Hello Wolff,
So more specific to your post ... a couple of opinions, facts, and some speculation ...
> Analysis
> 1. The headline is a complete mystery, there is no
> explanation to why you will not need these separate
> devices. The core transfers between devices but does not
> replace the form factor....in fact the release calls the
> form factor "enclosures", there is no explanation of what
> the delta would be between an enclosure and a device.
So I believe that this headline attempts to communicate the core concept that we have been discussing ... the ability to move the "core" of your computing platform between a variety of enclosures and locations, versus carrying and owning a range of devices who cumulative prices would be far greater.
I believe that the second paragraph is quite clear about the concept, and the third attempts to clarify this even more. If you are unclear, please ask questions. In short, as we've discussed before, the "core" is exactly what they state in paragraph #3 it is the memory, processor, operating system and applications (along with storage and your data) that can be moved around from "enclosure" to "enclosure".
> 2. The patent is for a device, (which in a separate
> interviews) is for a device that has no working
> prototype. Therefore the proposed radical change to the
> mobile computing industry is mere a concept of what a
> concept could do. This concept has no one other
> than XYBR speaking to it, or talking of any industry
> adoption.
Good point! I agree completely! Xybernaut has no visible competition in this space, and they are ahead of anyone else that might enter this space. You are correct that no one else has recognized this opportunity, or at least has started to talk publicly about it. The references to laptops and docking stations are the only "close" design, and I still think this is the natural evolution of these technologies.
> The PR quotes no industry papers acknowledging the
> concept has any traction within the industry as a hole.
> Xybernaut a company with 3.4 Millions dollars of sales
> can not transform an entire industry even if they are
> earnest with their beliefs and designs.
Yes, you are right that we are early on. I wonder how many industry papers existed about Mosaic and the browsers before the Internet? And I guess that I could argue that a little company like Netscape Communications sure could not transform an entire industry with their earnest beliefs and designs. Nope ... and Microsoft sure couldn't do that either ... ;-)
> An analogy: If I were to claim to have a new patent on a
> replaceable ink canister for pens, that has incredible
> benefits, I first would have to convince the
> manufacturers to use it, before I could have any sales.
> Or make my own and compete against them. I
> would also have to fly in the face of industry trend of
> disposable pens.
Hmmm ... I guess that this might be one way to do things ... I could think of many others. Do you have a problem with "fly[ing] in the face of industry trend"? I will suggest that this is *exactly* how success begins. I will recommend a very good book for you ... it's called "The Innovator's Dilemmia" by Clayton Christiansen.
amazon.com:80/exec/obidos/ASIN/0875845851/o/qid=955930893/sr=8-1/ref=aps_sr_b_1_1/102-0930192-5884812
I know that this is fairly deep reading, but I believe that you could gain some real insight into the ways that disruptive technologies can quickly change the existing landscapes.
> So far, the inventors have not built even a prototype.
> Message 13238148
Yep ... as far as they are willing to talk about. What's facinating here is that this type of design is actually fairly simple. The motherboards that I have been working with make the "standard connector" a simple task to provide.
> 3. The premise of easily inserting the "core" from device
> to device is built around the premise of adoption of the
> Core Standard by builders of these devices. That is a
> major hurdle which to date shows no signs of adoption.
Hmmm ... so my speculation would be that Xybernaut would provide the first "reference design" products, and then other vendors would be provided with information on how to integrate. This is the model that HandSpring followed with the Visor ... they introduced the "base" HandSpring and some of their own "SpringBoards", along with releasing the information to developers. If this model doesn't work, then I suppose that you also think that HandSpring will fail?
> 4. The PR says that users can have access to information
> without the need for devices or need of separate devices.
> This is completely unexplained. What are enclosures if
> not separate devices?? Above they say that a enclosure is
> device is a cellphone etc.
This again comes from the power of a fully functional "PC" architecture. All capabilities grow out of the fact that you already have a huge marketplace filled with products and accessories for the PC. With standards support, such as USB and PCMCIA you have a wealth of adapters to choose from.
