Bravado aside, to effectively do battle with a circa-2009 Intel that excels in both central and graphics processing and AMD-ATI, Nvidia must seek new partners. It is turning to one of the only other–aside from Intel and AMD–x86 processor suppliers to build an alternative PC platform. Billed as “The World’s Most Affordable Vista Premium PC,” the sub-$45 processing platform will combine Via’s Isaiah processor with an integrated Nvidia graphics chipset.

(More background from CNET on ray tracing here: “CPU: The future of GPU?” and a discussion of ray tracing vs. rasterization here.)

“Intel is going to be as competitive as they can possibly be,” said Dean McCarron, founder and principal of Mercury Research. “There is a pretty different vision between what Nvidia has and what Intel has about the future of the market. You seem to see a lot of pressure on some kind of integrated solution (from Intel). That is not compatible with a standalone graphics market, where Nvidia is the largest player.”

Huang is confident his company can maintain its lead. “GPU technology is far, far ahead of integrated graphics,” he said. “We can innovate our way forward. The world already has computing companies that make processors for everybody. I’m supposed to add the secret ingredient that differentiates it for the few. Now the few that I’m talking about happens to be hundreds of millions of people. I’m OK with that.”

(Credit:
Nvidia)

• Nvidia remains the No. 1 graphics supplier as up to 73 million Intel integrated Graphics Processors (IGPs) are unused in systems due to “double-attach” with a Nvidia solution. (Note: Market share calculations from researchers such as Mercury Research and Jon Peddie Research show Intel as the No. 1 graphics supplier–ed.)

• Intel projects strong performance gains in IGP roadmap (10x performance in 2010), but from a very low performance base. 66 percent of top selling games fail or have issues in current IGP solutions.

Nvidia, as it prepares for a long, grueling fight with Intel, got some solace on Friday from a report issued by Doug Freedman of American Technology Research itemizing why Nvidia may be in a better position than casual observers believe. These include:

Nvidia CEO and co-founder Jen-Hsun Huang’s jeremiad against Intel heralds future melees with the chip giant over computer graphics technology. Behind the sound and fury lurks Moore’s Law.

• Intel multicores do not handle tasks better than discrete GPUs, but they are complementary in a heterogeneous computing environment.

The question is, who is going to be the largest provider of that differentiation and what form will it take? The pressure on Nvidia–expressed by Huang on Thursday at an analyst meeting–is understandable, as the company seeks to fend off both Intel and AMD, who are increasingly focused on graphics, said McGregor. “Nvidia faces serious challenges. One of their big customers (AMD) went out and acquired a competitor (ATI) and then (you have) Intel saying we’re going into your territory.” That has put Nvidia on edge. Intel, not surprisingly, is the biggest threat.

(Credit:
Nvidia)

Nvidia says about 73 million Intel integrated graphics chips go unused.

“Supporting Via’s new CPU is not a big leap for them. And, it’s a fantastic vote of confidence for Via because Nvidia wouldn’t commit the engineering talent to it if Nvidia didn’t believe the processor had a big opportunity,” according to Jon Peddie of Jon Peddie Research.

Huang sees his company doing battle not only with Intel but with a guiding principle put forward by one of the company’s founders, Gordon Moore–that the number of transistors on a microprocessor would double every two years–as Intel continues to integrate more graphics silicon into its chipsets. “We can get integrated into anything. Integrated into a (chipset’s) south bridge. If you’re not good enough, then Moore’s law is your enemy. Moore’s law will stick you in some random chip. We get integrated into a speck of dust,” Huang said at the meeting. Here he was saying that if Nvidia doesn’t stay well ahead of Intel–where it is now–the CPU giant will simply integrate the graphics technology into its own silicon and Nvidia will become irrelevant.

• Integration of IGP with CPU does not present a threat, but may increase double-attach (adding a graphics card to a system with an existing integrated graphics chip) opportunities for Nvidia as it continues to add differentiated features for the few high-end graphics, gamer customers.

Most observers agree that the graphics processing unit (GPU) is gaining on the central processing unit (CPU) as the single most important piece of silicon inside the PC. “When you start looking at a PC today, the (central) processor means less and less,” according to Jim McGregor, an analyst at In-Stat. The GPU is simply becoming a better way for PC makers to differentiate in a landscape dominated by Intel CPUs, he said.

Nvidia is teaming up with Via to build a low-cost PC platform to compete with Intel.

Referring to a question from the audience about Intel’s Larrabee chip at the analyst meeting on Thursday, Huang responded: “The question from the gentleman is we haven’t really talked about Larrabee and is he opening up a can of worms. Well, we’re going to open up a can of whoop-ass in a little bit,” Huang said, referring to future technology that Nvidia is working on.

