by [TC]²
A monthly column of technology rambling, rumination and reality
By: Jud Early, Corporate Vice President, Research, [TC]²
January 2006
Hello, faithful readers,
The days just seem to fly off of the calendar. January is two-thirds gone already. Information flies at us from numerous sources in a torrent that is hard to digest in a meaningful way. Air travel disregards the human clock mechanism, clicking across time zones as if they were expansion joints in a highway. The human body and brain can barely adjust until thrust back into a different rhythm. We cope, but in all the haste to learn, do, and be, are we becoming just shadows, absent a depth of knowledge, and possessing only the slimmest of facts from questionably authored headlines? When we are young, we trade time for currency. As we get older, and realize that time is not in abundance, we become more willing to trade currency for time. This column is intended to provide, in a reasonably short read, some of the items of the day, and in an understandable, conversational way, allowing us to slow down for a few minutes and reflect on things that might not be at the top of your mind.
This month I will touch on three diverse areas of technology and business. So, whether you are a gearhead or a CEO, you should find something here to help in understanding, or to enhance your business life. Let me know if you like this type of grab-bag of differing areas, or if you would prefer a deeper, more researched single topic. For now, to read what I’ve compiled for you, read on.
Graphics Accelerators
In the February issue of PC World, an extensive article on graphics processors covers all the hot new add-in cards for the PC enthusiast who needs exceptional graphics displayed. This might be the gamer, seeking an edge in dispatching an imaginary enemy, or a scientist or engineer who needs to have displayed in 3D, the results of a lengthy computation or 3D drawing. An interesting sidebar showed the results of replacing the on-board Intel graphics processor as shipped in a low end Dell desktop with $100 add-in cards from ATI and GeForce. Admittedly, these cards are not screamers, but have pretty good performance for routine 3D graphics rendering. The interesting thing to note is that one of the add-ins provided only a five percent improvement in performance, while the other card increased performance only two percent. So what’s the point? That on-board graphics are not bad for many uses, and the latest Intel graphics chips are almost as fast as the low-end custom built graphics accelerators.
That said, high-end graphics accelerators are being put through some unusual paces at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Sometimes it just requires looking at something from another perspective. For those who follow the advances of conventional microprocessors, both Intel and AMD seem to have hit a wall in clock rate, with most chips hovering around, or slightly above three gigahertz. We all have been led to expect four gigahertz chips by the end of this year, but for the past year, development has been focused more on dual core processor chips, with AMD beating Intel to market, and with Intel in hot pursuit. Hot may be the operative word, as heat dissipation in dual core architecture is still a work in progress. But I digress.
While conventional processor chips have two or three pipelines for a single processor, a graphics chip for 3D color has twenty-four pipelines. A pipeline allows individual instructions to be executed simultaneously, and the result from one instruction can be dependent upon the result from a computation in an alternate pipeline. This speeds up computation, especially where dependence occurs. The scientists at Lawrence Livermore, recognizing that twenty-four pipelines could be much faster in computations that are highly dependent, have begun feeding specially crafted instructions into a graphics processor in an effort to take advantage of the highly parallel architecture of the GPU. A conventional CPU will perform about 25 billion floating point operations per second. A leading edge GPU will be six times faster, at about one-half the cost of a CPU. Where is the catch? Despite the multiple increase in pipeline count, graphics processing units are unpredictable in the execution sequence of simultaneous computations, making them useless for dependent operations in different pipelines. For displaying a given pixel in a combination of colors, the GPU is excellent. For number crunching with precision and speed they are not. However, a new breed of processor is emerging. Stanford is developing a new architecture under the codename Merrimac, and a collaboration among IBM, Sony and Toshiba called the cell processor appear to have many of the features of the GPU, with controllable instruction sequencing of pipeline operations in a manner similar to the CPU. Stay tuned, we will bring more news about this evolving development as it is made public.
Channel conflict and DRM
A recent telephone call from Heather C. Pfeiffer of Reshare was of particular interest to me. In the late 1990’s, as we worked on putting together a joint venture with a partner that was a real estate investment trust, there was a lot of discussion and brainstorming over a period of several months in an effort to resolve a problem that was of concern as the Internet continued to grow. Our partner, the REIT, had customers with both brick and mortar stores, for which the REIT provided leased space. The brand owners would have liked to offer product over the web, but since doing so would put them in direct competition with their customers, the avoidance of channel conflict outweighed the possible benefit of direct sales to consumers. We came up with a number of ideas that were along the lines of Reshare, but were never able to resolve all of the issues. Perhaps it was because it was a lower priority than the formation of the joint venture, or maybe just the maturing of the web allowed the solution to be realized. At any rate, with a history of interest in the area, I listened intently and asked several critical questions. I’ll try to cover some of them in this story.
