microsoft in 2002.

    I feel like I'm on a gerbil wheel, with the end of Microsoft being dangled in front of me...I'm always right there, but never quite within reach.

    [1] http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit19991230. html
    [2] http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20010104. html

    • Re:Make it stop. (Score:4, Funny)

      by Tackhead ( 54550 ) on Sunday January 06, 2002 @03:47PM (#2794425)
      > I feel like I'm on a gerbil wheel, with the end of Microsoft being dangled in front of me...I'm always right there, but never quite within reach

      You Know You've Been Working In The Computer Industry Too Long When:

      ...you parse that as "I feel like a gerbil, always staring into Bill Gates' asshole..."

  • Musing on XML ... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by LL ( 20038 ) on Sunday January 06, 2002 @03:05PM (#2794268)
    ... I'm just wondering whether the right social factors are in place for a broad-based uptake of XML. The real advance of the web IMHO is not w3c/AOL/etc but the IETF with its RFCs ... this allows companies, consortiums and even consumers to describe a protocol, and let the free market compete to provide implementations. Witness BXXP (or now renamed beepcore) which has Java, TCL, Ruby, etc libraries as well as C/C++ reference.

    Now look at the same issue with DTDs. The fundamental constraints are that they are industry specific, tied to specific domain knowledge and it takes a lot of to-ing and fro-ing to come to consensus. Once a DTD is officially published, then modifying/varying it can be difficult. For example, I wanted to modify the XBEL (XML bookmark exchange) to add in a deprecate-by date field but it would be incompatible with all the existing implementations. Trying to work with large industry standards would be even more cumbersome as there are so many entrenched interests (just look at the proliferation of billing-based XML). How do large groups resolve the negotiations and compatibility issues (and talking about sub-schemas is another can-of-worms), not to mention the ontological definitions of any specialised language corpus (witness the biological community trying to define items in a rapidly moving field). XML might be the currency of computer originated messages but who guarantees its inter-convertibility (present and future)? For a XML based application to work seamlessly, cooperative structures that span multiple groups probably need to be established. While corporates would be more than willing to set forward, general mistrust based on past misbehaviour does not auger well for wide-spread uptake of the technology. How do you know whether that biz-talk or TLA of-the-day is not secretly sending out sensitive information? And if technical guys are dubious about security, how can you expect consumers to embrace something which is beyond their understanding and has little immediate benefits (XML IMHO is more useful for computer-computer transactions than computer-human).

    The real revolution with XML will be social, not technological.

    LL

    • Re:Musing on XML ...[Acronym Mania] (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I would have found this post interesting, but I got lost in the sea of acronyms...
    • The real revolution with XML will be social, not technological.
      This has already happened. I spent New Years' at an XML party, and XML is readily available at raves. You probably want to bring XML validators to these things, though. You can't really tell if all XML is legitimate just by looking at it.

    • The format is only 1/3 of the battle. Agreeing on content arrangments/rules is the tricky part:

      http://geocities.com/tablizer/softeng.htm
      • The format is only 1/3 of the battle. Agreeing on content arrangments/rules is the tricky part:

        I agree that content arrangment and rules are still a big part of the piece, but with XML and XML tranformation, you can accept different arragments and rules from different people, which makes it pooploads more versatile than EDI.

        Please don't misunderstand me and think that I'm suggesting that companies should accommodate every other companies subtile rules. Rather, I'm suggesting if one, two, or 5 have different formats and rules, XML transformation should be able to handle it.
        • (* Rather, I'm suggesting if one, two, or 5 have different formats and rules, XML transformation should be able to handle it. *)

          Example? In my experience it is a matter of human communication and negotiation, not a magic algorithmic transformation. XML cannot read minds nor pick among alternatives with complex tradeoffs.
          • (* Rather, I'm suggesting if one, two, or 5 have different formats and rules, XML transformation should be able to handle it. *)

            Example? In my experience it is a matter of human communication and negotiation, not a magic algorithmic

            I wasn't suggesting that XML tranformation is a magic algorithm that doesn't require user intervention. You need a person to explain to the software how to transform from one format to one your system can digest, which is current done with XSLT.

