Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Hardware

Another Internet Appliance Dies 137

Posted by Hemos from the only-the-good-die-yoounngggg dept.
pescatello writes "Here's a CNET story describing the disappearance of the internet appliances from the market. The latest is the AOL/Gateway/Transmeta Internet Appliance. While it won Comdex's Best in Show in 2000, it hasn't been pushed by either AOL or Gateway, and is now unavailable anywhere. " Meanwhile, my Audrey came in yesterday.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Another Internet Appliance Dies More

Another Internet Appliance Dies

Comments Filter:
  • If it's any indication of failure, the Target near me has a few Cidco Mailstation's for $24.99. Even at that price they can't sell.

  • The Audrey was actually pretty close (Score:3, Informative)

    by smartin ( 942 ) on Thursday October 25, 2001 @07:50AM (#2476852)
    It's amazing how good the Audrey actually is, if you want simple internet access from a room like your kitchen. It takes up little space, has a usable browser, calender, address book and email capabilities. What makes the Audrey so nice is that you can integrate it seemlessly into your home LAN. It will talk to your mail and dns server and mount file systems using nfs or smb, no need for some bogus proprietay subscription service.

    The reason the Audry failed is simple, it is a great little machine for $89 but it's not worth $499. For $89 you have lots of people buying them and playing. 3Com and other appliance would be smart to follow what is going on over a linux-hacker.net and audreyhacking.com and re-evalutate their market strategies when they see what happens when you make a kickass little toy like the Audrey available to the computer literate community at an accessible price.
    • I think the important thing is how much it costs. I had a friend whom as completely uninterested in any kind of internet appliances. He found out the price of the audrey and now has 3! The biggest thing is the price, but hes also really into hacking it and learning about it because its easier to figure out etc. anyhow

      Jeremy

    • While it's all nice and good to say "the Audrey is great at $89," or "I'd buy a device like that at $89," that doesn't help future product development that much.

      The $89 tag is the current clearance price that an online reseller is offering. It doesn't address the actual price of the unit, just the best price that the reseller can get rid of the unsold inventory. The $89 price tag is far below the total cost of development, manufacture and support.

      Future products would sell well if they had all the Audrey has, at the same price. It's just not going to happen any time soon, and by that time, the feature set of the Audrey will be quaint, even for its kitchen niche. It costs money to develop products, and if the manufacturer is getting screwed, they won't be encouraged to develop more.

    • True and that is the fundumental problem with these appliances. They cost more than they are worth, therefore noone buys them. I would buy an iMac for a couple hundred more than the original price of an Audrey. I would buy a laptop for a little more that what most web tablets will cost. Until companies can get the unit price of these devices down to what they are worth they are doomed.
  • I just hope you don't have to feed your Audry blood to make it grow, like I did when I had one in my flower shop.

  • I think the average out of the loop American wants to buy a computer so they can learn about computers - that's a big deal to most people. Just because they only need internet doesn't mean they're interested in an appliance the none of their neighbors use.

    Now if we could only spread the word that Windows isn't the most educational OS out there, we'd be set.

  • PCs are internet appliances anyway (Score:3, Insightful)

    by MosesJones ( 55544 ) on Thursday October 25, 2001 @07:51AM (#2476859) Homepage

    $400 or less gets you a PC that can do everything you want on the internet, and has the advantage of a hard-disk. All of this internet appliance stuff seemed to miss that point. The idea that you had a $200 box that required a $40,000 box at the other end to act as its brain seemed to be... well brain dead.

    The internet is just one reason that people buy a PC, playing games, editing documents, scanning in your photos are all common reasons that people get a PC. Internet appliances couldn't do these things as well as a PC and so deserved their fate. Bad business idea, bad tech idea. Remember X Servers ? They made sense when a Unix box was $20,000 and you could see the reduction in cost, but with internet appliances you would have to sell a huge number of boxes to cover the costs of the backend servers.

    Then there are the really stupid ideas... an internet appliance which is basically just a browser, a standalone browser and email client. Something that is cheap and doesn't require a backend server, but does bugger all, and does it worse than a PC. BushTV in the UK is an example of that, and several of these other elements are good examples of abject failure of brains (I know I worked for a company that had such a stupid idea, I worked on abstract software for STBs, they decided to spend $3m on building a box... went bust).

    Internet appliances will succeed... when they are appliances. A cooker which connects to food.com or whatever to get receipes, a fridge which connects to the supermarket to order replacement Red Bull, a phone which reads out your emails.

    But not when it is a crap PC.

  • wow (Score:1)

    by nzhavok ( 254960 )
    this really must have been a wake up call to Gateway. People were not prepared to spend $599 for a Web-Surfing appliance, does this really surprise anyone?

