Overheard about ... the Network Computer

Not too long ago, Larry Ellison and a lot of other big names announced they were forming a "strategic alliance" to make the Network Computer real. Companies like IBM, Netscape, Sun, Apple, Mitsubishi, and others were annoucing their support. Conspicuously absent from the list was, of course, Microsoft.

You can go to the Network Computer home page and check out their fluff pieces and marketing-fabricated quotes from upper executives. (I mean, do corporate leaders really say things like

"Low-cost, network-aware hardware is fundamental to the mass deployment of a wide range of multimedia services to the home and office. The concept of the NC is an integral part of the evolution of that hardware and will accelerate the availability and acceptance of those services."

Amidst all of the hub-bub, the real item of interest is the Network Computer Reference Platform 1, which describes the base hardware and operating system requirements for a box (of any kind) to be a true "Network Computer". So far, the reference is pretty vague on specifics, but does describe basic display and input requirements as well as a slew of Internet protocols that it will support.

Compare this with Microsoft's Simply PC initiative, which aims to take exisiting PC technology and make it work seamlessly with home stereos, phones, etc. Also on this page are white papers and specifications on BIOS, adapter card, and storage device design ... specifications on stuff that Microsoft doesn't manufacture, produce, or sell, and trust me, has no intention of doing so in the future.

Don't think Microsoft is plotting a Grand Scheme of Total Domination? Since when did General Motors tell record companies how best to produce audio compact discs to play in their cars? But when Microsoft fires off a specification, watch the hardware companies go running like kids scrambling for candy being thrown by the winner of the hometown Miss Cornshucker's beauty pageant.

To bring some personality into the mix, Bill Gates tossed out some thoughts on the Network Computer in his New York Times column. No surprises here; Bill thinks that the Network Computer is a "terminal idea". His solution? Shockingly enough, he proposes using Windows on the hardware reference platform that Microsoft is producing, the previously mentioned Simply PC.

Okay. Let's get the storyboard straight. According to its proponents, the NC is a broad-reaching initiative to produce a low-maintenance group of computers. What they're proprosing isn't just a PC -- they're talking about personal digital assistants, set-top boxes, phones, laptops, desktops, the works. (This was my big complaint previously; lots of handwaving but not specifics. Apparently, Larry Ellison wasn't being specific because he wanted it to do everything. Touche'.)

But -- and this really bugs me -- the group is doing a lot of backslapping right now, and the tough part hasn't been reached yet. Worse, they pish-posh Gate's remarks as though he were an idiot. One NC ally even went so far to say "they [Microsoft] were late to the Internet party, they can be late to the Network Computer party."

Dumb, dumb, dumb.

Yeah, Microsoft was late, and in six months they went from virtually denying the Internet's existance to completely embracing it. They went from a source of proprietary solutions to one delivering open standards-based technology. Oh, I won't give them that much credit ... they're wrapping these new programs with their usual proprietary stuff to lock you into their APIs. Eh ... they're predictable.

Apparently not predictable enough. Why does everyone in the NC camp think they've shut Bill Gates out? I see nothing in the NC reference that excludes any vendor, operating system, or external APIs. Specifically, Microsoft could produce an NC machine, complete with spec'd hardware and Java virtual machine, all running under Windows. As we speak, Microsoft is figuring out how to stick Java inside of OLE, to make Java applications just another object under the Windows Big Top.

Java is a language with some environment requirements and a layer of abstraction from operating system-supplied functionality. Java is not an operating system in itself. In true Godelian form, the byte-code interpreter has to be executed by something ... it can't bootstrap itself. Sun could come up with some Java-specific OS. Microsoft could build a stripped-down Windows ready to run Java.

Microsoft's Grand Scheme for Total Domination could very well be fortifed by the NC people. Watch Bill Gates practice that ol' time capitalism ... let the opposition build the market and prove profitability, just in time for Microsoft to swoop in with a well-marketed sugar-coated solution.

Gotta go -- I hear they just published OLE for Dummies and I'm pretty sure the line is already forming.