Nonetheless, the engineering challenge of getting robots to the moon, deploying them properly, and then getting them to successfully comb over 500 miles of dust (akin to the size of Mare Imbrium) into something recognizable from Earth is, to say the least, staggering.

A Salt Lake City company called Moon Publicity says its Shadow Shaping Technology would involve robots pushing the dust into furrows to create shadows that form images when viewed from far away.

The firm may be having a lark, but it says it’s accepting bids for ad space on 44 lunar regions starting at $46,000.

Speaking of the eclipse, an inventor named David Kent Jones wants to use robots to turn the Earth’s only natural satellite into a giant ad.

The company admits people won’t like it.

And it will remain staggering for some time.

Jones’ scheme is to use lunar robots to plow moon dust into “logos, domains [sic] names, memorials or even portraits…You can even carve your initials in a heart to impress your sweetheart.”

Imagine looking up and seeing a Nike swoosh among the stars.

As one You Tube commentator said, “You are not writing on the freaking moon and that’s final.”

But at least Jones has a conceptual video.

Moon Publicity’s justification for the branding? The campaign would spur space travel, which is needed due to “the inevitable extinction of the human species.”

(Credit: Moon Publicity)

This ignores the question of whether it’s right to make a mere shill out of what Percy Bysshe Shelley once described as an “orbèd maiden.”

Jones isn’t the first to dream of selling lunar ad space, as CNET reported in 2006. Others have tried selling real estate on the moon, or laid claim to Martian properties.

An ad by Moon Publicity selling ad space on the moon.

More than likely, the result of these negotiations will have nothing to do with unlimited access to the iTunes store after paying a premium on hardware. If anything, Apple will probably strike a deal where consumers will be forced to pay a monthly subscription fee for unlimited downloads to be more competitive in the market.

It’s a sad day for the music industry and it looks like things will only get worse.

Suffice it to say, none of these plans are worthwhile and the chances of either of them happening are slim. But in the slight chance that one slips through the cracks, look for the service to be locked down to an untenable level and the record labels to be laughing all the way to the bank.

That said, Apple is currently in talks with record labels over that as well. And according to those close to the proceedings, the record labels and Apple have only come to an agreement that customers can keep 40-50 tracks per year and would be willing to pay no more than $7-$8 per month for the subscription service.

In a report that has sent shock waves throughout the entire Apple community, the Financial Times is reporting that Steve Jobs and company may be trying to coax record labels into allowing the firm to sell an unlimited number of iTunes songs as long as consumers pay a premium on iPods and iPhones. And while that may sound great to some (myself included), it’ll never happen.

Of course, those close to the negotiations have said that Apple and the record labels can’t come to a deal because of the former’s worries over exactly how much it would be forced to pay for a library of songs. Gee, you think?

The problem here is not Apple; I truly believe the company wants what’s best for consumers as long as it can turn a profit. The real problem here is the record labels and they will continue to make our lives far more difficult than they should be because of their insatiable desire to limit our chances of getting what we want, how we want, when we want.

Chances are, the record labels and Apple are sitting in a room somewhere and each time Apple throws out a figure, the record labels double it. Yep, that sounds about right.

And here’s why.

Realizing this, why would any record label agree to a deal that would give Apple unlimited access to its library and receive only a set fee from the premium consumers pay for the devices?

What a crock. If true, look for a mass upheaval from serious music lovers who look at that and say, “what if I want 51 songs?”

Unfortunately, we are currently limping through an era where common sense is always a second thought and record labels will do anything they can to ensure consumers are kept under their thumbs.

Sure, the idea of unlimited iTunes music downloads sounds great and it would probably ensure that Amazon and other services would die a slow and agonizing death, but common sense must prevail in this discussion and as far as I can tell, there’s no chance any such a deal can be struck between record labels and Apple.

Simply put, the record labels hate Apple. In fact, the companies hate Apple so much, they snubbed Steve Jobs in his attempt to get DRM-free music on iTunes and followed Amazon down the path first. Aside from that, they’ve consistently rebuffed his attempts to lower song prices to a more suitable level and they’ve done all they can to ensure that Apple’s power doesn’t allow it to control their every move.

It is one of the most popular smartphones because it has better business support and a price tag that most people are happy with? Nope, the BlackBerry has it beat on both fronts (on most devices).

Do I need an TV? Yep. How about a computer? You bet. Should I have a printer to go along with that computer? Obviously. Oh and I might need a DVD player to go with that TV so I can watch my favorite movies.

