This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
There Is Another Paradigm Shift Coming in Technology and Media: Apple, Microsoft and Google Know its Winner Takes All
With the cult-like adherence to Everything Apple, cultivated by the
viral marketing engine that is Apple, it is very, very difficult to get
objective comparisons and reviews of practically anything in a product
category that Apple is present in. Yes, even the stalwart geeky tech
site’s have bitten the Apple, so to speak. Cnet, Wired, etc. are so
Apple biased as to be borderline embarrassing. I know they report on
what (and how whatever) brings the page views, but come on fellas!!!
BoomBustblog thrives because it tells the truth in the financial and
economic space, not matter how unpopular or controversial. Is it time to
open up a BoomBustBlog, Technology edition????
What this abject bias does, despite irritating the hell out of those
of us who are not plugged into the Matrix, is mask the exciting
technical revolution that is occurring due to the intense competition
borne from the weakening of the Wintel hegemony, the advent of a slew of
new technologies across the telecomm, media, semiconductor and software
industries and the new business models cropping up as the world finally
embraces the World Wide Web as an actual permanent and primary platform
for basic business, social and economic transactions.
This post will surmise the qualitative aspects of the companies and
products listed below. I will follow up with full forensic analyses of
not only the companies, but the business model and market share
potential of each, as well as a thorough valuation scenario analysis.
One of these companies will probably take over portable computing, and I
think it will pay to hitch onto the right one. The next Microsoft is in
the making. Hey, Microsoft may even be the next Microsoft. Don’t sleep
on them, although it does appear that they have been asleep themselves.
We won’t know until the Windows Mobile 7 OS is released. I recommend all
who are interested in this tech, media or investments send the link to
this article around the web, for it is one of the few (if not the only)
truly unbiased reviews of the products that compete with Apple in the
ultra portable and handheld space.
An Overview of the New Windows to the Web
From the top left hand corner, clockwise: The Amazon Kindle 2,
Asus EEE PC, Apple IPad, Archos 5 Internet tablet, HTC Touch Pro2, Apple
Itouch 3rd Generation, Archos 9 Internet Tablet, Sony Vaio. The paper
under the Apple product is a testament to the viral marketing ability of
Apple. My son did not want his ITouch to touch the floor!!!
What do all of these devices have in common?
They all allow you to consume very high end BoomBustBlog content, nearly
in its entirety, on the go. Most of them actually allow you to produce
said content and compute as well. Many people are unaware that the
computer and telecomm world is now changing at the fastest pace in the
history of said industries. Exciting things are happening, and investors
are well served to stay abreast. I am a tech geek (and actually own and
use a lot of this stuff daily), ex-owner of a small tech company,
investor, analyst, and distributed media company owner: I feel I am well
versed in describing what is happening. Let’s get a run down from
Reggie’s perspective…
First, lets take a look at the state of portable computing and media
consumption/production. Below I identify the devices in the pic above,
starting from the upper left hand corner, going clockwise:
Amazon Kindle 2
A significant improvement over the first Kindle, both of which have
claimed (and rightfully so) the mantle of the premier e-book readers,
mostly due to wireless connectivity, practical reading screens and on
demand book purchasing, they still suffer from usability issues. Though
you do have access to the web and Internet, said access is limited and
rudimentary, for this is a focused ebook reader. The gossip is that the
Apple IPad will bring about the demise of this hardware, but truth be
told the Kindle2 is simply a better (black and white) ebook reader than
the IPad. If you are a die hard book reader, the IPad will not replace
the Kindle but if you are an occasional reader or enjoy color or
graphics, the IPad will probably be your choice. Amazon has hedged
against this possibility by creating cross platform Kindle readers (as
software) to allow you to access your Kindle content via the IPad (a
very nice app, BTW), IPhone, PC, Mac, and Blackberry.
|
Kindle
(Global
Wireless)
|
Kindle DX
(Global
Wireless)
|
|
|
Display
|
6″ diagonal E Ink | 9.7″ diagonal E Ink |
|
Size
|
8″ x 5.3″ x 0.36″ | 10.4″ x 7.2″ x 0.38″ |
|
Storage
|
1,500 books | 3,500 books |
|
Books in Under 60 Seconds
|
 |
|
|
3G Wireless
|
|
|
|
Wireless Coverage
|
Global | Global |
|
Native PDF Support
|
|
|
|
Text-to-Speech
|
|
|
|
Whispersync
|
|
|
|
Rotating Display
|
Manual Rotation | Auto-Rotation |
|
Price
|
$259.00 | $489.00 |
| This page | See details |
Read Your Kindle Books on All Your Devices
Asus Eee PC
Although lacking the slick, sexy, cult-like marketing prowess of
Apple, this Asian manufacturer is producing bleeding edge products and
not only single handedly defined the net book category, but has upped
the ante creating a fully capable (runs Windows, office apps, full
connectivity and full HD Flash), ultra portable computer with a usable
keyboard that can last 11 hours playing full HD video. At a $400 price
point, 2.8 lbs, and 250GB of storage, it will make many think twice
about the purchase of a an IPad! I can tell you from experience, this
device is more of a work horse than the IPad, for you can blog and run
spreadsheets directly off of it, and it is not Flash crippled. The
IPad’s touch interface is more intuitive for web browsing, though. All
in all, this little device is the second most
Apple IPad
This is a difficult product to accurately describe. When it was first
announced, I said to myself, “Yeah right, this sounds like a flop in
the making, but one should not underestimate Apple”. Many people who
know that I am a tech geek were shocked that I wasn’t willing to look
into it. They fail to realize that a) I’m not that enthused by most
Apple products (although the IPhone and IPod Touch were quite
innovative), and b) I didn’t really see a practical use for this
product. Apples strengths are, aside from killer marketing and viral
cult status, that it controls both the software and hardware platforms –
enabling it to create and ease of use, compatibility and integration
level that is not capable in much more diverse environments, ex. Wintel.
