Posts Tagged ‘Intel’

How I got the iPad right in 1994 but was wrong about the Information Furnace

January 9, 2012

Today is the 5th anniversary of the announcement iPhone by the late Steve Jobs.  It is hard to imagine that it was just such a short time ago. Something seem to happen so quickly in technology while other things  seem to take a very long time.

I recently came across an article written in June of 1994 (almost 18 years ago). You can find the article at the end of this post or you can go to this link.    It talks about the evolution of computing in the home and in particular discusses something called “The information Furnace”  a term, I believe I created, to describe a Home Server. In 1994, most homes did not have even a single computer.  Typically the computers in the home of early adopters were used for productivity applications like Personal Finance such as Quicken or for hobbies.  Probably less than a million homes were connected to on-line services like Prodigy, CompuServe and AOL – which was less than 1% of the nation. They used dial up modems.   Broadband connectivity was just starting to be tested.

Of course the number of homes that had more than one computer was extremely small.  Home networking as we now know it did not really exist.  The floppy disk was the way information would be moved from one computer in the home to another.  This was called sneaker net many years later.  This was also before the development of what we now cal WiFi.  That meant that early networking within the home required running Ethernet cables.

I was  convinced that  computers would dominate home interactivity. Many at the time thought it would be the interactive set top box. Because I was so involved with the creation of residential broadband technologies in my role as Vice President, Business Development at Intel,  I knew we were creating the technical foundation of a new medium.  A medium  that would impact all aspects of our lives from the way we communicated, learned, shopped, were entertained and informed. The article mentioned above was written about a year before Amazon was established.  A few months after it was published, I was quoted in Fortune Magazine as saying “that the killer app for the Internet would be advertising.”  Google was started about four years later and started selling advertising a few years after that.

Now before you think this post is all about how insightful I was, and I was, it is really about how things turned out differently than I thought and wanted.  It really is about a failure to implement a vision and an exploration of the possibility that things could have ended up differently.

In that very same article (again 1994), I coined the term i-pad (see the Article).  Sixteen years later, Apple announced the iPad on Jan. 27th, 2010. Coincidentally, it happened to be my  65th birthday.

So now back to the story.  I envisioned  pervasive computing throughout the house.  At that time most computers were desktop devices and rather expensive. So I thought there would be one central computer in the home that would have the broadband connection.  Then there would be devices around the home that would provide access to this central computer
(remember I am old enough to have lived through the time sharing days).  The central computer would have the main storage for the home.  For instance it could maintain a family calendar, home files,  etc.   I also felt that this would reduce the complexity of managing information since all information (including  media) would be located in just one place (of course it would be automatically backed-up).

At that time, I was engaged with a number of engineers in the Intel Architecture Lab (IAL).  I was funding a number of programs within the Lab then licensing the resulting technology for equity in early stage companies.  So I am pretty sure that that I discussed these concepts with members of IAL and probably they had a major impact on my thinking.

The problem was that Intel was a chip company and we had a very strong strategic relationship with Microsoft.   We actually had many software designers but every time we got close to some area that Bill Gates considered  Microsoft’s birthright there would be a major battle and Intel would give in.

Microsoft was actually slow to understand how the home computing would develop.  They believed that intelligent set top’s would be the way along with game machines and various appliances.  After working with Microsoft and General Instruments  (the leader in cable boxes at the time) on the development of an Interactive Set Top Box, I became convinced that this was not the way things would develop. This view was also held by Matt Miller (no relation) who was the CTO of General Instruments.  Together, Matt and I persuaded  GI and Intel decided to develop residential broadband technologies and to do it without Microsoft.  Microsoft spent a lot of effort to develop Set Top Box software and made various deals with cable companies including investing a billion dollars into Comcast in 1997.

However, I was not able to get executive management at Intel or Microsoft to understand the need for a home-server.  Andy Grove never really bought into my vision of how computers would be used in the home and invested a great deal of money into a flawed scheme to use ISDN to do video conferencing in the home.  Microsoft would not announce a home-server until 2007.