            While this isn't a magic algorithm, it provides just enough technology to allow companies to develop newer/better standards while providing a means to support existing systems, making it A LOT more flexible than EDI.

            Of course (and it goes without saying), it ALL relies on some basic human negotiation and communication. However, Unlike EDI, you'll find you'll need a lot less negotiation regarding HOW you send the information, but rather WHAT information.

  • No semantic web in 2002, maybe by 2004 (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Ars-Fartsica ( 166957 ) on Sunday January 06, 2002 @03:12PM (#2794294)
    A web of rich XML metadata and smart tools won't emerge in 2002, in that I disagree with Cringeley. Search engines like Google and Teoma as well as fading tools like the Yahoo directory are still adequate for finding most data (and most types of data) that users require.

    It will take new markets for new services to truly make the semantic web, and hence XML, necessary. Meta-auctions might be one such services, but the big auction players are doing a good job of keeping such services from collecting data.

    My prediction for 2002 is that linux will push out the other unices in everything but the top tier of serving needs, and that Microsoft will own everything else. Apple will sink beneath 5% userbase as most home users back off from its increasingly expensive (relative to PCs) machines.

    IBM will also back off of linux somewhat in 2002 as it fails to bring home substantial new incomes for the company.

    Red Hat will wipe out the other distros.

    One of Nintendo, Sony, or Microsoft will leave the console market.

    • I don't think Cringely was talking about the semantic web, which is years off (modulo your expectations for the SemWeb) and business doesn't care about. He was talking about things like XML as a standard for passing data around, for B2B transactions, user profiles, etc. Which really doesn't count as a prediction, as it's been happening for a few years.

      Two of your predictions is already well underway (Linux pushing out other Unices, Microsoft owning much of the rest) and the others are highly unlikely. Relative price/performance doesn't matter so much anymore, every machine sold is incredibly powerful. If Apple loses marketshare it will be for purely non-technical reasons. AFAICT IBM is doing very well with Linux, including mainframe wins ($$$). There's no way RedHat will wipe out other distros.

      • To paraphrase: "I don't think Cringely was talking about the semantic web, which...business doesn't care about"
        I disagree strongly. In most large businesses today the issues of managing internally produced content and documents is of huge importance, and goes under the heading of 'knowledge management' (sorry, buzzword detector has just gone off).

        The technologies of the semantic web are going to prove essential in helping businesses organise their content, just as html has proved essential for distributing them through their Intranets.

        To say that business does not care about the Semantic Web is to either misunderstand business or the Semantic Web. Or both. Probably.

        • Someday, sure. Did business care about the web in 1993? KM is a big problem and a rapidly growing industry, but isn't the SemWeb any more than Lotus Notes was the web ~10 years ago. If there's a difference, it may be that today more people expect open standards to win commercially.
    • The only caveat I would mention about RedHat is that Suse is very entrenched in Europe, and TurboLinux has much of the Pacific Rim countries.

      There is also the 'so what' factor. IOW, 'So what if RedHat wipes out the other distros?' Does that really mean anything?
      • I dunno... TurboLinux seems to be fading fast in Japan. The popular disros now are RedHat Vine (which is RedHat), and Laser5. RedHat 7.2 has the best Japanese support of any Unix I have ever seen (I'm using it now).

        In Korea, Hancom Linux is getting pretty darned popular.
    • One of Nintendo, Sony, or Microsoft will leave the console market.

      Unlikely.

      Sony won't leave because they clearly have an edge on the market with their one year head start, large game library, and deals with Konami and Square for Metal Gear and Final Fantasy games.

      Nintendo won't leave because they have done well enough so far and still have their best games in the works (the new Zelda game, new Metroid game, new Mario game, etc.).