The problem is you give up pricing advantages through the channel
(which is directly translated in to Apple margin, may I add) as well as
flexibility and extensibility. The average user will opt for
simplicity, while the power user will opt for flexibility. This is a
very important concept that will both help and hinder the release of the
new IPhone 4 (more on that later) and define the user base for both
Apple and its competitors as the market develops. Apple’s next advantage
is that they are damn good at engineering the user experience. Smart,
sexy products combined with pretty UIs and a hell of a marketing machine
make a deadly combination. This is what has landed Apple at the top of
the pile. Of course, there is no free lunch though. Apple apparently
subsidizes much of the hardware costs with Itunes revenue and phone
carrier contracts. The connectivity and call quality problems and lack
of actual profit associated with AT&T’s IPhone relationship is well
documented, as well as these problems being a deterrent to an even wider
adoption of the IPhone. The question remains, how does Apple remedy
this? Apple has blocked the killer Internet app of the year from the
Apple store (more on this later as well), and has done so to appease the
margin challenged carrier AT&T (this is not how it was reported in
the media, though). Google Voice is a game changer, and could
significantly boost the appeal of the IPhone, yet Apple has to push it
away to avoid true beef with AT&T who relies on the beefier margins
embedded in its voice business. The same with the ubiquitous Flash video
from Adobe (Apple does not want Adobe getting too much control and
decries efficiency and security deficiencies in Flash, despite the fact
it can stream Flash through Youtube (which is too ubiquitous to diss),
debunking the technical reasons given for limiting flash content in the
first place), and streaming music, ala Rhapsody (at all you can eat at
$10 per month, who will buy songs for 99 cents each from ITunes???? –
Apple has very recently allowed this to stream to their products due to
market pressure and the impending introduction of their own product
which will probably hurt margins some). These are all weaknesses in the
Apple business model that stem from the fact that it is now king of the
hill and has to overcharge for (or prevent the use of) certain products
that should flow freely and relatively inexpensively through the
ecosystem. This is the problem that Microsoft had and why it never sold
its own computers and cell phones, at least until very recently after
having their lunch money taken by Apple (see the Kin).
My feelings toward the IPad changed significantly once I had the
opportunity to actually spend some time with one. It is quick, sharp,
very portable, easy to use and it lasts all day long. This is quite the
endorsement, coming from a PC man. Of course, it’s three main weaknesses
are its lack of flash compatibility (except Youtube), it is awkard to
use with office productivity apps (and impossible to use with the
ubiquitious Microsoft Office) and the fact that the browser cannot fully
render rich text boxes used in nearly every blogging platform. That’s
right, you can’t even blog from an IPad. This (relatively minor
technical) drawback in the lightweight browser leads to a very detriment
to mobile content producers such as myself. The office productivity
issue is also a major drawback, albeit one that is expected. Without
fixing these issues, the IPad is more of content consumption device in
lieu of being a true computer that is flexible and powerful enough to be
both production and consumption device. It is just not as practical as
the Asus above.
Even despite these limitations, I really thought this device was a
game changer (and it was, until I experienced the device expounded upon
in detail below). It’s only real serious competition was the Asus (adn
similar products) above. The Asus is much more practical for work, while
the IPad is more practical for media consumption, although they both do
a pretty good job of the other’s core task. The always on Web access of
the IPad and the 12 hour battery life (during full use, yes – its true)
is a big plus. The raison d’ etre for the appeal of this device,
notwithstanding sexy design and viral marketing is the ITunes app store.
This will be very difficult for the competition to counter, although
not impossible (see the cell phone reviews below). It is also ironic
that the number one app maker and marketplace for the last 30 years has
been so quickly subsumed in the mobile phone space by Apple. This is
much more a case of Microsoft dropping the ball and succumbing to big
company-itis (the exact same disease that allowed them to eat IBM’s
lunch, thus becoming one of the most powerful companies in the world
from a two person start up). With that being said, the new mobile OS
coming from Microsoft looks to probably be superior to nearly all else
offered (Google’s Android, Apple’s iOS, Palm’s WebOS, Symbian, etc.) if
there implementation of the Zune HD OS is indication of things to come.
The problem is that the delay is killing them in both market awareness
and market share. What the hell are the guys over at Microsoft doing as
these other companies eat their lunch? As we all have experienced, the
best product is not necessarily the most widely adopted product (ex. the
Zune HD).
Go to "There Is Another Paradigm Shift Coming in Technology and Media:
Apple, Microsoft and Google Better Know its Winner Takes All" on BoomBustBlog to read the remainder of this post, including a detailed review of what I consider to be an all out IPhone killer and the device that actually causes me to leave the IPad AND the netbook at home much more often then I would have ever thought.
Next up, we attempt to sum this up in terms of business models, margins
and most importantly potential valuation scenarios.
»
- advertisements -
The office suite, as best I can tell, has been feature complete for almost a decade. In the world of software, there are always power users that exploit every feature. But, you cant cater a product to the extremities, you have to focus on the core business. I don’t want to cite the 80/20 rule, but it sort of applies here.
Most folks need basic word processing, basic email, basic spread sheet, basic presentation, and so forth. This is the bulk of the market, nothing fancy.
There are companies that have their entire business intelligence operations, across many disparate global offices, using interlinked spreadsheets to make minute by minute decisions that *matter* to the bottom line. MS will always own these clients. But many clients are those I described doing disconnected data collection tasks that are essentially simplistic.