So computing evolved in the home with more and more homes having multiple computers and eventually sharing a home network.  This network had at its center a router which allowed the devices in the home to easily share one broadband connection. This was one of the tasks that I thought the Information Furnace would do.  But complexity of sharing information in the home increased.  This provided an opportunity  for Apple, to address this need by creating software to synchronize information between computers and devices (iTunes/ iPod is an example). At the same time Web service companies (like Yahoo) dealt with the complexity of email, calendars and contacts by storing them on the Net. Microsoft even bought HotMail in 1997 and started up MSN.

Now most of the functions that I had envisioned for the Information Furnace will be provided by Apple’s iCloud.  Other companies will create similar capabilities.

In away, it is a better solution that the Information Furnace since these capabilities can be professionally managed and maintained. They can be improved without consumer involvement.  But it has taken a long time in coming, and we’re still not there.

Of course the way it played out had a major impact on the companies involved.

Image

AP Article

PCs Evolving Into Information Furnaces :
Technology: Experts predict computers
are evolving into control centers, linking
the telephone, TV, thermostat and other
household electronic devices.

June 30, 1994 | EVAN RAMSTAD | ASSOCIATED PRESS
NEW YORK — In the metaphor-mad world of technology, there’s a new phrase making the rounds, one that experts believe describes the direction that personal computers are taking. After 20 years as an independent box, the PC is evolving into a control center that ties together the
phone, TV, thermostat and other electronic devices in every room in the house. An information furnace, they call it.

“It’s equivalent to central heating,” said Avram Miller, Intel’s vice president of corporate business development. “This analogy with power is very good. If you look at electricity, electricity was designed to do only one thing–lighting. Clearly, there’s a lot more to it than that now.” Like a furnace, the PC of the future could be hidden from view, in the basement, a closet or drawer. The devices it links would take different shapes depending on their use and location. A unit in the den might have a keyboard and screen while one in the living room might be a big screen with stereo speakers and a
player for programs on compact disc. The incorporation of telephone-answering machines into consumer PCs last summer was an early
example of this trend, which will be a key topic at the annual PC Expo this week at New York’s Jacob Javits Convention Center.

Intel CEO Andrew Grove has titled his keynote speech for the show “The Ubiquitous Information Appliance.”
The acceleration of the trend is important for Intel to drive demand for advances in its key product–the microprocessor or “brain” of a PC.
Packard Bell Inc. earlier this month rolled out PCs with built-in TV and radio receivers as well as phone answering and fax capabilities. With them, a technician played a Bach compact disc, the radio and TV and worked on a word-processing program simultaneously.
It’s not just today’s electronic items that could be hooked up but those on the drawing board of technologists and inventors. Last week, Timex Corp. and Microsoft Corp. even demonstrated a watch that can take in messages from a computer. “One of the devices that’s interesting, we call it an I-pad, an information pad,” Miller said. “It would be a device that has a flat-panel screen. You can write on it, touch it. You might be able to speak into it and it might speak back. It would be wireless, cheap and have different forms in the house.”  Some early forms of an “I-pad” are Apple Computer Inc.’s Newton, Motorola Inc.’s Envoy and IBM’s
Simon devices, which have both computing and communication features.
“You will see all kinds of combinations be possible,” said Safi Qureshey, chief executive of AST Research
Inc. in Irvine. “We want to provide the glue so the user can go in between all of these different access mechanisms.”

The concept of a computer network in the home is rooted in the workplace. Portable computers, for instance, linked to the main one in an office are allowing more people to work at home or on the road. “The same technologies are going to be used in the home environment,” said Alan Soucy, vice president of mobile computers at Zenith Data Systems. “They’re going to be repackaged, more specific, more like an appliance.”
The vision isn’t just Intel’s or the computer industry’s. At a cable TV trade show last month, General Instrument Corp., the leading maker of set-top channel controls, described a plan for “component” TVs built around a computer-like box. The monitor–which in time will be a flat panel screen–and game player, video recorder or telephone would all be separate pieces.
“Exactly how much it all gets centralized in one place, I’m a little hard pressed to predict right now,” said Jeff Roman, vice president of technology and new business development for General Instrument.
The first personal computer sold to the general public, the Altair 8800, appeared in Popular Electronics magazine in December, 1974. It was a box of circuits and lights that cost about $250 but had no software
or screen and required 50 commands, executed by flipping switches, just to get started. Today, the most popular PCs take just a few minutes to set up, have dozens of megabytes of software
already installed, and can link through a phone line to millions of others worldwide.