      Microsoft will perform the worst in the console market and probably should leave soonest, but they won't because Microsoft is stubborn and has the money to burn to try to make the XBox work. They will eventually leave, but not in 2002, unless they come up with a killer app somehow (though I still wouldn't want to play it given that their controllers have the poorest design I've ever seen).
    • Can you please definate what exactly you mean by the semantic web?
      Sounds like buzzword to me.
      • I define the semantic web as one where context and typing in data are explicit, not inferred. This almost necessarily means using XML to accurately cast data in an ordered and typed fashion. The benefits of such a system would be tools that would provide radically expanded functionality for different types of data and services.
      • Here's a definition:
        "The Semantic Web is an extension of the current web in which information is given well-defined meaning, better enabling computers and people to work in cooperation." -- Tim Berners-Lee, James Hendler, Ora Lassila

        Much more information can be found at W3C's Semantic Web page [w3.org].

  • Linux predictions (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 06, 2002 @03:13PM (#2794297)
    1. Linux will continue to do very well in the server and embedded segments.

    2. Linux will continue to be no more than a sliver of 1% of the desktop.

    3. Linuxites will misunderstand the reasons for both 1 and 2, and will argue about them endlessly on slashdot.

    • Good post! I wholeheartedly agree.
    • The question is, what is that 1% based on? If you're talking about people buying a shrink-wrapped version of it at a BusinessDepot, I wholeheartedly agree. If you're talking about people who DOWNLOAD Linux for free, I disagree.

      For instance, I have used 4 distributions/versions of Linux so far, yet I have only paid for one of them. The rest I've either copied from someone else, or downloaded the ISO's from the distro's site.

      I'm sure if you factor those free versions of Linux, the percentage of Linux users comes closer to 5%.

      Ironically, right now, I'm using the distro that I paid for, so you can count me among the 1% :)

      I agree that despite its technical merits, Linux will remain a geek-only operating system in 2002. However, that could change in 2003 once people get *REALLY* fed up with M$.
  • I haven't paid attention to this guy in the past, but WOW! Why is this bunch of random guesses (about 20% of the total number) and obvious "predictions" even being looked at? He says that he is right 90% of the time, which seems suspiciously like a record of window's uptime reliability, in that with the system given, it should be much higher if it were any good.

    If all of his predictions were not obvious, and he got even 50% of them right, I would be impressed, but he seems to be using techniques perfected by fortunetellers centuries ago: make a couple of obvious predictions, and a couple of guesses with almost no basis, and then when a couple of the wild guesses come true, parade them around while ignoring the huge rate of incorrect guesses, and even using statistics to "show" that he makes good guesses.

    What a load of bull, and we all seem to pay attention anyways!
  • 8. Rich media doesn't absolutely require broadband, but it sure helps. And 2002 will be a pivotal year for broadband, which took a lot of lumps in 2001 with the fall of companies like Northpoint, Rhythms, Covad, and Excite@Home. What is key here is the deal for Cox Cable to buy AT&T's cable TV unit. If that goes through (and I think it will), Cox will try to make its big investment pay off by competing for local and long distance phone service over its cable system. Other cable companies will follow suit and the only way for the local phone companies to fight back is with expanded DSL.

    i predict that at&t will be bought by comcast,not cox.good chance too since it already happend.
  • He says in the article that Cox is buying AT&T Broadband, but in fact, Comcast has already made a deal for AT&T Broadband.

    He's already down to 90% before he issued the prediction...

  • M$ hasn't turned the corner at all... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by rbeattie ( 43187 ) <russ@russellbeattie.com> on Sunday January 06, 2002 @03:47PM (#2794423) Homepage
    I'm not sure why Cringely is focusing so much on Microsoft in 2002. I don't see them having turned any corner just yet. They've got more products, but I don't see the momentum.

    I know I read Slashdot, but still, here's my immediate future:

    • I haven't upgraded my Win2K to WinXP and probably won't. My next box may in fact be an Apple OSX machine. It's sexier and Unix.
    • My Mom and my brother (both newbies) haven't and won't upgrade to XP either because they don't have the cash or any real reason.
    • I'd choose a PS2 instead of XBox if only for the bigger library of games.
    • I still use my Palm Vx and when I upgrade in the next year, it'll probably be to a Symbian "Smartphone" or a Palm phone. No PocketPC here and no "Stinger."
    • I'm a consultant who uses Java mostly and have no use for .NET - and when I recommend solutions to clients, I stear them away from trapping themselves with a M$ solution.
    • I come from the fantastic state of California which hasn't given in to any settlement yet with Microsoft and hopefully won't until there's some real damage done.
    What more can I say - it doesn't look rosy for Micosoft at all from my vantage point. Then again, this is only my experience, but it's the only real data I have to go by... Hey, Win2K is great to use, nice and stable and my Microsoft Wheel Mouse with the infred sensor on the bottom just plain rocks. But those were yesterday's purchases. In the coming year, I can see M$ playing much less a role in my life not more.