I know that this can be confusing, but an "enclosure" is a "specific purpose I/O and User Interface" product. So for example, you might have an "enclosure" which could sit on your desk at home, and it would have a slot for the "core" to be inserted, and also have standard connectors for a VGA/SVGA monitor, keyboard, mouse, and sound accessories. This enclosure, when coupled with the "core", provides the equivalent of your "desktop computer." Another enclosure might be a standard automobile Euro-DIN sized "dash insert" (the same as removable radios or CD players) which provides the power, and simple UI that might be used in the car. This might be a dash mounted LCD, or even heads-up on the windshield. In this scenario, you might also have a simple keypad and/or voice recognition for some simple "car applications" like maps/GIS or other GPS integrated apps.
So enclosures are not the "device", but instead are engineered for the specific application or usage of your "core". Obviously there would also be a "wearable" enclosure (or more than one!) which includes the battery power system, and "wearable UI" interfaces.
What's really nice about this is that places which provide Internet Access, such as Internet Cafes, would now only have the "enclosures" and maybe a few of their own full PCs. When you walk in with your "core" you plug it into their enclosure, and you don't have to worry about what OS they are running, what applications they have installed, or how to get to all your data ... you have all of that already in your "core"!
> This is very misleading. There appears to be no reduction
> in devices at all, only that the core of memory and CPU
> etc are modular and detachable form the device (ie
> enclosure)
I understand how this can really be confusing ... I'll continue to try and give examples to explain this. Please continue to ask questions ... I know that I am learning more and more about how to explain this, and numerous people have sent PMs saying that our discussions have been incredibly informative to them!
> 5. The Patent has taken over 4 years to gather, however
> there are no tandem announcements of partners,
> Manufacturers or whatever. According to the New Times a
> prototype does not exist.
I would have to look into the amount of time (on average) a Patent takes to file and get through. I know that you seem to have more expertise in this area, and maybe you could provide us with details on how this figure relates to the "average". As a side note I have checked with some friends of mine who have received patents for their work ... some have expressed that 10 years later, no one is using the patent, and as I have stated it was simply used as a negotiating point in various relationships or exchanges of technology.
> 6. The company states that Manufacturers (plural) can
> produce cheap cores, again no means of manufacturing are
> offered, nor does the theorized cost saves seen any fact
> finding done through mockups or prototypes.
So if you really look at what they are suggesting, it is simply a variation of todays "clone PC" marketplace. A core is simply a motherboard which contains a CPU, memory, and storage - based around a standard PC architecture - installed in a standard for factor case with all I/O exposed through a standard connector. So this is a very simple extension of existing clone PC designs ... the world is *very* experienced at building this.
> 7. The PR speculates on longer life cycles of products
> because the input/output devices are separate. This
> implies that life cycles of portable exist because of
> wear and tear of of the I/O systems. Perhaps there is
> something else they are attempting to covey with
> this assertion.
The issue is more the fact that you have the ability to update the "core" easily as the processing capabilities and capacities increase. For example, today I have a 400Mhz Celeron laptop with 256MB of RAM and 10GB of hard disk. But this is an entirely new laptop from my last one ... which was a Pentium III 233Mhz, etc. In all reality, I had to discard the entire old laptop just to get the newer processor. If I had a laptop based around a "core" architecture, then I could simply replace/upgrade the "core" and still use the laptop "enclosure" ... the LCD hasn't changed ... the keyboard hasn't changed ... the floppy, CD-ROM, and connectors on the back haven't changed. This is very powerful. Likewise, imagine updating your "desktop computer" in the same way ... I upgrade the "core" and still utilize all the rest of the peripheral accessories and UI.
> Nevertheless, the drive for new devices and fast product
> life cycles is not because of the I/O or the CPU or
> Memory.
Hmmm ... I"m not sure that the majority of IS&T departments, etc. would agree with you. Due to the demands placed on computers by the applications that they run, most of the "roll over" of computers *is* due to the need for more processing power, more memory, etc.
> It is driven by new functionality...these new
> functionalities such as WWW content or whatever often
> drive a new product sales. Manufactures also
> must often place into the product specialized chips, such
> as MP3 compression or other type.