Very few people anticipated the computers of today in 1974. Even fewer know what to expect in another
two decades. Something as futuristic as an information furnace, while still vague, is probably only a decade away. There is certainty in the industry only about the next year or two.
“It’s not possible to conceive 20 years from now,” said Intel’s Miller. “The computers of 20 years from now will probably be 10,000 times more powerful than they are today”

Born to blast

December 5, 2010

I just came back from a three day trip to Silicon Valley.  I rarely visit Silicon Valley ever since that day in April 1999 when I turned in my badge at Intel and drove to my new home in San Francisco.  My primary reason for the trip was to see my dad who lives in Santa Clara and to visit with my eldest son and his family.  I gave my dad who is 87 some advanced lessons on how to use Facebook.  That evening I celebrated the first day of Hanukkah with two of my grandsons.  We lite the candles to celebrate an event that happened 2200 years ago in the heart of a community at has an attention span measured in milliseconds.  By the way, the next night at an Intel Alumni event (more on that later), I celebrated the second night of Hanukkah with a few Jewish friends via an iPhone app called iMennorah.
I stayed at the Four Seasons Hotel in East Palo Alto. It was the first time in eleven years that I spent a night in Palo Alto, a town where I lived for eleven years before leaving Intel.  The Four Seasons is built in an area which had been previously called Whiskey Gulch which was al two block area located in the small part of East Palo Alto which was on the “right” side of the Freeway, i.e. the Palo Alto side.   Whiskey Gulch was named that way because in the past their was a rule in Palo Alto was dry and no alcohol could be sold.  I got involved twice with East Palo Alto. One  in the summer of 1966 when I lived there as part of a program to coach high school kids that were going to be allowed to go to Universities without having the actually grades and skills.  The second time was in 1992 when Bart Decrem started PluggedIn. East Palo Alto had one of the highest murder rates in the USA at this time.  It was a small disenfranchised enclave in the middle of the wealth and education of Silicon Valley.  Most people living in Palo Alto only thought of East Palo Alto as the place where the maids and gardeners came from.  I lived in Palo Alto by the way.  Domino’s Pizza refused to deliver in East Palo Alto.  Around 1992, I  became the first chair of the PluggedIn board and served proudly in that capacity for seven years.  We had a lot of success in up lifting the community.  We helped some of the kids start up business.  My son, Asher (now Executive Director of the Post Carbon Institute) worked with Pluggedin to create a network for the citizens of East Palo Alto called EPA.net which is still functioning.  But now part of the community we tried to build was gone and replaced with a hotel and a number of office buildings.  In fact, I had a meeting the next day  with my tax adviser and financial managers in one of those buildings.  How ironic and a bit sad.  Then I meet with the Executive Director of Equal Access and organization that is helping tens of millions of people in rural Asia and Africa.  I am a senior advisor to this organization.  Somehow on about five million dollars a year we can change the lives of so many people.

I also had several meetings with old friends that are involved in high tech investing.  Speaking with my VC friends,  I heard a lot of stories about crazy valuations including companies that refused significant offers only to have go out of business  few months later. Then I read this story.   It kind of reminds me of the Gold Rush days with Sailors jumping ship to rush up to the gold fields.  Most found nothing and those that fund gold were soon separated from their tursures.  It was the people supplying the miners that made the money.

Later that evening I went to an Intel Alumni event.   It was attended by almost 200 people many of which had been at Intel from the 70s or like me from the 80s.  Andy Grove even attended.  I moderated a panel dealing with early stage companies both from the perspective of the entrepreneur and the venture investor.  The questions we explored where what were the skills we learned at Intel that helped us as entrepreneurs are as venture investors and what were the things we did not learn at Intel that hindered us.   I plan to post on what we discussed that evening later.  But at this event where people who started young and grew old working for one company over more than 30 years in some cases.  And working for a company the changed the world.  And while I am disappointed in what happened later at Intel,  the company that is still the leading semi conductor company in the world.  What a different experience these people had to those working for the current crop of start ups.