    • Re:wow (Score:1)

      by /Wegge ( 2960 )
      Considering that the great renaming from dot-com to not-com has happened within the last half year or so, I'm not that surprised. After all, as long as it is a viable buisiness model to spend lots of money without generating any tangibles, why not assume that consumers would behave in the same way when it comes to appliances?
  • I recently bought a "new internet computer" (NIC)to try putting some thin client theory into practice, and based on it I think a networkable small desktop has much greater utility than a dedicated internet appliance.
    • Humorless moderators: -1 Blinding Flash Of The Obvious

      Moderators with a sense of humor: +.5 Giggleworthy

      /Brian
  • Yeah, okay, I know. These "internet appliances" were made for non-geek types. Still, I think my 70 some odd year old parents would rather have a full blown computer. In fact, the bigger the better. There is something about that "box" that gives them a warm fuzzy as opposed to some slick, whispy looking thing ... that probably does more ... but looks like it's less.

  • Pogo (Score:3, Interesting)

    by SubtleNuance ( 184325 ) on Thursday October 25, 2001 @08:04AM (#2476886) Journal
    The www.BBC.co.uk is reporting about this little device? [bbc.co.uk]

    Nice little unit, as the iopener, audrey, AOL/Gateway Unit from this article and the rest - but *will* this ever come to market? I am doubtfull...

    • hate to reply to my own posts, so ill do it without the +1, but on further reading I found out this is a PDA and not a tablet as it appears elsewhere, a .gif on this page shows the device in someones hands - and offers some perspective.

      See here [pogo-tech.com]
  • While it won Comdex's Best in Show in 2000, it hasn't been pushed by either AOL or Gateway...,
    but I doubt weither pushing would have helped surviving. What people will accept as a sellable/buyable entity, a "product" or "component", is highly unpredictable.

    When digital clocks commoditized, vendors did put them in just about anything: telephones, writingpens, watches (remember? I mean those with just digits in the display), chairs, beds.
    The timercontrolled coffeemachine was never really a big hit, but the radio(-cd)-alarm stuck.

  • Low end PCs are a cheap as appliances, because of economies of scale. All you need to do is to put a really simple start up interface on it in place of the MS-OS-from-hell. Could be Linux-based or something else.

  • Market these things as supplementals (Score:3, Insightful)

    by dmorin ( 25609 ) <[dmorin] [at] [gmail.com]> on Thursday October 25, 2001 @08:15AM (#2476913) Homepage Journal
    I think the biggest failing of the internet appliance is that they're usually billed as "get this instead of a full blown machine." Several reasons cause that to not work: some people *want* a full machine, and are afraid that the appliance won't do task Q that they're absolutely going to need (even though on the PC they never do it), some people *want* to have the freedom to choose their internet service independently of their device (people like to buy a PC first, and then buy a service, not be told "Hey, by buying this appliance you're committing yourself to a three year contract!"), and lastly, the damned price point. Like another poster said, Audrey rocks, but not for $500.

    But you know what internet appliances can do? They can be supplemental to your own PC. How about a device that allows me to check my mail from the TV by using my existing connection? Or remote control my PC to start printing something, so that I can go upstairs later and just pick it up? How about a touch screen device that I have right on the table in the front hallway that can rapidly pull up a traffic or weather channel before I head out the door on the way to work (something I plan to make my Audrey do)? I don't want to surf on my tv or my touch panel. I have specific types of information that I want, and if I can find a supplemental device that will deliver those things to me quickly wherever I happen to be, then I'm gonna be all over it.

    • >>billed as "get this instead of a full blown >>machine."

      Audrey was not marketed to be a replacement for the PC.

      >>some people *want* to have the freedom to choose >>their internet service independently of their
      >>device (people like to buy a PC first, and then >>buy a service, not be told "Hey, by buying this >>appliance you're committing yourself to a three >>year contract!"

      Audrey was not tied to any one ISP. There were ISP Partners that the end user could choose to sign up with, but Audrey would work with any ISP.

      >>How about a touch screen device that I have >>right on the table in the front hallway that can >>rapidly pull up a traffic or weather channel
      >>before I head out the door on the way to work >>(something I plan to make my Audrey do)?

      Audrey had this functionality in the form of Channels. You pick your content, it downloads it several times a day (at times you choose) and it's available without browsing.

      The main problem, as you and others point out, was the price point. 3Com made the age-old mistake of choosing a "single-source" strategy for hardware, and as we all know, if you use single-source, you take it >.

      Some company is going to get the price down, get the "feature set" right, and hopefully not blow the marketing budget on some "celebrity" that most people give less than a damn about, and when this happens, even those posters who claim that these boxes are worthless will have one in the kitchen or the front hall. Unless, of course, they live in some crappy little apartment that is littered with Funyuns and empty Mountain Dew cans. It's ok, though, 'cause that's not the target market. Audrey was - and still is - a good idea whose time has not yet come, simple as that.