Google will start by sucking up the simpletons who are focused on margin, my first example. As this space grows, they will move to the intermediate users, in my last hypothetical. The top end are never in the picture until much after critical mass and the API is able to support the advanced integration/functionality they require.
>>That and it is the de facto form of business communication.
100% correct sir, until it changes. I can’t say when, I just know that it will. Once company X in the fortune 500 cut costs by 27% going to Google or whatever hits the wires, it will be a slow drain to commodity. To me, it seems like economic gravity, constantly tugging at the bottom line.
I really, really like to come back to the commodity focus. Value has to be provided, in the long run, to claim premium status. Too many companies in this space rely on status quo for their premium price. I am still evaluating my options, because I know I cant ride this ride to retirement. I vote with my feet on this issue (when the time/opportunity is right).
This is probably clear by the energy I put in evaluating my options, per a previous post above.
The business calculus for Microsoft will be interesting. I am not sure how they will digest the decay of their office/os LOB. It will reflect their corporate culture more than it will the numbers I think. I tend to think they will accelerate the exodus rather than arrest it, but this is a gut feeling.
Cell phones are a horrible interface for anything but basic read only applications. This is my cynicism with smart phones and such. The limited canvas is a limited ability to convey information. Something’s can scale down, but many important business communications can not. This is the core of my niche market opinion (e.g. OP's gadgets only apply to a small subset of applications and thus limited market share).
I know a number of Dojo contributors’ (plays some poker with some of them) and JavaScript is the next generation web technology. I did a presentation at a user group at one point. My opinion is that static HTML was the first generation web tech (e.g. a company in SF that hired homeless people to do HTML during the .com bubble), dynamic HTML was the second (e.g. ASP.NET or JSP), and JavaScript based HTML/DOM (e.g. Dojo) is the last. The core skill set required gets significantly steeper as you progress (I would approximate an order of magnitude each in skill set required). *Cross platform* in the JS based HTML space today is VERY expensive. If you can narrow to a single browser for optimum support, or basic support, this can open up a lot of opportunities to provide features and innovation.
I do not currently believe a "rich client" experience can be had with a cross-browser API for a sophisticated application. Browser owners are too ... misaligned ... to have enough common ground for low-cost development. MS can simply patch IE and break everything when it’s in their interest. It’s too easy. Or by accident. You can always do anything with the best/brightest and sufficient time, but this kills most business models. This is by design, IMHO.
Google office is largely limited by cross browser JavaScript issues. But make no mistake, they are tweaking internally for Chrome which will be the supported browser for the situation I describe. Doing "office" which is a ten year old application, in JavaScript, is trivial for knowledgeable software engineers. Cross browser is not trivial. There in lies the rub.
Jobs is really, really savvy. You are correct that MS kept apple afloat for a while, but no one takes Gates to the woodshed like that, so props to Steve for playing Bill. For guys at this level, you don’t get to play winning hands like that often and the egos involved are not small. Its poker I suppose, both parties thought they had the hand and I think bill lost the pot. Win some, lose some.
Apple is a curiosity to me right now, to say the least. Online music distribution hasn’t been a technology problem for over a decade. I like to cite a PBS show I saw years ago on this subject; James Eads - American Experience - Secrets of a Master Builder. The bridge through St Louis says it all (fun homework - great one hour show - excellent case study in business). It has been, and always was I suppose, a business problem. IP owners don’t want to give up (perceived) control. They fight tooth and nail to keep control, even to their own detriment. Regardless, this was a driver for Apples hardware sales in the beginning, if you think about it. I am not sure how Apple managed to convince the IP owners to buy into their scheme (over everyone else) and give them critical mass. That’s some sales somebody with balls carried in an ashcan.
Going back to my previous point, the entire culture of MS was never innovation. So, I think the long haul, they will be strangled by their own internal politics of control and conquest. I have been in so many situations where I knew how to deliver a solution and just got cut off at the knees for those two very reasons. I can honestly say, if I got a cut of a few percent of the value I delivered to the companies I worked for, I would be a millionaire by now and I say it because its the truth. However, I am still producing wealth for someone else and my compensation has never reflected the value I provide to a company.
It’s just the reality of the career path I chose and I (wisely understand I) lack the entrepreneurial qualities necessary to strike it out on my own, much less handle success.
It’s unfortunate you tried cloud computing in 95. History is full of entrepreneurs with spot on ideas who were just ahead of the curve. Your customer base, at that time, had to be abysmal given most folks didn’t even have modems. MS had momentum going into the internet boom, a wave they are still riding but that has crested. Perhaps in 2015, you might see someone else take the banner.
Sometimes it’s better to be right in the long run that be wrong for good. At least for ego’s sake.
I know I will smile when I hear that some former bosses get fired.
Cooter
Cooter, Thanks for your excellent commentary and anecdotes responding to the original thread. Very enlightening indeed!
As to your comment...
I think the story is very simply one of creating consumer lust. Apple created a product grouping which simplified the smartphone experience (it is arguable whether the iPhone is really a smartphone as-is) and people will pay over the odds to have it. The products give a good feeling. They have enough to surprise, but are easy to use, and remain intuitive. They work well for the 80/20 crowd and don't make PC non-experts look stupid (the way that using a first-gen or 2nd-gen HTC handset might have).
Forget the crowd who was tethering their HTC handsets before the iPhone even came out. Forget the tech-y crowd who has hacked their iPhone (and iPad) to make it more PC-like. These are the extreme users who will not make or break the iPhone/iPad culture wave. It has NEVER been about the best underlying technology. It has always been about the best implementation.