Why companies fail to make transitions

June 23, 2010
Here  is a pretty interesting link to an article on the future of Microsoft.  Frankly, the only thing that surprises me about the prediction that Microsoft will decline into insignificance is that it will take this long.  I have seen this movie before and I will probably see it again.
I have personally watch and participated in  the first two of the major waves of computing which I describe below.
  • The first one was proprietary   vertical  computing represented by mainframe companies like IBM and mini Computer Companies like Digital Equipment.  These companies did everything themselves (hardware and system software and some application software).  Apple is the only contemporary company that resembles this structure.  IBM is still around but mainly a systems integrator.  Digital was acquired by Compaq in 1998.
  • The second one was the age of the personal computer.  It was a horizontal structure where a few companies dominated the various hardware and software layers (Intel had more than 80% of the microprocessor business and close to 100% of the profits while Microsoft had about the same in the OS and dominated some of the application layers with their office products.  At one time both Intel and Microsoft were the most valuable companies in the world. Now Wintel, once the most feared force in computing is no longer relevant.
  • The third one is network computing and is led by Google although we have to deal with Apple a bit later.  In this wave, the value has moved to the network and expanded encroach on the media industries.  Much of the value is created by the consumers themselves.  Advertising plays a key part in the monetization of this wave.
  • The fourth wave will surly come even if I for one can not yet imagine what it is (although I try).  And Google and the other companies riding the crest of the networking world will suffer the same faith as their predecessors.
Apple is amazing in that it has survived the first two waves and is dealing extremely well in the third wave.  I will write more about Apple another time.
So why can companies not make it through these transitions?  It is pretty simple:  They would have to take the lead in destroying their own business.  And if they were successful, they would see a reduction in profits at least at first.  I know that if you give an CEO  two choices, 1) continue as is with the knowledge that eventually your business will decline significantly and even fail or 2) take a hit now with the possibility that your business will recover in the long-term, they will choose 3) continue as it is and believe that you will figure out  how to maintain the business. In other words they can not accept the future as it will be.  This is not only true for businesses but also sadly for countries.  The USA is  Microsoft I am afraid (but further along in its decline).

a

The Road Behind

May 24, 2010

The Road Ahead

There is an interesting review of Bill Gate’s pedictions from his book “The Road Ahead”.

Bill Gates was never very good at seeing the technology future.  Frankly, I was not impressed with his understanding of technology. And what I found scary was that he believed that he was a technology visionary.  While I meet him in 1980, it was not until 1993 until 1999 that I interacted with him often.  He definitely did not have a good sense of the consumer market and was especially poor at understanding networking.
What Microsoft was good at  was copying other companies ideas (some would say selling and in some cases that would be true).  This pretty much came to a halt with the government investigation of Microsoft for anti trust,
Bill’s greatest error was thinking that people (the government) that were not as smart as he was could control what he did with his company.

In 2000 Bill stepped down as CEO giving that position to Steve Balmer who definitely is not a visionary.  Bill must have realized that it was not going to be as much fun anymore.  He was so right about that.  And to Bill’s great credit, he and his wife Melinda started the Gates foundation.  He continued to play a strategy and technology role until her finally left all together in July of 2008.

He did leave behind a cash generating machine which continues to make enormous amounts of money by selling products it either copied or bought and buy successfully locking in customers.

Now, I am not sure there were other CEOs of Bill’s vintage that were better at making prediction about the future.  I certainly do not think at Steve Jobs was better.  What Steve did better was invent the future which is more important that predicting it.

I wish I had written down my prediction fifteen years ago.  I am find them in various speeches, article and interviews and it looks like I was pretty good but probably everyone one that thinks of themselves as some kind of “futurist” has selective memory   What I was not good at doing was influencing my former company, Intel, to take advantage of the changes that I correctly saw.

Predicting the future is meaningless if it does not effect change which means influencing the future.

I use to say when I was an executive at Intel,  “the future is to important to be left to chance” but I was mostly talking to myself.

Maybe I will write down my predictions for the next 15 years.  I will be eighty when I can see how well I did.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 27 other followers