  • $599? Are you kidding? The whole point of making something that's less than a computer is that it costs less. You can get computers for $599 that can do just about anything. Look at the audrey- didn't sell when it was $499, but now for $89 they're selling well (got mine!) and there're communities around hacking it and generally enhancing it. Of course the $89 doesn't cover what 3Com paid to make it, but $499 was still overpriced. On second hand... Maybe they should take a hint from the hacking communities around the I-Opener and the Audrey and have an open source internet appliance- they can sell it cheaply because all it'd cost is the hardware.

  • No crystal balls (Score:2, Insightful)

    by fajoli ( 181454 )
    Reading some of the comments about the "obvious" failure of these internet appliances makes me think many slashdot readers have crystal balls. Many of these companies banked on broadband access to the internet to be commonplace within the time frame of their business plans.

    If every house has a T1 line to it, an internet appliance makes a lot of sense for the average consumer. The extra network traffic wouldn't slowdown average applications since the bandwidth is there for it.

    And it makes sense to have a central computer requiring zero administrative work by Joe Public. Their appliance would just work with the latest and greatest software. For the those wearing linux-colored glasses, imagine having your computer always running the latest and greatest distribution with no work or compatibility headaches on your end.

    The real failure of the internet appliances can be blamed on communication companies that couldn't find a way to make broadband a reality fast enough. With the recent failures of DSL and wireless internet providers, it seems that not only has the crop withered, ie. the appliances, but the farm isn't worth keeping either!

    Looking at my personal crystal ball, if the phone companies, cable companies, et al. get their act together and provide broadband access to substantially more customers at reasonable rates, internet appliances will be back.
  • Isn't there some sort of procuct release today? I'm sure I heard about it. Strange no one has posted it yet.
    Shame, I could do with another flame war.
    MS RULES!!!

  • Hmm. A crippled toy that's good for a couple things for $350 or a baseline computer that's good for those couple things and everything else for maybe $50 more? It's simple economics: you're going to fail if you don't give the customer what they don't want.
    Make this same toy a $99 purchase and now you're looking at something that perhaps not consumers but VARs might be interested in: can it be hacked into a car easily? A train? A plane? If it sells cheaply enough that this desirable, functional piece of equipment can be integrated easily enough, it'll sell. If you're trying to sell a crippled computer for a few bucks less than a real one (even if real means "crappy Compaq" or "E-Machine" (no offense to those of you who own one)) then get ready to take a bath in your investment.
    • Oh, definitely. Actually, one of the nice things about the iOpener was its form factor -- create something of roughly the same design only don't cripple it and you have what I'd consider to be a pretty nice OEM what-can-we-do-with-this sort of machine. That's one thing none of the rest of these things on the market have/had.

      Anyway, I have to add my voice to the chorus saying, "Shocked? Not hardly." The fact is that a computer is a computer, and if you gut it it's not going to sell. I think even non-geeks realize that; why sell a Mailstation when you can use nearly the same parts with minor enhancements to bring back the glory days of the Trash-80 Model 100?

      /Brian
  • I'm sure that eventually internet appliances will be a good market item, but not today.
    If you can provide a *hackable* mp3 storage device (or an encrypted porn archiver! ;) for a really cheap price in the same ballpark as a portable cd player or high-end calculator, then you have a chance in the market.

    I think that soon though, appliances will become the norm, and the PC will fade somewhat. The home PC market is predominantly a first-world thing. That market is saturated and there is no killer app requiring 3GHZ monsters. I think that the powerful PDA's, instant messaging cellphones, PC-like gaming consoles, and Gigabit networked digital set-top boxes providing hi-def cable TV and internet access will be more in line with consumer needs and the consumer retail market.

    Think about it. How many PC's have you gone through? How many (disposable?) boomboxes and walkmans have you gone through? That is the kind of semi-consistent market that I imagine doesn't suffer the same vagaries of the PC OEMs.
    • The home PC market is predominantly a first-world thing. That market is saturated and there is no killer app requiring 3GHZ monsters.

      [SARCASM]

      REDMOND, WA--Microsoft has announced that it's followup to Windows XP will have every program ever written bundled into the OS, all starting automatically on boot-up, (including every lame computer class "Hello World!" prog.) and stream enough un-solicited pr0n ads to your kids to choke a horse.

      "We feel these new functions will make Windows the OS of the next Millenium!" said an excited Bill Gates from his suburban Seattle office complex.

      "I've already placed an order for ANOTHER new Bentley!"

      Bill then went on to explain the new Goat Porn Download Accelerator (or GPDA), auto-matic Terrorist repelling prog (or NoSAMA) and several other new "features"...