I don't think that I can agree here. You're saying that people are buying new PCs because of web content which requires the new PCs? And you're saying that this has no relation to increased processor and memory requirements? What is it that this new content does that forces people to upgrade their PCs?
Also, as I/O becomes more and more standardized, I think that you can find solutions are moving more and more to CardBUS, USB, and Firewire for almost all solutions. This is going to decrease the amount of change required to gain wide ranges of functionality.
> The core would slow the development cycle by forcing a
> number of different factors upon the engineer staffs of
> the Manufactures.
But again, looking at the proof provided by the various computer vendors this just isn't true. Observe the Intel standardization around just a few chipsets which provide all the functionality - the 810 example that I provided you. If you were to look at almost all the motherboards on the market, you would see a massive shift to only a few chips required to make the entire motherboard. So the "core" actually becomes a very simple commodity item.
> a. The CORE forces a form factor, and standard coupling
> system. That form factor may not fulfill major design
> criteria, such as ergonomics for Cell phone shapes, or
> PDAs.
So this is a good point, but it also indicates that there are "standards" for these form factors. Obviously we are watching a lot of trends and changes ... looking at the Symbian web site, would you have imagined a cell phone looking like this? symbian.com
I have used a headset with my cell phone from the last 4 or 5 years ... and have watched most of my friends and coworkers move to this also. So the actual physical phone might not end up looking much like a "phone" ... but instead follow the Symbian model (since this *is* the company owned by the guys who make 90% of all cell phones!) and instead what we will see are "short-range" peer to peer wireless peripherals, using Bluetooth for example, to provide the "headset" functionality.
I believe that this is what Ericsson is up to with their products:
ericsson.com
If you look at this, you'll quickly realize that there is no need for a "phone" to have a restrictive form factor ... it could be in your pocket, or purse, and only the headset needs to be used. Imagine how this can change the concept of what a PDA is! ;-)
> b. The CORE will require engineers to use a specific CPU
> interface, or require them to have a CPU instead of
> utilizing the CORE.
Actually, this isn't true. It is instead the I/O interfaces that have to be standardized. The CPU could be any that you choose, but the specific peripheral I/O interfaces would be dictated by the standardized I/O interfaces. The most powerful fact about this is that we are already seeing this consolidation of standards! Notice how USB is now supported across numerous dissimilar platforms - the PC and the Mac - and that most of the OS platforms also support it! Likewise with PCI, Firewire, and even VGA/SVGA. So this aligns with the natural forces in the industry today.
> So if a wireless Satellite standard for cell phones is
> adopted surrounded the StrongArm CPUs or DragonBall CPUs,
> a CORE enabled device would be forced either to break the
> standard or use the CPU.
Hmmm ... I know that you have continued to be confused about this "core" concept, and that of peripheral technologies, and this statement indicates that you are still learning about peripheral development. In most intelligent peripherals (i.e. cell phone, scanner, printer, camera, etc.) there is a processor which provides the fuinctionality for that peripheral to operate. But since peripherals communicate over standard interfaces with standard protocols, this is all that matters. For example, although my HP Laserjet has some non-Intel processor in it, controlling it's operation and specific printing purposes, I am able to connect to it with my Intel processor laptop becuase I can use one of many standards - serial/RS-232c, parallel, ethernet, or USB.
This is also why I can share peripherals with Macintoch computers, even though the processor in my machine is nothing like the processor in the Macintosh. This is actually because of a "layered concept" in computer communications software that is often referred to as the ISO 7-layer model. Is offers a form of "abstraction" at a variety of layers which isolates the differences between computers and processors and allows for compatible communications.
> I read the basic Premise of the Core as: portable
> personal data interchange able between devices.
I agree ... but it much more than just the data! It is the data, the applications, and the entire operating environment that the user chooses. As we have discussed, it is the users ability to choose from Windows, Linux, BEOS, or maybe even Macintosh ...
> This functionality is better served IMO by a portable
> non-volatile memory unit standard utilized by many many
> manufacturers.
