Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 11:55:52 +0000 (GMT) From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> To: blk@skynet.be (Brad Knowles) Cc: tlambert@primenet.com (Terry Lambert), brett@lariat.org (Brett Glass), freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Here is what IBM thinks about using FreeBSD on their newer Message-ID: <200012011156.EAA22945@usr01.primenet.com> In-Reply-To: <v04220801b64d2084ba1c@[10.0.1.2]> from "Brad Knowles" at Dec 01, 2000 10:37:13 AM
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > IBM does not sell InterJets, any more than your local cable > > company sells set-top boxes: IBM sells services. Since an > > end user does not _buy_ an InterJet, they are not entitled to > > the source code, even if it was all contaminated: they are > > not being sold the software. > > Right. This is one of the key reasons why I never considered > getting an InterJet. If someone *sold* a BSD-based device that is > otherwise identical to this, I would have bought one in a nanosecond, > but I don't want to buy a Linux-based Qube, nor do I want to shackle > myself forever to a service provider. Whistle sold InterJets; you could have bought one then. There is even an aftermarket for setting a root password, adding more disk, adding more RAM, and adding additional connectivity options, like a faster modem (if you have the old box). As far as the Cobalt stuff goes, NetBSD runs on the x86 RAQ and Qube things, so getting FreeBSD going would probably be trivial, if someone hasn't done it already. > Everyone is getting into the "give away a piece of hardware that > does something that used to be free and sell the services" business > model, but not everyone is buying it. FWIW: I agree that this model is fundamentally flawed; I think the current dearth of funding for the ASP boondoggle and the crashes left and right of the companies trying this model are good indicators that it's not a long-term win. That said, it's my opinion that IBM could sell InterJets with little risk, if they wanted to (you can buy a Cobalt box through REQCAT, the IBM internal purchasing facility, but not an InterJet). IMO, there are other revenue models that _will_ work; I have an outsourced service I've been working on, and I've identified 7 revenue models, only 3 of which are traditional, and only 1 of which smacks of an ASP (I'm willing to commit to trying it, even knowing in my heart that it'll fail, to get V.C. buy-in, after which I'll convert to one or more of the others before letting the mandate burn enough capitol to hurt me, since I know at least two of them are killer models for that type of service; I would find this route disingenuous enough that it'd be very distasteful for me. I rather think I can find a V.C. with brains or at least a healthy fear of ASP models these days, anyway). > I'm not going to pay TiVo $$$ per month to take an electronic TV > schedule (the contents of which are printed for "free" in newspapers > and magazines around the world) and then have a computer digitally > record the stuff I want to watch. This is my problem with the so-called "Internet appliances" that make you sign up for service from a particular provider, and then deeply "discount" the hardware -- actually not giving a discount at all, but instead amortizing the cost over the service contract lifetime. The companies that are selling these things, and then bitching about people hacking them (because people want cool hardware, and are willing to pay to play with it, if they are early adopters) are missing the whole point. I'll state this as fact: It's the applications that your customers apply your product to _in spite of you_ that will be "_the killer app_" for your product, not all of the nice little corrals you've assembled in your stockyard to guide them into your preferred revenue pens. Or to make it short... sell what people want to buy, _not_ what you want to sell. Or a little longer.. to _hell_ with what you intended for your product, if your customer wants to use your nifty multifunction wrench as a hammer, then you should probably make a decision as to the relative size of the multifunction wrench and hammer markets. Once you do that, you get to decide whether you want to sell both hammers and multifunction wrenches, add a hammer head to the end of your multifunction wrench, or say "to hell with it! I'm a hammer manufacturer! Print up new business cards!". > If someone wants to *sell* me the box that does this via other > services that are already available (via broadcast during the > vertical blanking interval on PBS stations, etc...), I'll be more > than happy to spend lots of extra money to get that, but I simply > refuse to shackle myself to buying a set of services for the rest of > my life. Broadcasting the information you need, or offering it for free through any internet connection that they already have would turn the box into both a high demand item and a commodity over night. I tend to think that broadcast would be more viable (less moving parts to hook together the hard way), but you'd have to lose a lot of your window through the standardization needed to get the buy-in. Your margins would go from 30-40%, down to 6%, as other people built boxes to use the same info. You might be able to get away with this if the lifecycle of the product was guaranteed to be 3 years or less, by offering the service part toll free. Actually, I think the timing window on this will open in 2002, given the conversion schedule for digital broadcast (at least in the U.S.). If you could get the local broadcaster to provide the programming data as part of their signal, then 6% is OK, if you expect a lifetime of 3 years or more, since it all averages out. You'll just have to content yourself with being a Walmart instead of a Woolworth's (yeah, hard decision, that). If you could build brand, then you could probably charge a premium for being a premium product, in peoples minds, whether or not in reality. Put another way: do you see a lot of VCR+ codes being published in your local television guides, or the hardware for it out there? How successful was DIVX? Pushing standards is not cheap, and tends to benefit your competition as much as you, unless you are prepared to execute on a dime; most sane standards are only tactical. Attempts to make standards into something strategic is usually not sane, unless you already have a monopoly. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200012011156.EAA22945>