      [/SARCASM]

      THEN you'll need a 3gHz monster...
  • Ok...suddenly the impulse buyer in me is saying, "I want one" and I need to quell that hunger. Can anyone who's purchased (and hacked) an Audrey provide us with more info. Is it worth it?
    • Actually, you can purchase an audrey from a vendor and then go download a hacked rom image from audreyhacking.com [audreyhacking.com]. Dump the image onto a compact flash card, slot it into the audrey and wham, bam - a hacked audrey with all the coolest features. It really is very easy. check out this [audreyhacking.com] article for more info and success stories.

      BTW the audrey rules..

      • Hmmm... "dump it into a compact flash card" -- does the Audrey come with an interface or is this something else you have to buy? I have a compact flash card in my digital camera and it came with a USB interface slot device (from digitalfilm.com?) -- does this work?

        I suppose Slashdot isn't the place to be asking this question, but it's the most readily available place.

      • You need a compact flash reader to get the image from your computer to the flash card. SanDisk has one for about $20 that works flawlessly with Linux. I make backups of my Audrey to flash (it has a built in flash reader/writer) and then dump them to my hard drive on my Linux box. So if I ever totally hose Audrey hacking, I can backtrack to a working image.

        Audrey is kind of useless, but it is a LOT of fun to hack! I've almost got bottlerocket working on it for X10 control, which would make it a little more useful.
    • It depends entirely on whether you have a goal in mind or are just in it for the excitement of the hack. Thus far I have skinned mine a little bit, gotten it to NFS mount a linux drive, and am in the process of modifying the channels to provide my wife and I with a quick glimpse and the morning traffic and weather. Rather than using the browser, which takes too long to come up and is loaded with too much information, I'm scraping out what I want and pushing it down the audrey so it comes up instantaneously.

      I'm telling myself that once I'm "done" I will run some wire down to the kitchen or living room and put Audrey down there. But will I ever be done? Tough question. I could also turn her into a digital picture frame (already got that started). Or an MP3 player. A friend is making his into a voice mail system. You can easily find yourself in an endless quest to just keep hacking the thing.

      The facts, though, are that its memory is currently very limited, and it's not the fastest beast in the world. And although you can run some QNX apps on it, many of them are just too darned big, and very few people are writing native Audrey apps. So until people start hardware hacking the thing to add memory or harddisk or whatever, you might find yourself saying "Eh. This would be cooler if it did X Y and Z already..."

    • Can anyone report on whether these things run fanless ? The multia I had next to the stereo is a bit loud for the living room.
  • - With PDA's, Handheld PC's, and Workpads there is forever a craving need for more software in a small space. While thoughts and persuits in holography storage are still underway, A step towards constant online availability to the software you want when you want it a very attractive alternative. On many of the OS platforms for these mobile devices, "TOOL" images can be downloaded from anylocation online and the respective data files and be stored local or uploaded to an account storage area. And for $0.01 a day, not too bad. Too bad this is not implemented off some site somewhere. Oh, and being able to exchange, and make public some of your data (not programs, unless personally made) would make accessing infomation just gravy. It would bring new life the these devices and also items like internet appliances (where one would have to worry about buying a big harddrive to use and run what the want. Also software updates would be seemless and choice basis. -
  • I looked at this awhile ago, and saw that hideous price tag. Have any geeks out there thought of using this as a gift for mom who doesn't have email and just want to play solitaire?
    • That hideous price tag is now down to $89, plus $30 for the USB Ethernet adapter if you have a LAN at home (this is at TigerDirect [tigerdirect.com]). Audrey still works fine, if all you want to do is e-mail and light web browsing (the "channels" of presumably specialized content no longer work, but otherwise the unit is fully functional).

      If you do a little relatively easy hacking, you can get a GUI text editor onto it that could be a passable word processor, and Audrey does hook up to certain USB printers with no modification.

      Most people are hacking the shit out of them, though-- they make great little terminals for controlling home automation and stuff-- I have two.

      ~Philly

  • Right idea, wrong partner. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Ami Ganguli ( 921 ) on Thursday October 25, 2001 @08:32AM (#2476961) Homepage

    If you made one of these out of a PlayStation it would sell like hotcakes:

    • Runs PlayStation 2 games
    • Plays DVDs
    • Does e-mail, surfs web, etc.
    • Comes with one year of AOL
    • Monitor is optional - works fine with a TV but at lower resolution
    • Expandible w. hard drive so it can run Linux and OpenOffice (or "AOLOffice" maybe?)

    It's just what Sony and AOL both need to fight Microsoft. I wouldn't use it myself, but I'd definately buy one for my mother so we could finally communicate by e-mail instead of running up phone bills.

    • Mac's will be running PS2 games real soon. It is in the works. Yes is does run Linux and is BSD.

      The PS2 will be available with Linux soon too. It uses FireWire so maybe a hack for the iPod will appear in the near future.
      • Mac's will be running PS2 games real soon.

