Posts by vyzar 12 publicly visible posts • joined 9 Mar 2010
"You forgot one: Web OS"
Hmm..WebOS...isn't that deader than a Monty Python parrot? ;-)
Joking apart, you make a fair comment that I missed it, but WebOS now has virtually zero market share or app ecosystem so would be no better than dusting off Maemo/Meego.
I rather suspect that going Android would be more likely than going WebOS.
Certainly...from what we hear the WinPho8 platform is not yet proving to be the saviour that Nokia might have hoped (even if the M$ pocketmoney is helping to keep the Finns afloat).
Currently Nokia still have a fair position in the "budget" end of the market - basic phones for people with basic needs - particularly useful in the developing world where battery life is probably more imporant than being able to download 245726 fart-apps. However after losing their way with Symbian on their featurehones and smartphones, they decide to jump ship to MS, and are now finding that ship isn't in much better shape. It certainly isn't proving to be a gamechanger...at least not yet.
So what are the choices?
1) Apple iOS? - Not a chance - hell will have to freeze over before Apple will even allow that notion to engage a single braincell for more than a nonosecond!
2) Android - the 800lb gorilla....an obvious possibility, but as others have commented, the challenge will be how they can successfully differentiate themselves from the hordes of droids out there.
3) Maemo/Meego/Jolla, etc - not beyond the realms of possibility, but I'm not sure how well it would fare in a shootout with the now more mature Android, and you still have the problem of building marketshare and app ecosystem.
4) Something completely new/proprietary? - not impossible, but would require a LOT of investment. Do Nokia really have the resources to do that? I doubt it. Also has the same issues regarding marketshare and app ecosystem as 3).
5) Resurrect Symbian? - well as Elop said...anything is possible....but this one might well be running a close 2nd to option 1) in likelihood! Again would require a LOT of investment to bring back up to scratch and regain marketshare/app ecosystem.
So, are those the choices we have? Well there might still be one more option:
6) Blackberry? - A bit left field you might say, and RIM have themselves shown signs of struggling in recent years, but there maybe some logic to this suggestion. Both Nokia and Blackberry have historically been strong in the business sector, and in recent years BB has grown popular with the younger market, due in part to BBM. RIM also have a half-decent app store with a good range of apps. With the exception of Nokia Maps, Nokia's store has become a bit of a relic. Nokia has good hardware pedigree and RIMs market share, at least within the business and youth market, means they must be getting at least somethings right on the design, UI and software front.
So, could a partnership with work in practice? Good question! They have been strong competitors in the past, but they are no longer the "big fish" that they were (although they are not minnows either!). There would certainly have to be a meeting of minds between these two companies to make this work. However neither one of them is dominant now, so perhaps there is better grounds for cooperation to fight their common enemies (iOS and Android). And for Nokia, a dalliance with BB might be less offensive to Microsoft than one with Android.
So, on reflection, Nokia and RIM jumping into bed might make some sense, and if it works out, then who knows, maybe we will even hear weddings bells!
Anything is possible! ;-)
V.
With 2 dock connectors, you could conceivably have a keyboard accessory that would allow the pad to be converted into a clamshell-form laptop-type device with more conventional orientation for laptop/desktop type activities.
Or could even be for more flexible desktop-type device usage.
Or maybe as a dockable portable video display.....
Or.....maybe so you can plu your ipod into it so that you can sync your tunes to your iPad without all that messing about with Windows/MacOS/etc!
The author is kidding himself if he thinks that open-source and fluffy, cloudy computing makes software piracy a thing of the past.
Software piracy happens when anyone uses/copies/distributes software, in whole or in part, in contravention of the terms by which that software has been made available by it's author(s).
If a company decides to include open-source software in a product but decides that its far too annoying to follow the terms of the applicable license (eg making source available as per GPL), then that company is itself as guilty of software piracy as the seller of dodgy copies of Windows down at the car boot sale.
Piracy isn't just a "whole product" activity, although it does tend to be seen in that light.
And just because some product/service runs "in the cloud" doesn't mean it can't be pirated. It might make it a lot harder to pirate some elements, but there is still all that Javascript or Java or Flash or whatever that gets downloaded to your browser. If its accessible....it can be pirated.
What certainly is true is that open-source software largely removes the excuse to pirate software by consumers, but even they can fall into the piracy trap if they don't follow the terms under which the software is made available.
Rik (the author) has just confirmed to be that the ring IS bi-directional. This will help with the scalability since maximum latency between any two nodes will now be proportional to (number of nodes) / 2. Assuming that each node (core or GFX) has a unique ID, then a simple algorithm could be used to determine shortest path.
Token ring allows one party on the ring at a time - equivalent to the whole train in the analogy used in the article. This model is only asking if a truck/carriage is full or empty.
Whilst the article doesn't make it clear, I would also expect that the traffic is pulled off the ring at the destination rather than back off at the source (once it has been right round the ring) like token ring. Otherwise it would never get the scalability.
What I would like to know is if the ring is one-way or bi-directional.
If these regs come in, could be the thing that pushes mobile VoIP forward. Since many finance houses already use VoIP anyway "in house". extending this to mobiles would be the next obvious step. They just need the mobile operators to start playing ball with allowing VoIP on their data tarrifs.
1) ARM don't manufacture product - they license technology to 3rd parties.
2) There a LOTS of licensees to ARM technology, including plenty who directly compete with Apple (eg Samsung, Sony, Qualcomm, Motorola, etc)
3) Some of the biggest licensees are also significant shareholders (inc Samsung, VLSI, STMicroelectronics, etc) - they are just not going to bend over for Apple without cast-iron ongoing access to technologies.
Even *if* Apple was able to buy controlling stake, it would be financial suicide to try to restrict ARM tech to itself. It would end up losing most of the value of ARM - which is in its licencing contracts. Without royalties from licensees, ARM is, in investment terms, largely worthless.
And that is not even considering the competition hurdles, which you can be sure *would* be huge.
This is already happening and the capability has ben around for many years. The key enabling technology is IP Multicast, which does exactly as you describe,only in a more generic sense.
Even the Beeb have dabbled with IP Multicast trials, but sadly it didn't take off, not because the technology is crap (its actually very useful), but because the DSL-based internet services we have the UK do not lend themselves to efficient IP multicast deployment due to the tunnelled nature of the connection topology.
IP multicast works best in broadcast-type network environments like you find on good old Ethernet. The massively tunnelled "hub-n-spoke" topology of most consumer-oriented internet access services almost completely negates the efficiency benefits of IP multicast, which is why the ISPs don't support it in general.
If we ever get to the stage where we all have Fibre-to-the-Home (FTTH) and we have truly local switching, then IP multicast will come into its own as a mechanism for delivering live broadcast TV.
However, these days we all seem to be heading down the video-on-demand route, which doesn't lend itself to IP Multicast either. *sigh*
This technical capabilty to do this is not new. It has been around for many (at least 10-15) years. Its called IP Multicast, and is used across the world already for this type of application. Indeed the BBC was trially such use a few years ago. Unfortunately it has tended to be restricted to academic and non-consumer oriented internet access services.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