Apple has won the crowd with its user interface (the design and interactivity parametrics of the GUI is pure genius - I know noone who looks at the way apps open in the iPad or iPhone who says that Windows Mobile "has a better feel"). It met user expectations and exceeded them. Apple OWNS mindshare in the mobile communications/web access space. It is no coincidence new non-Apple smartphones have touch screens (lots of people), black glass top screens (HTC Evo), rounded steel edges (Motorola Flipout), nicer GUIs (MS' new Kin One (nice try but no cigar)), and app stores.
The anticipation is branded Apple. Others are playing in peoples' minds as the "catch-up" crowd. This has not happened that many times in the past with consumer discretionary items of that expense level multiplied by that potential userbase (Sony PS2, PS3; Windows upgrade versions in the 90s, the Wii). Will Apple keep it? I don't know. MS and Sony didn't. The fact that one touches and carries a phone/tablet is key. The fact that one interacts with it many times a day is key. The fact that it is at once personal, and communal is key. It has "tamagochi" factor, but with the benefit that it actually has a purpose - a phone (which is what worries me slightly about the iPad, though the killer app may just be informal web-browsing on-the-go).
The next hit product to compete with, or replace, Apple's iPhone/iPad platform will not be something which has better technology. It will be something which is a cooler product to touch and use, something to stimulate the imagination and the senses, but not too much that it becomes challenging, and certainly not something where you ever need to consult the owner's manual to make it work. It has to feel like a breath of fresh air, not something cobbled together out of previously produced parts (Windows Mobile or Android).
Apple just plain got the timing right.
What is the next "killer app" for personal discretionary (but absolutely indispensable) income spend? Please let me know if you find it.
It appears as if Android was built from the ground up with Linux and Java to be a mobile OS. Don't know it until you try it, particulary with the HTC sense overlay It's some pretty good stuff.
Just like the first three rules of real estate are (or at least used to be) location, location, location, the first three rules for any enterprise are management, management, management. And Mr. Softee ain't got any. That's why they have no fire. They are no different than the guys running a utility. All they know how to do is the minimum necessary to maintain their monopoly. Everybody complains about Steve Jobs. Who do you think could run Microsoft better: Balmer or Jobs? Who could run Apple better? Balmer or Jobs?
CrazyCooter
"Nano-tech and/or Bio-tech are going to likely be the next big economic engines"
I would say Biotech. This article includes some examples of the extent Biotech has advanced.
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/will-genetic-modification-usher-in-a-new-age-of-prosperity-or-will-it-unleash-health-environmental-and-economic-nightmares-of-unprecedented-magnitude
In recent years, scientists around the globe have made absolutely stunning advances in the field of genetic modification. For decades, researchers have been decoding DNA and transplanting genes from one organism into another, but over the past decade things have been taken to a completely new level. We now have"monster salmon" which grow three times as fast as normal salmon, corn that has been genetically modified to have a pesticide grow inside the corn kernel, cats that glow in the dark and goats that produce spider silk. Those in favor of genetic engineering believe that such advances will help us feed billions more people, enable us to cure a vast array of diseases and will usher in a new age of unprecedented prosperity. Those against genetic engineering warn that messing with nature could unleash health, environmental and economic nightmares beyond our wildest dreams. So who is right?
Most Americans spend very little time thinking about genetic modification, but the truth is that this debate if of the utmost importance. Some believe that improving upon nature is the number one key to a bright economic future, while others warn that messing with nature could not only destroy our economy but also literally destroy the earth.
But right now there are very, very few limits on what scientists can do when it comes to genetic modification, and many of them are running around like "kids is a candy store" modifying anything and everything that they can get their hands on.
The goal for many of these scientists is to produce plants and animals that are bigger, stronger, grow faster, produce more food and generally make life "better" for humanity.
Most people don't realize it, but genetic engineering technology is everywhere now. In fact, you have probably eaten some genetically modified food recently without even knowing it.
Today approximately 93 percent of all soybeans and approximately 80 percent of all corn in the United States grow from seeds genetically altered according to Monsanto company patents.
The population of the world is projected to hit 9 billion around the middle of this century, and scientists are hoping that further advances in genetic engineering will enable us to feed all those people.
So many researchers are "pushing the envelope" in an effort to create new creatures that can feed as many people as possible. For example, one team of scientists recently created a genetically modified "monster salmon" which grows three times as fast as normal salmon.
Three times as fast?
That is impressive by any standard.
But are there dangers?
Well, yes.
For example, a stunning new study that was recently published in the International Journal of Biological Sciences has conclusively demonstrated the extreme toxicity of three genetically modified corn varieties produced by Monsanto.
According to the study, each of the three strains of corn tested cause serious problems in the kidneys and the liver.
Perhaps that could help to explain the absolute explosion of kidney disease in the United States.
Not only that, but prison inmates in Illinois are becoming seriously ill from all of the genetically modified soy that they are constantly being fed.
In fact, there are entire websites devoted to documenting the dangers that genetically modified foods pose.
Despite the potential dangers, the U.S. government continues to promote genetically modified crops as the solution to the global food shortage problem.
For example, the U.S. Department of Agriculture is attempting to downplay the risks of genetically modified alfalfa, a crop previously banned by numerous federal courts.
The truth is that the U.S. government is being completely reckless in promoting these genetically modified crops before sufficient research can be performed on them.
You see, once these genetically modified crops get out into the environment they can never be contained. You can't put the genie back into the bottle.
A perfect example of this occurred in Europe recently. A genetically modified variety of maize banned in the EU was accidentally sown all across Germany. But now that it has gotten out there and started spreading there is no way that it can ever be fully eliminated.
The reality is that we are monkeying around with life itself, and that is a power that we simply do not fully understand.
But as frightening as the genetic modification of our food supply is, what scientists are now doing with animals is even more alarming.
How so?