        That doesn't really address my need, since I'm not about to spend money on a Mac just so my Mom can use e-mail, but... this still sounds interesting. Do you have more information? I think it's a pretty good idea, although I think an add-in PS2 card for a PC would have more of a market.

  • Lets see,

    You can sell an internet "appliance" and make money if you (a) subsidize the cost with internet service or (b) charge an arm & leg. We all know that the former doesn't seem to work too well (*cough* iOpener *cough*) and charging an arm/leg doesn't work well because laptops can replace the devices with more functionality and practicality.

    As I've said before, we need an open "disposable" PC form factor standard. Get rid of the ZIF socket, dimms and expansion slots and go with an embedded (as in soldered on the board) processor, ram, video, etc type of solution. Hell, with RAM going as cheap as it is, I don't see why the cheap end of the PC spectrum hasn't gone to this already. You could probably do 1Ghz, 256Mb, video, TV-out, audio, ethernet & 56K for under $150 in quantity.

    What happens when nForce and its variants is small enough to sell to CPU manufacturers as an on-chip option? This is probably happening already. Didja ever wonder why nVidia and AMD are so buddy/buddy when the Xbox is Intel-based? Expect to see an AMD system-on-a-chip soon...

    What I am getting at is that the open PC architecture is one of the things that made the damn thing so popular. However, its also the very thing that makes it large (ever priced a latop motherboard?). BUT IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE. The market could obviously bring the economies of scale to a small PC solution. This could be used in anything from the appliance to a laptop (or TVs and radios).

    All in a cheap, open standard...
    • This is what VIA are doing - their C3 processor can be mounted directly on a motherboard. The PM133/PM266 chipset is cheap and provides enough facilities for a device you describe. It just requires a manufacturer to go out there and do it, and make it available to consumers.
  • These little boxes are marketed as "cheap" PC alternatives. In which case they are looking at a segment of society that typically doesn't have computers and isn't too interested in them. These are people who probably grow up with little exposure to computers and don't use them at work. Without a printer, they don't make a good word processor, so they lack an important PC functuality.

    Now the real question is whether there is a use for the internet with people that don't want a real PC. Seems to me the answer is no. Email and internet access are useful to the tech savvy and those of us who are used to them, but people can still survive in blissful ignorance without them. Seems to me that there is just no market where these things are targetted, especially at several hundred dollars plus monthly subscription charges.

    Why would anyone who is ignorant of PCs want to get online in the first place? The only thing that comes to mind is to chase the fad, but people that buy purely for those reasons, rarely go for cheap crippleware. Seems to me you'd have better luck selling a $300, bare bones word processing system.
    • Why would anyone who is ignorant of PCs want to get online in the first place? The only thing that comes to mind is to chase the fad, but people that buy purely for those reasons, rarely go for cheap crippleware. Seems to me you'd have better luck selling a $300, bare bones word processing system.

      Years ago, several people did (IBM, Wang, DEC). The customer figured he was better off buying a PC - ie the same kit, but with more flexibility, upgradeability, apps, for the same money.

      Versatility means more users, and more volume, More volume means lower prices. A PC without the functionality of a PC has a smaller market, and hence a higher price, and hence a smaller market still. Its a vicious circle (And the precence of M$ is the ultimate in vicious :-)

  • Back to previous rant (Score:3, Insightful)

    by King Of Chat ( 469438 ) <fecking_address@hotmail.com> on Thursday October 25, 2001 @08:40AM (#2476990) Homepage Journal
    Maybe, one of the reasons is that, as long as they keep adding more complicated stuff to web sites, it's never viable to produce a cheap (ie, all in hardware) web browsing device. (I did rant [slashdot.org] on this subject before.)

    First it was frames (which fucked the Web TVs), then all this layers, DHTML crap. What next?

    If the stuff is cheap and in hardware then upgrading your browser or downloading this week's plugin is not really an option.

    I bet that lots of companies could produce a cheap, simple browsing device - providing all you wanted to browse was /. and Need To Know [ntk.net].

    Does anyone else want to join a Keep Websites Simple/Kill All Graphic Designers movement?
    • Maybe, one of the reasons is that, as long as they keep adding more complicated stuff to web sites, it's never viable to produce a cheap (ie, all in hardware) web browsing device... Does anyone else want to join a Keep Websites Simple/Kill All Graphic Designers movement?
      Think a site has too much "crap"? Then don't browse it. Nobody's forcing you to. Sheesh.

      Yeah, lots of sites have stuff they don't need, stuff that doesn't work, stuff that's overdesigned, stuff that's pointless. All-Flash sites, for instance -- sometimes I think if I see one more "Default Plugin | This page contains information of a type (application/x-shockwave-flash) that can only be viewed with the appropriate Plug-in." dialog box I'm going to kill someone.