Let’s face it — do you really need to have an iPhone 3G? Any BlackBerry can check email, browse the Web, and let you download third-party apps. Granted, those apps may not be as “cool” as Apple’s apps and RIM’s devices don’t have a touch-screen — yet — but we can’t lose sight of the fact that the iPhone 3G does what practically every other smartphone on the market can do.

The only reason the iPhone 3G is popular today is because of its aesthetics. Sure, it has a lower price tag now and people are happy that they can load apps onto it, but it’s a product that thrives because its design is unique and the manufacturer is Apple.

Is it one of the most popular smartphones because of the hype surrounding it, press coverage, and Apple’s unbelievable appeal to most consumers? You better believe it.

But the iPhone is an entirely different case altogether. With countless choices in the space, there are a myriad reasons why we can justify buying any other device besides the iPhone 3G. Maybe it’s too expensive or we don’t like AT&T. Maybe it’s not what we really need — we only get four emails a day.

As an
iPhone 3G owner since its launch, I’ve spent considerable time with Apple’s latest entrant to the smartphone market. And although the first few weeks were stellar and I was absolutely delighted to have third-party apps and expand the scope of what this product could do, I’ve quickly realized that the iPhone 3G isn’t best for everyone.

When it comes down to the real value of the iPhone 3G, we need to look at it objectively. Is it one of the world’s most popular smartphones because it does something unique? Not really — its touchscreen interface is neat, but its competitors have already released similarly functioning products.

But then again, we may not need the iPhone 3G because it won’t necessarily improve our lives in any tangible way, but we want that iPhone 3G because it’s so dang “cool.”

For instance, my iPhone 3G won’t automatically check my email even though it’s set to do so every 15 minutes. It’ll try every now and then, but the only way to fix it is to turn the iPhone 3G off and try again. It works for a little while after that, only to succumb to the same problem after a little time has passed.

My hat goes off to Apple. Sure, it made the iPhone 3G more attractive by adding business capability and let third-parties sell apps for its product to entice more consumers its way. But more than anything, I applaud Apple for making people want a product, regardless of their need for it.

In this business, doing that isn’t as easy as it seems.

But just because that’s true, it doesn’t mean that those who bought the iPhone 3G were suckers that fell for Apple’s plan for dominance. Instead, it means that Apple was able to capitalize on consumer desire instead of their need.

Check out Don’s Digital Home podcast, Twitter feed, and FriendFeed.

Doing that in the technology space is more difficult than some would think. Sure, it’s an industry that’s driven by impulse buys and the desire to have something cool, but it’s also driven by the consumer’s desire to have a product that they feel they need.

In fact, I honestly don’t think anyone needs an iPhone 3G and would be better suited with a BlackBerry for smartphone needs. That said, the iPhone 3G is popular because people want it. And after a few weeks of using it, they realize quickly that they really didn’t need it.

Check out the responses in this video:

Ask a dozen people what “cloud computing” means and you’ll get a dozen different answers, all pointing to the network. Rob Boothby of Joyent interviewed more than a dozen technology wonks, including Steve Gillmor, Matt Mullenweg, Tim O’Reilly, Kevin Marks, Rafe Needleman, Stowe Boyd, Brian Solis and myself, at the Web 2.0 Expo, to answer the question, “What is Cloud Computing ?”

The updated review is online now, but the takeaway is that the Grace Wireless Internet Radio is worth a serious look for Wi-Fi radio fans. You can manage your favorite stations and podcasts using the online Reciva service, as well as link your Pandora account to the radio. The Pandora functionality works really well, as you can bookmark new artists that you like, as well as give “thumbs up” and “thumbs down” feedback to make your customized radio station even more accurate. We definitely appreciate the software tweaks to the clock and alarm functionality–you can now set five alarms to each wake you up to a different preset station. The new firmware update even smoothed out the problems we initially had streaming MP3s off a networked PC.

When we reviewed the Grace ITC-IR1000B Wireless Internet Radio back in March, we gave it a mostly positive review, but a couple annoying quirks and a general lack of connectivity kept us from a stronger recommendation. Since that time, Grace has released a firmware update that fixed most of the software bugs we complained about, and the company added the ability to access the Pandora streaming audio service. Since these changes added a good deal of functionality to the radio–and it’s still one of the most affordable Wi-Fi radios on the market–we decided to take a second look at it.

With the new firmware update, the Grace should be near the top of our shortlist for Wi-Fi radio.

Check out our full Wi-Fi radio roundup for more reviews, and also our list of top digital music streamers, most of which can handle Internet radio streaming as well.

Review: Grace ITC-IR1000B Internet Radio

Microsoft said on Wednesday that it has combined its product search engine with its Live Search Cashback, a product that gives users a rebate on certain purchases made directly after using Live Search.