Well, the Canadian government recently approved the introduction of extremely bizarre genetically modified pigs into the Canadian food supply. These new mouse/pig cross-species hybrids have been nicknamed "enviropigs" and are being touted as being much better for the environment. This new "breed" of Yorkshire pigs was created by scientists in Ontario at the University of Guelph, who spliced in genes from mice to decrease the amount of phosphorus produced in their poop.
It all sounds very noble. After all, who wouldn't want to do something good for the environment?
But will eating mouse/pig hybrids be good for us?
Millions of Canadians will soon be eating them, and it is anticipated that approval for these "enviropigs" will be sought in the United States as well.
Are you starting to get the picture?
And sometimes scientists genetically modify animals for no particular good reason at all.
For example, scientists have now created a cat that actually glows in the dark.
Yes, seriously.
A genetically modified cat created by scientists named Mr. Green Genes wasthe very first fluorescent cat in the United States.
So does such a "creation" have any legitimate purpose?
Well, perhaps it could serve as a "night light", but other than that there is no good reason for abusing cats like that.
What in the world are our scientists thinking?
They are pretty much running around doing whatever they want these days.
In fact, creatures that are a lot more frightening than fluorescent cats have already been created.
Have you heard of "spider goats"?
A Canadian company named Nexia is actually producing goats that are genetically modified to be part spider.
The genetic modification causes these "spider goats" to produce spider silk protein in their milk that is collected, purified and spun into incredibly strong fibers.
These fibers are reportedly more durable than Kevlar, more flexible than nylon, and much stronger than steel.
Apparently these fibers have some very valuable industrial and military applications.
Perhaps you have never heard of these spider goats.
Perhaps you are skeptical.
The YouTube video posted below contains a television news report that discusses these "spider goats" and features scientists describing exactly how they create these spider goats and what they are doing with them....
Okay, so they are recklessly genetically modifying plants and animals, but they would never do that to humans, right?
Wrong.
Scientists have begun breeding genetically modified pigs with a goal of providing organs for transplant to humans. These genetically modified pigs actually have human genes in them.
So these pigs are actually part human.
Does the idea of a pig/human hybrid bother you?
Well, perhaps they are being grown in your backyard. These pig/human hybrids are actually being produced in the state of Missouri.
So could these pig/human cross-species hybrids ever end up in our food supply?
No?
You don't think that they would ever do that to us?
Don't be so certain.
The truth is that the FDA has already announced that the offspring of cloned animals could be in our food supply right now and that there is nothing that they can do about it.
Isn't that comforting?
Science is not just crossing new barriers - they are obliterating them.
Our world is rapidly changing, and new species, new lifeforms and even new diseases are being created at a staggering pace.
Once upon a time, only the most highly advanced scientists in the field of genetic engineering would dare do this type of work, but now even college students are transplanting genes and creating new lifeforms. In fact, a lot of "synthetic biology" startup companies are "developing" new plants, new animals and even new microorganisms in garages and basements.
So what will the result of all this genetic chaos be?
Will devastating new diseases be unleashed upon the world?
Will creatures that are incredibly dangerous to humanity be created?
Will we destroy entire ecosystems?
Could all of this genetic engineering actually cause massive crop failures and bring about a major worldwide food crisis?
Will we soon have creatures that are part human/part animal running around all over the place?
The truth is that we have entered into unknown territory, and the consequences of our actions could end up being much more severe than we ever thought possible.
So what do you think?
Do you think that genetic engineering will enable us to feed the starving masses, cure cancer and bring in an unprecedented era of economic prosperity?
Or do you think that genetic engineering will devastate our economy, our health and our environment?
Feel free to leave a comment with your opinion....
I couldnt dig into this at work, so pardon my delay.
Nanotech and Biotech are very, very different animals. As always with engy and sci (and finance too I suppose) it boils down to fundamentals.
Let me rant a bit on nano before I dig into bio, in my arm chair academic attempt to contrast the two. If you are an industry professional, I am happy to stand corrected and learn, so by all means post constructively.
Let me run a make believe hypothetical situation, for purposes of illustration only.
In the late 50s, Jack invents a “microscopic nickel flipping machine”. It turns out that the material science of microscopic nickel flipping produces a 50/50 outcome, an outcome which can be harnessed to generically process information. This processing scheme scales, processing more and more information with smaller and smaller designs, seeding an industry which constantly hungry to process more and more information. This continues for decades, transforming into a multi-billion dollar a year industry. The machine gets smaller, tighter, and more efficient over time, using less and less “nickel flips” year after year.
Low and behold one day, in a research lab, the latest batch of machines which are smaller than ever before, start flipping 51/49, and outcome long expected by engineers. And it goes down hill from there. The engineers quickly coordinate with marketing and begin selling multi-core nickel flippers of the smallest functional size, abandoning old marking language. But they know that adding nickel flipping cores will add processing power up to 8 cores, and will begin to rapidly lose benefits of additional cores eventually becoming a net negative. Hand wringing ensues regarding the future of nickel flipping.
While complete BS, this is exactly what happened to material sciences in semiconductors (HT: Jack Kilby). Semiconductors are proportional devices, kind of like cars. A car’s tire dimensions, its horsepower, and so forth are a function of the size of the car. Smaller car, smaller tires, less horse power, but all these things must scale down *together* in proportion (unless you drive something gay that has 22” on the side – but I digress). But at some point, the materials that comprise the car stop behaving they way they always did, the way the design needs them to behave, and they take on a whole new set of properties, quantum properties.
It’s a loss and an opportunity.