      But get real. Tables were annoying pointless crap in 1995. Images were annoying pointless crap in 1993. The Web is an evolving technology. If you want something simple and stable, stick to Gopher.

      (Says a guy who's been using ucbmail since 1990 and isn't switching.)

      • Nobody's forcing you to.

        Not sure about that. I use the web for shopping for stuff I couldn't get easily elsewhere (isn't that the beauty of it?). Most hideous recent example of "you want to go there to buy that" would be this specimen [wakesport.com]. I quite like the Pixies (although I'm going right off them after 5 minutes of that) but nobody needs a site like that - even though the prices are good (for the UK).

        There's "evolving technology" and there's just plain fucking annoying. I don't need this shit when I just want to buy some new bindings.

        Maybe I should send more abuse to more webmasters.

        PS Glad someone else on here can put an apostrophe in the right place.
  • I think there is an analogy here between the domestic PC, and the 50's automobile which had Fins, and 500cube engines. They eventually got replaced by japanese vehicles (internet appliances) which were cheaper, better made, and got better economy.

    Presumably Internet Appliances will one day be in the majority, since there is little cost-justification for todays $1000 general purpose PC.

    • People did not switch to Japanese cars because they were simply better (they were a bit better, but not by much in the 70's), or cheaper (just a bit). They switched because the Honda Civic got 35 miles to the gallon compared to the 10 of a Chevy Impala. Waiting for hours to get gas, IF you could find a station that had any gas... it was a HUGE exteral force upon the market. There is no such force on the PC / NetApp market.

      It wasn't until the 80s that the Japanese auto industry really shined and started taking market share away from the American industry. And note that the American auto industry did disappear into a minority, and the PC market is not likely to do so either.

      There's no comparison to the PC / NetApp to the Auto industry. Japanese cars and American cars were both cars, fully capable of doing the same things. An analogy might be the American Cars were IBMs and Japanese e-machines. Both computers, fully capable of computing.

      To make a car/internet appliance analogy work, you would need a car that had had no interior but a single seat for the driver, no trunk, and an electric engine that only ran when plugged into an outlet. You could drive it down the driveway to your streetside mailbox and back, but not much else.

      Those of us who drive, simply stop at the mailbox on our way out somewhere or on the way back. Those who don't drive aren't going to buy a crippled car that costs 80% the price of a full car just to get to the mailbox and back. They'd just as soon buy a full car or just walk.

      When the price drops, those of us with full cars may buy a crippled car for the 'hack' of it, maybe to run to the mailbox on weekends so as not to create wear and tear on our full car, or maybe for the kids to play with. But no, until the price drops significantly to "toy" status, they're not going to sell.

  • I haven't seen this posted in the discussion yet... One can purchase an Audrey for $89, brand new in a sealed-by-3Com box, at Tiger Direct [tigerdirect.com]. I have two of them, and they're quite fun to play with. :-)

    - Eric
  • ...bad implementation. I personally like the NIC [thinknic.com] because you aren't bound to a specific ISP and the box sells by itself. However the thing is still $199 sans monitor. For the whole appliance thing to take off I think there has to be two things: boxes priced at $150 or lower, and 802.11 (a,b or g - I don't care) compatibility so the thing can be moved. Then I'll use one in the kitchen and maybe the garage or basement just for reference (recipes in the kitchen, instructions for a project, etc.). Screw a sound card - I don't want it to play MP3s, I don't care about streaming videoI love the fact that the NIC has VGA out so you can do whatever - buy a monitor, use an old one, whatever. Like I said: good idea, bad implementation.
  • I want one. www.tigerdirect.com have no way to put a non US address in their site.

    And they are selling returned machines for spares (sorry, I am a cynical person, I see one of those for spares making it all the way here masquerading as a helthy machine).

    And anyway, I can get old machines for about the same price (even laptops) that can do as much with a little tweaking. The only think I would kill for is a cheap touchscreen to have it connected to a run of the mill machine....

  • What I want (Score:3, Insightful)

    by renehollan ( 138013 ) <rhollan.clearwire@net> on Thursday October 25, 2001 @09:46AM (#2477471) Homepage Journal
    "We've learned a lot about what people want and what they don't want," Lund [Gateway spokesman] said.

    O.K., Then why hasn't someone created the obvious (IMNSHO) appliance? Namely one that:

    1. has an 10/100 (or even GigE) Ethernet interface;

    2. can receive streamed audio and video and decode it to the appropriate outputs: analog stereo audio, S/P-DIF digital audio, Dolby AC-3 5.1 digital (possibly analog as well), composite video, S/Video, RGBHV and or SD/HD component video, 1394 transport of audio and video, as well as the ubiquitous CH3/4 RF modulater A/V; [obvously not all of these are required on all versions of the product, but some A/V streaming support is essential];

    3. Provide a Web-like control interface for such remote sources, and possibly a complete browser.

    Options might include multiple A/V inputs for existing local components (and the ubiquitous IR controller), along with local (or remote) HTML "interface pages" for providing a UI to control them; or even an embedded 10/100 Mb/s switch.