    Just my thoughts,

    -Russ

    • I haven't upgraded my Win2K to WinXP and probably won't. My next box may in fact be an Apple OSX machine. It's sexier and Unix. Personally, I wouldn't recommend trapping yourself into overpriced inferior hardware and a completely limited choice of OS, but it's your computer. I really don't see Apple as gaining any ground. They maybe a major company, but they're just never going to break into serious competition with the PC industry. My prediction on this for 2002? Apple will probably lose a bit of its market share. Since we're going on personal experience here, I can say that at least one or two people I know who use Macs (okay, those are about the only people I know who use Macs) are planning on switch over to PCs just because of the broader range of customizability and greater software library. I'd choose a PS2 instead of XBox if only for the bigger library of games. Ahem, this coming from someone who wants to switch from a PC to a Mac? ;-) Seriously, though, I think this is the general consensus among a lot of people. Don't count M$ out, though. Once they get the bugs worked out the X-box will follow the same course as the PS2 - mediocre break in year (most of 2002) that'll eventually lead into a slew of above-average to good games. Unfortunetly, I don't think the prognosis for the Gamecube is as good. What more can I say - it doesn't look rosy for Micosoft at all from my vantage point. Then again, this is only my experience, but it's the only real data I have to go by... Hey, Win2K is great to use, nice and stable and my Microsoft Wheel Mouse with the infred sensor on the bottom just plain rocks. But those were yesterday's purchases. In the coming year, I can see M$ playing much less a role in my life not more. I'd say that you're in the extreme minority. While Windows to Linux converts may be more common these days Windows to Mac ones are still a rarity and oddity. In my opinion, there's very little reason for the average computer user to jump from Windows, with its near infinite range of available software, to an OSX or earlier MacOS. And I'd say there's just about no reason for an advanced/professional user to go from Windows to a MacOS instead of going to an x86 *nix. Just my opinion, though.
    • I personally have found XP to be better than Win2k as a desktop, but only if you are using the cracked version of XP. If not then upgrading is simply not worth it unless you can get your hands on a recovery disk for a computer that will install on your PC.
    • So you say OSX is "unix" - how so? By being POSIX compliant? MS OSs can be POSIX compliant. By offering a terminal with popular command line utilities? CygWin offers all of that on Windows, including APIs for programming support. Vi? Emacs? Bash? Lynx? Apache? I can have them all on Windows if I wish.

      In fact, its hard to argue that OSX or Linux or Solaris is "unix" anymore by the classical definition of a small simple OS with tools that communicate over the simplest of protocols - the pipe (lifted from "The Unix Philosphy", by Mike Gancraz). Linux is already moving towards component architectures, and the rest of the unix-like systems globbed on so much additional functionality that they left "simple" behind long ago.

      I argue that Windows 2000 can be made to be as much like whatver you see of unix in Linux, which I further argue is in name only.

      • I'm a newbie, but:
        Unix is:
        rwx permissions for owner/group/world
        owner:group ownership of files
        hard links and soft links
        real pipes

        On Unix it is not an error to delete a file being written to by another process. I doubt that you can uninstall most programs under Windows 2000 while they are running.

        And yes, Unix is (still) a small simple OS. Compare pipes and backquotes to IBM's JCL.
  • RE: " 10. Finally, I think last year's prediction for Cisco Systems will come true this year. I wrote "The answer to every problem with the Internet will continue to be 'pay more money to Cisco.' At current prices the stock is a bargain."

    No, I don't own any Cisco stock."