Nano-tech is manufacturing on the nano-scale, where materials no longer behave according to classic physics (50/50) but instead behave differently according to a whole new strange set of rules. For example, carbon was believed to have a set of properties, which it does when LOTS and LOTS of carbon atoms are randomly arranged. Yet specifically arranged carbon atoms might yield insanely different properties than their randomly arranged counterparts. Carbon nano-tubes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_nanotube), a more popular example, are specifically arranged, manufactured, giving them very unique properties.
Citing wiki, the best known steel has a specific strength of 154 kN•m•kg−1 where a nanotube has a specific strength of 48,000 kN•m•kg−1. Stop and count those orders of magnitude and the material claim. Digest that for a second. This is *one* example. These are properties not found in any other materials currently available (by a long shot). That’s pay dirt in material science. A single advance like this into mass production can yield a multi-billion dollar industry in a few years.
This will displace entire established manufacturing industries when it happens.
If this is of interest, see the book link on my original post to learn more (it’s approachable by anyone with basic smarts – don’t be deterred).
Coming full circle, nano tech is manufacturing at the nano scales where the rules are … just … different, but in the end, despite the math, sophistry, and complications, its building with bricks. It’s a better, cheaper product with insane tolerances and qualities.
Humbly, this is akin to saying bricks make a pyramid. Don’t be fooled thinking pyramids are thusly simple.
By design, this segways to bio-tech.
We had Jack and a nickel flipping machine before, so lets twist the knife and do something one unit worse; biotech is best though of in terms of a parts list.
An anonymous spy has delivered to our headquarters, in our banana republic of BackWater, the plans and parts list for the Boeing 777. Pay dirt! BackWater is a simple country with grand plans in the world. Eager to take our new country from banana republic to airline exporter of the world, engineers eagerly dig in with their BS, MS, and PhD in Plans Reading.
The parts list proves confounding. What does this sub system do? How do these sub systems fit together? We can see, from the plans, what all the parts are, and how they fit together, but what function is served? The engineers toil, but progress is slow, punctuated by occasional insights with provide commercial value.
In nano, we started with something simple; a brick. Lets stack them and make a product for market? Fireplace? Check. House? Check. Pyramid. Check (if you are a pharoh).
Bio is not like that. Nature built this machine and the parts we play with are *macro molecules*. Not a pattern of a few specifically arranged carbon atoms, but an elaborate brick, with a pattern potentially hundreds (or thousands) of nucleotides. One brick! In nano, the periodic table defines the “bricks”. In Bio, with a brick so sophisticated, the building materials are essentially endless.
Backwater has no idea how anything on the 777 works, they just have a parts list. More importantly, as any engineer with field experience can tell you, this further excludes the the intricacies or nuances of the design.
Biotech will be making major discoveries when I am old and dead (I am in my mid 30s). It will not be a rush of “change”, but it will change our lives.
I would like to add one more thing. Both nano and bio absolutely require massive computing infrastructure. To me, this is the K-Wave qualifier. Nano will light up much sooner, with much more vigor than Bio, but Bio will be innovating much longer than Nano.
As I said in the beginning, Nano and Bio are very different animals; tortoise and hare.
Cooter
being a civil engr, I don't think people get how backwards our material world is, how little had changed in past 2000 years and how much we have likely lost from smarter material engineers in cultures that were conquered by piggish trash from Western world (conquistadors were not educated folks)...Egyptians, Incas knew more about work stone/"concrete" than we can hope to know, water works in Sir Lanka had layout rules in relation to geology/earthquake faults that we have just learned recently from high tech tools....
We lack imagination for what nanomaterials will do to transform our world...need a material that is highly elastic but still with high tensile strength, just dial it up, and we will be able to make it for cheap...need a material that absorbs heat and transitions from solid crystal to soft tissue, just dial it up, need something to separate water from oil very quickly, dial it up.....
Think of building structure materials that are strong, very light compared to steel and wood and fairly rigid normally but can give/yield some at sacrificial points during a sudden acceleration of earthquake. What if material is also highly insulating for energy efficiency? Cheaper, strong, better. '
And materials can revolutionize all kinds of mechanical and chemical systems, change computing, batteries, other types of energy storage, solar collection, electricity transfer across new types of wires etc..Look what fiber optics did...now we will have a new fiber optic type material every year or so.
Personally, I just want a paint/wall paper that I can change its color by waving a special light wand over it or by plugging my jump drive into a corner input or some such...I always pick the wrong damn paint colors....
Anyone that blusters at MoneyMutt's rhetoric should read Joseph Tainter's "The Collapse of Complex Societies". This is a historical/archaeological account of the collapse of 18 "complex societies" in known history which literally span the globe. Rome is but one of them.
If you have not, you are likely not qualified to have the opinion you hold on the subject.
Please drive through.
Cooter
glad to have some support from a crazy coot....book sounds interesting..I don't come to my conclusions from much else that what have seen with my own eyes,,,anyone who has been around modern construction and machining and sees Inca stonework, ancient water works, pyramids underwater in Japan knows darn well these things are of a superior technology to ours and there is enough residual truth in myths about sound taking down city walls, moving stones helping Incas to victories, special tribes that could mold stone like bread dough etc to lend credence that there was some special technology lost.....and these engineering works were not made from grinding with sand (not to say some clever solutions can not be devised with low tech but these ancient works are not usually from low tech)
How did you think the US was going to pay for the Boomers ... only through their demise will the US survive economically ... Avoid food!
You obviously didn't see "Splice"!
funny Reggie
Understood. I looked at bioinformatics as a career path (UT Dallas).
Nano-tech will impact manufacturing across the board. Its an entirely new dimension in material sciences.
Bio-tech will probably lag but may very well prove to be a bigger engine.
Cooter
Yeah, I finally get to weigh in on a subject here at at ZH.