    The idea is to try to (a) allow for A/V data to be retrieved from an existing home server, and (b) tie in all the other legacy devices you have (perhaps via some kind of outboard adapter). Current attempts at "universal controls" are clumsy at best.

    I just got a new Sony 32" HDTV ready set, and HDTV satellite/terrestrial receiver. The set has multiple inputs, and the receiver can provide different resolution material on multiple outputs, but switching resolutions requires controlling BOTH the receiver output AND the set input. Alas, the only remote which does this is the receiver remote which lacks the fancy split picture and other TV controls. Yes, I could program a "universal remote", but it would lack the necesary buttons. Things like a Pronto help, but are a hack at best: I should just plug things together, maybe download a "driver" or "plug-in" of some kind to the device I described above, and it should "just work".

    Now, you're all thinking, "1. Use a PC. 2. Do it under [GNU/]Linux. 3. GPL the code and release it". Well, fine, except: (a) PCs are ugly, (b) PCs are noisy. I haven't found one quiet enough to do the job in a living/family room setting.

    • Yes, I could program a "universal remote", but it would lack the necesary buttons.

      Not if you get a good one. Get thee hence to Marantz [marantz.com]'s home page and check out their RC5000i programmable remote. It does a lot more than a $20 generic you pick up at Best Buy.
      • I've looked at remotes in the US$300 to US$500 range, and seriously considered the programmable image touch screen variety. But they all have the same problem: lack of a pick-list style interface, or pull-down menus.

        Now this isn't necessary, if all I have is a couple dozen functions per device that I want to control -- a decent programmable universal remote is fine, but what about browsing my music or video library... you want a full browser-style interface, generally via a monitor or TV. Then, you have the problem of several devices all wanting to be the source of the video for that output. No, the browser as interface (via monitor or TV) for complex interactions works fine for that. Devices which need such interactions should provide either a local video/RF feed of a browser image (if used standalone), or an ethernet connection for a remote browser to their internal server, so it could be consolidated with a single device feeding providing the browser output display. Automatic update of a "links page" when such devices are connected together, would be nice.

    • (b) PCs are noisy. I haven't found one quiet enough to do the job in a living/family room setting.

      I agree with everything you said until this part.

      If you haven't found one, then that means you haven't looked hard enough.

      Compaq's Deskpros are incredibly quiet - I have three of them in my computer room, and they're impossible to hear unless you hold your ear right to them.

      Some are considerably less ugly than the average PC, too - my SFF is about the size of a small VCR (18"x18" footprint, about 3" high.) Painted black, you'd easily mistake it for a peice of consumer A/V equipment.
      • That's a qualitative assessment. How many dBA?

        Generally, I'd prefer a box without a fan, though that makes compute-intensive video processing problematic. My satellite receiver has a "quiet fan" in it. At a distance of 12 feet, I can hear it when listening to quiet music passages. It is quite annoying. Now, fortunately, when listening to local music sources, I don't generally have the Sat Rx on, but that isn't the case when listening to music delivered from the satellite.

        Basically, the biggest problem I've found is that MPEG2 decoding, whether in software or graphics card hardware, requires the removal of a lot of heat, hence a noisy fan.

        But, I will look into your suggestions.

    • 4. A flat-panel touch screen.

      I want to be able to put this places where I don't have a tv or monitor, and I don't want it to require a mouse or keyboard to do simple stuff.

      BTW, I still need to get around to hacking my gateway appliance, but I think they _did_ get the hardware right. It has ethernet, audio out, touchscreen, and a wireless keyboard for when the touchscreen is inadequate.

      Unfortunately, they totally screwed up on the software.

  • Hi All,
    Quick question - does anybody have a source of Audreys in the UK? I can't seem to find anybody still selling them. (The US web sites are not that keen on shipping them internationally....)

    Thanks!
  • ...and I'll show you a Web Pad.

    The crap released thus far as IA's are not. End of story.
    • Partially true. There are Internet Appliances, they just cost about $1000 USD and are more for specific tasks. Some are real IA's, but most are specific tasked computers.

      Personally I think that people today (US citizens at least) want stuff that is big. Large SUV's, large homes, big dogs, and big powerful computers. The internet appliances are small, underpowered (usually less than 200MhzCPU) peices of crap. Lets take Audry, what does it have about a 200Mhz CPU, 16Mgs of RAM? Any local storage? Can it do anything else other than just sit there and get your email and suft the web? Does it support plugins like flash, shockwave, real audio? Is it a cheap nic?