    All his predictions are XML, Microsoft and Cisco related. Here's what's really gonna happen as far as business computing:

    1) Broadband for the masses will continue to tread water due to bankruptcies, less competition, rising prices and little to no progress on the main technological barriers. Economies of scale due to consolidation will not happen and everyone who writes for PC World and online media will wonder why.
    2) The ASP market will no longer be dynamic. After the release of Windows XP, every IT department and individual consumer will be able to realize that virtually no operating system innovations have occurred and that will force people to keep their doors open. Long term commitments will become apparent and begin to happen. Software (even game) manufacturers will realize that PC computing consumers' purchasing power and awareness/savvy has hit a critical mass where the risk/reward ratio for software development will become worth it for product development even if the revenue produced is not a home run.

    Just my opinion.....
    Fair disclosure: I do own and have owned Cisco stock and call options.

  • The Tech industry: My prediction (Score:5, Funny)

    by Stiletto ( 12066 ) on Sunday January 06, 2002 @04:03PM (#2794468)

    Companies will continue to develop products that nobody needs nor wants. They'll all go behind schedule and over budget. Most of the projects will be mercy-killed before they even start to work. The few that make it to the store shelves will be ultra-niche items that cost 4x more than anyone would even dream of paying for them.

    The companies that lose millions on these products will just scratch their heads, blame the economy, and start designing all over again.

    The lucky ones will go out of business.
  • Guess so. Took the contents of the message too. Well, that was a wasted 10 minutes.

    and yeah, I'd call that a bug.

  • Microsoft owns the start page, the defaults, the windowing environment, and the content standards. It turns out they also own the traffic, the audience management, and if you're watching closely what they're doing with Windows Media, they're going to force you to pay licenses to show your own content on-line.

    ..and they're not the only ones. Seems royalties are due often when a particular codec is used to make or even use a digital video file for a business. Yes, DivX [divx.com] too.

    Now, I'm sure most companies would buy a product to make digital videos with a particular codec, but the thought of writing a check to a third party in order to use a particular file format seems just a bit much, especially when the contents of that file are 100% owned by that company.

  • XML will... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Gavin Scott ( 15916 ) on Sunday January 06, 2002 @04:16PM (#2794498)

    XML will explode

    ...killing everyone inside.

    G.

  • One is led to wonder just how much this guy has invested in "KnowNow". He sure couldn't get enough of plugging it in his column. How unprofessional, it's almost as bad as Slashdot plugging ThinkGeek crap here.
    • How unprofessional, it's almost as bad as Slashdot plugging ThinkGeek crap here.

      At least ThinkGeek helps to expose the Linux name in a tasteful way. Also, /. is not selling it to Windoze companies.

    • God forbid /. should make some money to keep afloat. Maybe you were one of those "new economy" .com'ers who thought $ wasn't necessary to keep a business alive? You know, the ones who went out of business.
      • Yeah, and God forbid the major media companies are prevented from plugging their favorite companies while masquerading as unbiased news. Really, it's a double standard.

        And for the record, the business plans you describe closely resemble those of almost all of the Linux companies, including VA Linux (you know, the people who own Slashdot?). Most companies, like Microsoft, make money the honest way, by selling something, rather than posing as an unbiased source whilst plugging their advertisers' products.

  • "...an emerging niche called rich media" (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Lets see what media is commonly used on the web now: video, audio (mp3), streaming, html, graphics, PDF, etc. And something called "rich media" is a new concept?

  • Predictions? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by hyrdra ( 260687 ) on Sunday January 06, 2002 @05:30PM (#2794721) Homepage Journal
    Are these predictions for the coming year or a synopsis of 2001?

    Guess you can't be wrong in restating the obvious.

  • SLow NewsDay (Score:2, Interesting)

    by unicorn ( 8060 )
    Cringe's articles, are available as a slashbox. Coincidentally, one that I have as a default for my account.

    Why is it, that we "need" every weekly article of his, posted as a front page story. Don'tcha think that the people that want to read him already are anyhow?