These devices are valuable to consumers in so far as consumers want them. The value of a computer, in the sense that most people perceive them, is a function of its utility; it’s a tool that does a job. That’s it. The more applications/etc you can run/buy for the same toole, the more demand there will be for a copy of the tool. Multi-purpose computing is why PCs were so important in the big scheme of things; one tool that does it all. I don't think this is anything new to anyone, but its very important to understand.
I don’t see any of these devices taking over the market. Each will have a niche, if it survives, albeit some bigger than others. To me, this is "25% more" on a tube of toothpaste.
Frankly, I have looked at several careers other than software engineering to get off the back side of this K-wave. Nano-tech and/or Bio-tech are going to likely be the next big economic engines (probably nano-tech). If you want to read more, check out this:
http://books.google.com/books?id=m9Tn_V4an28C&printsec=frontcover&dq=rat...
Back to my point: these products are commodity with the exception of innovation. Innovation in the hardware space is usually mimicked within a couple years (at most), pulling any premium built into the price back down to commodity. There are exceptions, but this is economic gravity in the tech space whose relentless tug never goes away.
Conclusion: it’s not about hardware anymore, at least if you are talking about "who is the next Microsoft".
Let’s put this in perspective.
Back in the day, IBM was the bully that ran the market over. Then Xerox. Then ATT. Then Microsoft. But, thanks to "free markets" each of these was relegated to their respective places as the game moved past the area that they dominated. All of these companies became **commodities** which is exactly how you see them today, but in their prime they were premium which is why they had anti-trust problems.
With this as a unit of measure, Google is the only company mentioned that has a chance to be premium primarily because of hyper-innovation. Most folks don’t even begin to understand how to value Google and I won’t argue for under/over valued market cap. But I will say this: no one in the world has the infrastructure that Google has, even the DOD (different problem spaces). They have a huge distributed network that effectively tries to keep up with all the information in the world. And it’s got a business model (search) that pays for it. All of it. With profit left over.
Think of that infrastructure as free fertile farm land. You can plant anything (a new idea/application/whatever), at essentially no cost, and what grows well is kept and what doesn’t is pruned. Google is a hyper innovator who can field test business plans which might otherwise be start ups seeking VC. They can do this at essentially no cost.
Do not underestimate this quality.
As Google continues to expand, they will be able to tie together disparate “spaces” of information and leverage them in a way that no one else can.
Just tossing out an example to illustrate my point.
Let’s say you get a new Gphone and you access your Gmail. Your phone doesn’t know who you are per se, but it does know what kind of information you consume. Bunch of financial email? Check. Emails between friends regarding happy hour? Check. The device supports custom software apps and has various hardware features such as wi-fi. Hypothetically speaking, you could pull up to a gas station where your phone might wifi to an ad server inside and you get the following ad at an LCD at the pump: “Joe’s Bar one block east has Stella on tap. Mention this ad for $2 dollars off your first draft”.
Three questions:
(1) Would you say no?
(2) What would a bar owner pay for that kind of direct marketing?
(3) If google allowed such a service to go online (its not a tech problem for them – it’s a business problem), who would compete?
This is why the ad industry loves/hates google; they are a monopoly and its an old story until the next big thing comes along.
Cooter
Apple just speared their monopoly. iAd Bitchez (as teh cool kids would say around here)
Great post ty.
This is an old link which might help fill in the picture a little bit. I didnt think to dig it up until after I posted.
http://blog.topix.com/archives/000016.html
Cooter
I smell scam for most of that crap. Kindle, you don't keep the physical medium the book you buy is on. Like downloading DLC for games.
IPAD seems very proprietary using just what Apple says you can.
The ASUS looks to be the best of the lot.
The paradigm shift is selling digital content while claiming it has value. Creating a fiction people will buy just to be part of the crowd. One reason I fear centralized apps. You don't own a physical copy you rent a digital version out of your control.
Personally I prefer crap that can be hacked and third party apps or firmware used. Much more personalized and versatile and tends to resolve bottlenecks official software most of the time will not recognize.
Me too.
The Cloud is your enemy, never your friend.
It will control you, and you will have to pay for the privilege.
....... and if you don't know what the Cloud is, it is too late for you.
I want to own my own software, and be able to butcher it to my own needs.
Simply buy or rent your own server and put it in the cloud. It ain't hard or expensive.
I have kindle books I read on various devices such as Kindle and Ipad...kindle cheap and light, great for otudoors, sunlight....Ipad nice for reading in home and handy to have web browsing, video watching etc available from same device as my book reader
My 14 yr old son has an Asus netbook, doen't want an Ipad, no usb ports (no thumbdrive or external DVD etc.). The Asus has several USBs, and a network port, and a vidieo port, so if you want you can hook up with a big monitor, mouse and keyboard for heavy spreadsheet use etc.
The ipod was always cool from the moment it came out (I've bought a few gen's over the early years). But as far as computers, I will always prefer a PC over a MAC. HOWEVER, one of the best moves I ever made was getting my wife a MacBook. She hasn't bothered me ONE BIT about "getting viruses" or the computer becoming "slow all of a sudden". I must say, as an Engineer, I admire Job's attention to detail, especially the ingenious magnetic break away power connector, for example. You don't know how many laptops that has probably saved from someone (or a dog) tripping over the power cord and throwing the laptop down with it.
After that, I eventually succumbed to getting an iphone 3G (and then the 3GS) and I must say that was/is a life changer for me (damn you APPLE!). I can deal with the "cute" cult-like status it has with dorks who will stand in line to buy anything that Jobs shits out of his pants. But what I can't stand is the cult-like following of Apple stock. I puke every time I see the stock price. I keep telling everyone I know to get out while you can...
Anyway, I would rather get an Asus over an ipad any day. Just like the Asus, there's one thing I like about the new HTC Evo 4 for example. It has a video port (HDMI)...