      I do like the new palms coming out though. Color is nice but not necessary, but the ones like the Palm VIIx with memory and wireless is pretty cool.

      I think the big problem with Internet Applinces is that they come with the service and many people want to pick an choose. Audry is nice as it comes with no service now, but it looks crapy.

  • This thing is too much like all those other "hackable" things, i-o's in particular. You waste time and effort on a cheap piece of garbage, and for what? A crummy web browser you can use with an unstable NIC? An oversized, hacked up MP3 player? I'd take a stock Palm III any day over a hacked Audrey.
  • It all suggests to me that "internet" is nor a focused enough domain for what might be called an "Information appliance" - maybe we should be developing an "e-mail appliance" for the bedside table or a "news appliance" with CNN and the BBC and whatever for the bedside table, just scrollable with minimal hardware for the morning, or...?

    Maybe those things would also be much cheaper and more immune to upgrade issues...

  • Most people don't like such limited devices. It's only when people found out you could stick a HD into an I-opener and install the OS of your choice that people got psyched about it.

    Take the I-pod - Who needs another MP3 player? "But it's small, you can store other files on it and it's firewire". Only when you start adding features do some of these consumer electronics start attracting interest.

    Rather than sell a dedicated internet appliance, add a capability to an established platform, such as PS2. Sony would be able to market the hell out of it. They could sell controllers that have LEDs and hotbuttons for e-mail. Everybody would run out to buy keyboards and mice for the PS2. You just need some storage, OS & software, and preferably a high-bandwidth connection. Now would be a good time for that Linux distro to come out in America. Sony could smack the X-box.

  • I have never seen a tv ad for one of these devices. I have only heard about them through industry specific or geek outlets. How can a device like this take off when very few people even know about them. Marketing is the key to it all. The demographics for a web appliance would be people who don't want a complex computer and just want a functional device. These people by definition are not going to be getting the info unless you blitz them with ads during Friends. There is only so much of a market in geeks who want one so they can trick it out to do things it was never intended to do.

  • This isn't a big deal since it was a bad idea in the first place and just shows that the Comdex judging needs to improve.

    -BxT
  • Bah, the whole idea of the "internet appliance" is flawed. Like marketing an "electricity appliance".
  • Here we are, mulling over the end of Internet appliances. Meanwhile, today's New York Times Circuits column has an article [nytimes.com] about an LG refrigerator, from LG Electronics.

    Features: TV, videoconferencing. No inventory.

    Price tag: About $10,000.


    Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is just yet another example of why Internet appliances are failing. For that price, I can get a sub-zero fridge, and several high end computers, and still have money left to renovate the rest of my kitchen. No wonder these things don't catch on...

  • As many people know, Intel unveiled it's own web tablet at CES last year. They're not going to release it, though. Check it out here [intel.com].
    This one really sounded promising, offering a wireless experience, utilizing existing Internet connection, printing support, and audio.

    I worked as a developer for this product, and am quite disappointed to see Intel decide not to ship. I've had one of these tablets at home for about a year now, and it is surprising how useful it is despite slower-than-pc performance. What I've seen (through usability studies, beta testing, etc.) is that people expect a wireless web tablet to have the same performance as a PC, at half the cost. Something that a device running on a 206Mhz StrongARM will never achieve.

    Thin client tablet PC's have a shot at offering PC performance, but are people willing to pay over a thousand dollars for a laptop without a keyboard? A person can buy a laptop for under a thousand bucks, throw in a wireless network card, and accomplish everything (and more) that an internet appliance can at a lower cost.

    The real benefit of a web tablet is sexy hardware. The cool factor makes up for slow performance and limited resolution displays. When people see the tablet, their reaction is always "I want one". The problem is, most people aren't willing to shell out the bucks to get one.
  • Someone should sell hardware like this, but market it as a remote workstation.

    "Place this gizmo anywhere in your house, and it can access all the MP3's, recipies, etc on your main home computer, _and_ it can access the internet by routing through the main home computer."

    A small amount of software to install on the main home computer (mainly to make the routing and filesharing easy for average user), and there is no limit to what you could do with the thing.
  • Has anyone ever USED one of these for it's intended purpose?
  • They didn't push it because AOL screwed over the free software community. Running a Linux operating system, then encrypting the file system and not allowing the user access to it, or even accrediting the programmers who wrote all of the software that that piece of crap relies on, caused its demise.

    After Gamera was ripped from its insides, you couldn't even find one being sold ANYWHERE on the Gateway website...store...or for that matter...on AOL.

    Let's see...what have we learned here? 1) Internet appliances simply aren't worth the money. 2) Internet appliances 9 times out of 10 screw over the people who had to write the software that runs the piece of crap and 3) If you can't build a computer for under $600, you have issues.

    Jacob
    Observers.net

Slashdot Top Deals

Too much of everything is just enough. -- Bob Wier

Close