For them, a cheaper "network computer" might be perfectly reasonable,
perhaps even so cheap that it can be bundled into a communication service,
like telephones used to be.
He dismissed privacy concerns in his usual comical style by a spoof that
equated a network service to electricity, which is also centrally controlled
(actually, POTS -- voice telephone service -- would have been a better
analogy).
Personally, I think that, even if he's right, he has the wrong hardware
design. I'd rather see a box without a TV screen, that can be attached to
EXISTING TVs, and swapped or upgraded in the field. I also note that one
would have multiple such boxes in the home.
Finally, I note that, while it is necessary for many homes to have ONE
"real" computer each, do they really need MULTIPLE "real" computers, or
would one real computer and a bunch of network computers do the job?
Or is the problem mooted by the rapid "obsolescence" of "real" computers?
Curt Monash, Ph.D.
Not a hardware analyst
Monash Information Services
cmonash@mcimail.com
----
This week's sponsor:
Marketing to Women Online Conference &lt;<a href="<a href="http://www.kelseygroup.com/kelsey">http://www.kelseygroup.com/kelsey</a>">http://www.kelseygroup.com/kelsey</a>&gt;
Talk with Dave Taylor, Tuesday, Oct. 17, at 6 pm Pacific/9 pm Eastern
over the Internet using GlobalStage/GlobalChat software. See
&lt;<a href="<a href="http://www.popco.com/hyper/internet-marketing/chat.html">http://www.popco.com/hyper/internet-marketing/chat.html</a>">http://www.popco.com/hyper/internet-marketing/chat.html</a>&gt; for details
Post a message to this group by filling in the form below.