If this was the only functionality provided, then I might be able to agree with you. But the problems with "data exchange" are well known, and well documented. It's like a conversation that I had today with my uncle. He has a whole series of JPEG images of scanned photographs of our family. I'd like to get copies of these from him ... but it's not that easy. He suggested that he would give me a ZIP disk of the images. This sounds ok, but it also trivializes the issues. He uses a Macintosh ... I use a PC. Even though we each might use a ZIP, the two operating systems have completely different file systems formats, and then even the directory entries on the files are different, with different ways to store associated applications and other resource information. So simply saying "portable non-volatile memory unit standard utilized by many many manufacturers" sounds so nice and handy ... yet it has been proven over and over that it's just not that simple.
If you have more computing power at each end of such transfer, you can then use standardized transport mechanisms and protocols to move data ... this has been proven over and over to be very successful ... hence we have the Internet. ;-)
Another problem with the "memory only" approach is one of security and privacy. You will have to potentially insert your "data" into a system that might be running a highly infected operating system ... you have no real ability to determine the state of the operating system that is going to interact with your "data" and what it might do with it. This problem is also well known in security circles ...
> Is that standard here now? No. But one company is getting
> very close. Sony's Flash Memory stick is now being
> adopted by over 64 different Manufactures of a wide
> diversity of mobile products, with more signing on.
I would suggest that you look at Sandisk and IBM (the Microdrive) if you are interested in these products.
CompactFlash - Sandisk
sandisk.com
Compact Flash has been around for quite a while and is already used and supported by a wider range of vendors - 137 to date!
Microdrive - IBM
storage.ibm.com
This is yet another demonstration of where things are going, with the continuing miniturization of hard disk technology. The recent announcement by IBM of the 70+GB TravelStar drives, indicates the increased densities of hard disk technologies. These enable lower capacity drives to be developed that are incredibly small ...
> The memory stick will be able to transfer data between
> device to device, and in the cases of interchange between
> devices, it will allow a common storage method that will
> easily allow software programmers to write efficient Data
> exchange utilities.
Actually, as I discussed (and as repeatedly proven by history), it just isn't that simple. Instead, what we have today are 3.5" floppies which, although standard, can't be exchanged between dissimilar operating systems due to the differences in formatting, file systems, data file formats, resources information formats, etc. And even if someone develops a "least common denominator" solution to this mess, we then have the "least common denominator" solution ... not the best solution.
> To sum it all up:
... you mean to sum up your opinions ...
> The CORE concept which has been patented by XYBR is a
> questionable concept that depends on multiple
> manufacturers to adopt to be of use.
No ... this is not true. Please read above ...
> To date no PRs of any Manufacturers have adopted this
> prototype-less concept.
Yes ... this true, but not an issue ...
> The HUGE Sony corporation is well on its way to having a
> new industry standard built around its Memory Stick
> (latest Sony PR is from two days ago on it). If Sony
> moves a head with the Memory Stick, as they clearly seem
> to be, that new standard will be made in principle and
> practice within the Next year.
So once again I have tried to explain the differences and issues of this simple "memory chip" concept, and the more robust "core" model. They are so different it's almost too hard to compare them. The limitations of the memory stick (beyond simple proprietary data storage) are that it has absolutely no ability to "process" that data, and so it becomes dependent on the computing platform.
Also, can you please provide some of your opinions and analysis on why Sony will "beat" the "HUGE" Sandisk corporation with it's 137 vendors/product, and also the "HUGE" IBM corporation with it's Microdrive? I'd like to have you compare and contrast these ... I'm assuming that you have based your perspective on cost/capacity, memory densities, packaging, reuse, etc.?
> Once this is done, I think the concept of the core will
> no longer have a marketplace for which to test its idea.
Hmmm ... apples and oranges ...
> That is my analysis.
I'm sure that we all appreciate the information ... I look forward to more discussion about this subject area!
> For those of you wanting more than this "available on
> Silicon Investor" content, you are encouraged to seek it
> out.
Yes ... and please post it here! I'm sure that we would all like to see the links, web site, etc. that contain information which supports all perspectives!
Scott C. Lemon |
