The January 18th issue of the Economist debates the merits of the NC vs. the PC, first panning, then acknowledging benefits of the NC, ending with ".this power struggle [between the two] will decide the future of the office computer." Actually, this hedged bet is an accomplishment for the NC given that all the facts presented were either dead wrong or irrelevant.
Wrong Fact 1: "While the servers for a PC network usually just store data and connect PCs to a printer, servers for NCs must be faster and have more storage capacity." (This added cost presumably compensates greatly for the lower unit cost of the NC.)
Actually, many LANs plug up because programs, not just data, are rightly stored on servers. PC programs are stuffed with unused capabilities and are in binary form - which is much larger than the high-level (character) form certainly of a Java Applet (and probably much larger than Java-wrapped legacy components served up as well). In any case, the move to high-capacity LANs has more to do with the growing popularity of high-volume data streams, like video and graphics, than with what is needed to load programs. Since data throughput requirements would be identical for both NCs and PCs, the fact presented is both wrong and irrelevant.
Wrong Interpretation: "Initially, the trio [Oracle, Sun and IBM supporters] trumpeted the low price of a NC, saying that it would cost less than $500 - a quarter the price of a typical PC. Now . the ones for office use cost about $1,000, much the same as the cheapest PCs."
It is wrong to extrapolate relative prices for first out-of-the-box NCs and PCs with over a decade of maturing simply by using current prices. The NC has fewer parts, all competitively priced, and lends itself to manufacturing by giant consumer electronics companies. Once the NC takes off in volume, there is no possibility that the PC will stay close to the NC in price, unless the Asians win most PC market share and Wintel are willing to radically reduce their monopolistic prices. The fact that the brand new high-end NC is priced close to a bottom-rung PC suggests the PC is in trouble price-wise. Why wouldn't the Economist know this better than me?
Wrong Fact 2: "One of the original benefits of PCs over mainframes was `empowerment': giving users control over the screen on their desktop and thus making them more creative, and no less efficient. Although it may still be unclear whether those gains have been as great as was once predicted, users, once empowered, may be reluctant to be disempowered."
The author implies that an NC user must necessarily have less control about what and how the computer works on than possible with traditional PCs. Why does he/she think that? It is patently untrue. If Bill wanted it, Microsoft could reprogram its Office 97 suite using Java that runs on an NC so that it is functionally indistinguishable from the PC version. In a blind test in the typical office environment, the only noticeable difference would be the reduced time required for the NC to crank up get going.
The battle developing between the NC and the PC for the corporate mindset is going to be a delight to watch, and much has to be done before the NC can be said to seriously challenge the PC. It disappoints, even angers me, that such a distinguished magazine presents such a shabby description of the combatants and their likelihood of success.
Allen |