  • My own prediction re: OS wars... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SlashChick ( 544252 ) <erica@noSpam.erica.biz> on Sunday January 06, 2002 @05:48PM (#2794766) Homepage Journal
    I was surprised that Cringely didn't mention the seemingly ubiquitous OS wars.

    There are so many people convinced of one or both of the following: that Microsoft sucks; and that Linux will rule the desktop.

    What is unfortunate about these viewpoints is that it obscures the real issue, which is making better software.

    The industry has been crying out for a "killer app" for about 8 months. Basically, there are no reasons for people to upgrade their computer. But instead of really trying to make the "killer app", the Linux community is focused on:

    -- emulating Microsoft, which is similar to those Wile E. Coyote cartoons, with Microsoft as the Roadrunner always being "one step ahead..."
    -- trying to convince people that Microsoft sucks and that Linux is really better.

    How about a New Years resolution for the Slashdot community? "For every comment I write on Slashdot, I will write at least 100 lines of code for an application that I believe will truly change the world. For every time I bash Microsoft for having poor security or buggy applications, I will contribute half an hour of my time to a project that I believe can truly succeed in a market dominated by Microsoft."

    Remember, any executive will tell you that "This other product sucks" is a terrible business plan. However, "I have a plan to make x product more secure" is a great idea. And you don't need to be a programmer to change the world -- any good project needs marketing and donations and general help to succeed. It may be as simple as walking a newbie through the setup procedure or canvassing a message board looking for people who need help and offering to help them.

    Here's my shocking prediction: in 5 years, the OS wars won't matter. Why is that? Not because Microsoft has been stomped, but because the world will have moved on. Look at TiVo, for instance. It runs Linux. So what? I don't get a bash prompt when I turn it on; I get a useful device that does exactly what I want to do. The fact that it runs Linux doesn't matter to the vast majority of TiVo subscribers.

    Remember, people don't want something that has this feature or that feature. They want something that will solve an immediate need. Businesses are the same way. Prove that your solution will solve an existing and immediate need, and you're hired -- regardless of whether you're using Windows 2000, Linux, or a commercial UNIX to solve the problem.

    So go out there and create that killer app, and stop arguing about whether Linux is this or that. I'm telling you, in 5 years, the Linux vs. Microsoft wars will be moot, but the killer application need will still be there. Don't argue about the platform; argue about whether your users' needs are being fulfilled.

  • MY Cringely 2002 predictions (Score:3, Funny)

    by Hell O'World ( 88678 ) on Sunday January 06, 2002 @07:53PM (#2795186)
    Slashdot will link to every article written by Bob Cringely in 2002. Bob Cringely will start writing for Slashdot, under a level two pseudonym. This post will receive a +5 funny.

  • XML (Score:2)

    by aozilla ( 133143 )

    XML will explode (hasn't it already?)


    Hardly. Slashdot doesn't even have an XML version of the messages or stories, only the headlines.

  • Maybe you should just moderate this as redundant, since I've posted it in several other Cringely-based stories on /.:

    You can add the I, Cringely slashbox to your /. start page by editing your user preferences.

    And slashboxes ought to have comments/discussions associated with them by default, so Anonymous Cowards don't have to submit every darn Cringely article as a story.

    ::Colz Grigor
  • Wow! Yet more proof that Robert Cringely is an idiot of legendary proportions and doesn't know a *damn* thing about anything of importance happening in computing today (or even yesterday). I think he and John Dvorak are soon to have a competition in making the least substantive comments about computing any human has ever uttered.

    All these "forcasts" are stuff that is either non-important, or was obvious to even the most dim-witted long ago.
    • Infinitely better predictions from John C. Dvorak here [yahoo.com]. You have to like predictions that begin "This is where columnists like me either predict the obvious, reiterate current trends in the form of a prediction, make short term preordained predictions based on insider information, or simply get it all wrong."
  • Ahh, google, my friend.

    You find all the answers [google.com] for me.

    You may say that it would be wicked that a man of Cringely's integrity would have any financial interest in knownow, either directly or indirectly via say a venture fund, while he disclosed that he didn't own stock in Cisco.

    You may say that. I wouldn't ever say that.

Slashdot Top Deals

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it." - Bert Lantz

Close