I'm off to upgrade to iOS 4 now... (damn you APPLE!) :-)
My 3 addictions in life: iphone, PMs, and ZH... not necessarily in that order!
p.s. what the hell is the answer to:
(minus nine) minus ___ equals -45
it's too late at night for me to think...
So explain to me how the Evo doesn't eat the IPhone's lunch to anyone who can appreciate its openess and capabilities...
answer is not a numbers, its letters...FUCaptcha
One thing is clear: RIMM is dead. I have both a Blackberry and an IPhone and the Blackberry is stuck in the minor leagues.
Apple is a Cult. That has always limited it's growth. The IPhone has 16% of the SmartPhone market. Big Deal. It has peaked.
When the Mac was introduced in 1984... it was dramatically more advanced than the IBM PC. But it was a closed system, fabulous, but closed... because Steve Jobs is a Fascist. Jobs is making precisely the same mistake with the IPhone. Google and Android and HTC are the Open System equivalent to the IBM PC and Microsoft in the 1984.
In 5 years the IPhone ecosystem will be back in mid single digits.
dang, just got a big response toasted...argg...
anyway, IBM open system worked well for HP, Compaq, Dell etc...and for Microsoft, don't know if did a whole bunch for IBM...Apple made lots of profits on their high margins, but closed system was not problem... they blew it by not realizing seizing market share at low prices best long term strategy, instead, they kept prices high and let MS DOS become the standard (uggg)....Windows 95 was not even Mac OS late 80s...
This time around it will be Google v Apple for mobile computing rather last time, MS v Apple for PCs,,,this time Apple is smarter on prices and has some wind at their backs with Itunes and App store...so Apple will do better than before because of their seamless, elegant hardware/software but Google also can avoid MS's mistakes...Google will win but Apple will do just fine, thank you.
We owe Jobs much for our desktop and mobile computing experience, if no Mac, we might have gotten MS to update DOS in 2000...maybe....if no Iphone, it would still be all plain Nokia phones and Blackberries, and no touch screens. Would Android even exist if not for Iphone? No Jobs didn't invent GUI or multi-touch...but he had vision and force of will to get them implemented in mainstream, accessible devices...while everyone else did not have cahones or incentives to actually use these innovations...
Oh, I don't know Mitchman, I was rimming only the other night... what? what'd I say?
Anyway, the Sony Vaio, which isn't covered, is really sweet. It fits in a small bag (a manbag), has a proper keyboard so you can do real emails, and has Win 7 or any version of Linux you like so you can do real work. That is the 'toy' I want next.
I've just replaced my nokia 6100 (2005 model) with, eh, a second-hand nokia 6100 from ebay. It's a phone. It does phone calls and texts. It fits in my pocket. For anything more serious than that, I want something more serious.
But then, I'm not the sort of person who finds blowing my iPhone to make imitation rubber tubes expand fun... Ah, I seem to be going in circles here...
Only complaint I have about the Vaio is the premium you pay for the Sony name.
Actually, the Vaio was covered. See the link that goes to my blog.
Apple's biggest advantage, the real reason why they will dominate, is the App Store. Hardware geeks never seem to realize the importance of this. Must be an Asperger's thing (just kidding, kinda).
Nice work Reggie, but one ultimate snob Mac product gets overlooked and that is the 2nd gen Mac Air.. I love the thing - price be damned
I would use Apple's Mac if they get someone to write an SQL database!
Every time I go to an Apple store and ask the salesperson (or even at the "Genius Desk") if they have a decent database I get a look like I have plants growing out of my ears... They don't even know what an SQL database is! What kind of "Pros" are these?
Hey Apple! You want to wipe out Wintel? Get someone to write a decent database! A serious statistical program would help too. You would have droves of people who do not like Windows buy your products...
Are you listening Apple? Lots of money would come your way. Including mine.
VMWare Fusion? Bootcamp? Format C: and install Windoze then SQL. You could try MySQL
MySql runs everywhere, sqlite built in, etc.
Am I the only unabashed mac guy here? Though i am loving it and the app business is better than ever! Thank you Apple for creating a profitable ecosystem too.
Apple for President and Congress...
I've seen MYSQL for Mac OS X before though haven't used it.
DoChenRollingBearing
IBM has Informix IDS V 11.5 (even some at a lower release) that is ported to Mac OS X.
I've been working with Informix (full-blown relational, ANSI DBMS) since the early 80s
when it was ported to the Motorola 6800 chipset. Here's the link to an article with more
info:
http://www.dbmag.intelligententerprise.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?artic...
Gnomey
So, what kind of plants are they? :-)
Agreed about the Apple hype. How long til we short?
From the rest of the article, my fav marketing expression for the iphone is: "Retina Display: Higher pixel density than human eyes can detect."
I can see it now: "Hey, check out my new phone that's cooler than yours - but you can't tell."
Apple users have always seemed a bit snobbish about their products, and owing to that it would seem that at some point the pride of ownership will disappear due to the above. Once they conquer the limits of our perception, they will need to depend on more pedestrian things, such as cool features that are actually useful.
BTW, I used Apples when they weren't cool, and abandoned ship in the 90s - too much money for little benefit.
There's a paradigm shift coming to Washington as well Reggie. Check this out my friend...
http://www.zerohedge.com/forum/how-peacefully-overthrow-oligarchic-klept...
I challenge anyone to find a flaw in this plan to 'democratically' overthrow the U.S. government. Seriously it will work!
Na na na na naaa... I'm smarter than you guys! You guys are so stupid! Blah blah blah blah blah blah...
Listen 2,000 hit's already and my boat is still floating... come on... sink me Bitchez!