Live Search still badly trails both Google and Yahoo in the search market. For March, Microsoft had 10.3 percent of the U.S. search market, according to Nielsen Online, compared with 64.2 percent for Google and 15.8 percent for Yahoo. Also of note, Microsoft’s year-over-year search growth was less than 1 percent compared with 16 percent growth for the market as a whole.

The move also reflects the fact that on the back end, Microsoft has shifted the underlying engine for Cashback over from technology from its Jellyfish acquisition and onto the primary Live Search platform. The company launched the Cashback effort nearly a year ago in an effort to try and boost its overall slice of the search market as well as within the lucrative commerce segment.

“The new site unifies Live Search Products (the shopping vertical within Live Search) and Cashback to make it easier for you to research, compare products, and save money,” Microsoft said in a blog posting.

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers is responsible for managing and doling out Internet domain names.

In its report, ICANN used the following example to illustrate the policy change:
Someone registers 1,000 domain names and gets rid of 300 of them during the grace period. Under the policy, the registrar is allowed up to 70 deletions. The remaining 230 cost 20 cents each for a total of $46. Plus, each excessive deletion costs the registrar at least $6.75. Dumping 230 domain names rings up a bill of $1,552.50 for a grand total of $1,598.50.

But since 20 cents per domain wasn’t much of a penalty, ICANN got tougher. The organization began charging registrars $6.75 (the cost of a current .org domain) or higher for each deleted domain beyond a certain limit during the grace period.

ICANN said the new policy resulted in a 99.7 percent decrease in domain deletions from June 2008 to April 2009.

It’s not an easy job. And making it harder was a scheme used by some registrars known as domain tasting. Someone would buy up lots of domain names, try them out, and then get rid of the unprofitable ones, all without losing any money. As long as the registrar dumped the domains within the five-day grace period, known as the Add Grace Period (AGP), a full refund was given.

In June 2008, ICANN decided to act. The organization stopped refunding the 20-cent annual fee for each registered deleted domain name beyond a certain limit.

ICANN has won a major battle over the abusive tactic of domain tasting, said the organization in a report released Wednesday.

(Credit: ICANN)

Bingo. This is absolutely correct, but it’s also hugely difficult, for a wide range of very business-y reasons. Corporations may well prefer to horde control of their projects because they think they know best (which is a very poor invitation to a development community), but they also crave control for reasons of indemnification and overall customer comfort. Customers like to hear that a company has 100 percent control of the software that they ship.

Probably fair, but let’s assume that Sun really, really, really wants to have outside developers contribute to Open Solaris? What’s keeping that back (other than apparently poor developer tools, which he describes). As he writes in response to Brian Akers’ distinction between “sponsored” (corporate) and non-sponsored communities:

What do you think?

Looking around the commercial open-source world, it’s hard to find these. MySQL, Zimbra, Alfresco, SugarCRM, JBoss, etc., all do the vast majority of their own development. Is “corporate” inimical to “community?”

commentary

Ted T’so writes an excellent analysis of Sun Microsystems’ attempts to build a community around its Open Solaris project. In so doing, he ends up uncovering a much larger issue: The difficulty of getting community development around projects that are hosted and serve corporations.

We don’t have a lot of precedent for projects who try to go in this direction, but I suspect they are skipping a step when they try to go to the end step without bothering to try to make themselves open to outside developers. And by continuing to act like a corporation, they end up shooting themselves in the foot.

The ironic thing is that they also like to hear that there’s a big community behind a project. This is one of Red Hat’s primary selling points. “It costs less and does more because there’s a global community behind it.” That’s a great sales pitch.

But first, the critique:

…(I)f you run into a Sun salescritter or a Sun CEO claiming that OpenSolaris is just like Linux, it’s not. Fundamentally, Open Solaris has been released under a Open Source license, but it is not an Open Source development community. Maybe it will be someday, as some Sun executives have claimed, but it’s definitely not a priority by Sun; if it was, it would have been done before now. And why not? After all, they are getting all of the marketing benefit of claiming that Solaris is “just like Linux”, without having to deal with any of the messy costs of working with an outside community.

Red Hat wasn’t impressed by Microsoft’s pledge to open up its APIs and protocols. This isn’t surprising. More surprising, however, is the EU’s dismissal of Microsoft’s announcement:

The devil is always in the details, but it is the European Commission and the open-source community pushes Microsoft to live up to its pledge that it will do so…kicking and screaming at times, no doubt. Still, I’m cautiously optimistic that it can be prodded toward that end (and that there are people within Microsoft who would love to get there sooner rather than later).

commentary