The problem with a brand selling direct to consumer is disintermediation. This is not a term that I’ve heard lately, but it simply means cutting out the middle man. The distribution network that supplies branded products to the ultimate retailer wants its cut of the margin, and will not easily give up that share. Reshare has developed a business model that it calls DRM. Distribution Relationship Management. It’s important to note that the acronym also is used for Digital Rights Management, a term that has negative connotation because of the heavy-handed Hollywood studios and music producers who are attempting various types of DRM to limit piracy of intellectual property. The consumer is often placed at a disadvantage by the media version of DRM, but brand owners who want to sell direct will be pleased by the Reshare DRM model.
In the Reshare model, branded product is offered by the brand’s web site, allowing tight control of how the product is displayed and represented. In contrast, when a brand is offered over the web by several down-stream purveyors, the brand can be mixed with competing product on the seller’s web site, and the representation may not be as the brand owner would prefer. Reason number one: better control of how the product is presented. When the consumer selects a product from the brand’s web site, Reshare takes over in a transparent referral from the site to Reshare. Shopping cart and credit card transactions are managed by Reshare. A list of locations where the shopper might buy the item while on a local shopping trip is displayed. The consumer is free to select a favorite store, but is not compelled to purchase from that store. The transaction is completed at Reshare’s web site, with expected margin divided among the brand owner, distributor, and retailer network that would have serviced the retail location if the transaction had been physical rather than over the web. Reason number two: fair treatment of existing supply chain partners. The store chosen by the consumer remains the default store for future purchases unless changed by the consumer. Reason number three: consumer loyalty rewards the retailer who has provided past services better than another, driving a movement to better customer service among all of the participants. This should create a better customer experience and the bond of loyalty will be two-way. So far, so good.
One of the questions that I asked was who would establish the selling price, as it would likely not be consistent among the retail partners. The price that is offered at the brand owner’s site is the suggested list price of the product. This initially sounded like a serious flaw, but I was softened in my thinking by statistics that showed that consumers who will take advantage of this service over the web is not the shopper who chases bargains and mark-downs. The consumer who brand shops on-line will likely be one who is time starved, and for whom the benefit of obtaining the branded product from an authentic source outweighs the higher price that will likely be charged. This obviously is not a solution that everyone will embrace. However, the idea seems to be one whose time has come. I, for one am glad to learn that it has been successfully implemented in other product channels, and that the partners are willing to trust the distribution of margin by Reshare. Another concern is who will accept the return if it should become necessary. Reshare also handles returned goods and issues credit.
So, for now it is an interesting solution to a vexing problem. I hope the DRM connotation is not a detractor from the service that this model makes possible. And, oh yes, they have the business process patented.
The obligatory word of caution
As I do in many of my columns, I bring news and often a warning about safe computer use. You all probably are sick of hearing about the Windows media file flaw, a prominent news item a little more than two weeks ago. If you haven’t patched your system with Microsoft’s patch, please take time to do so. Visit http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/update/bulletins/200601.mspx . Here you will find the Windows update site where the patch for the wmf (Windows Meta File) will be installed after your computer is scanned for needed patches. Another site to visit is the Microsoft download site, http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/Search.aspx?displaylang=en where the beta version of Microsoft’s free spyware detection and disposal tool is available. I have been using the tool for several months, and find no fault with its function.
Despite fear that you will think I’m a shill for Microsoft; they do some really good stuff. For months now, I’ve been using the desktop search tool that is free for download. The search toolbar will take up some space in the system tray, but it is certainly worth it. With years of files on the machine I now use, finding anything is sometimes a real memory stretcher. With the MSN search tool, all instances of the search term that you enter are found and displayed in a clickable list, with entries pulled from Outlook, all MS Office applications, web pages that you have saved as bookmarks, and calendar items. Just enter what you want, and almost instantaneously, the results are displayed. It does require some indexing. The indexing of my hard drive required about three or four hours, but takes place in the background and you can continue to work. Once done, incremental changes made throughout the day are indexed automatically, and the operation is fully automatic. Another benefit is that compared to the Google desktop search, in which a copy of the index is reportedly sent to Google, no information leaves your machine. This is a really handy tool. To download it, visit http://toolbar.msn.com. Version 2.5 is now available.
And, according to data collected by the Anti-phishing Working Group, APWG, which is made up of more than two thousand companies, banks, ISP’s and Government agencies, phishing attacks are again on the rise. The summer months saw a decline in the number of attacks, but 15,820 different attacks were launched in October, increasing to 16,882 in November, the latest figures available. So, when that PayPal, E-Bay or CitiBank e-mail hits your mailbox, remember that reputable businesses don’t ask for private information by e-mail, and NEVER click on a link that takes you to a page which asks for your information. YOU should contact the entity, not the other way around. When in doubt, call the entity whose logo or trademark is used, and if you are unable to reach someone, just delete the e-mail and wait. A legitimate company will contact you again, probably in a different way. The threat of loss of your E-bay or PayPal account is not worth giving up all of your financial security. And, lastly, there are rogue web sites out there that when visited, can plant a keylogger on your machine, just by visiting the site. It is imperative that you have a two-way personal firewall to protect you from out bound data that may be in the process of theft by malware. The firewall in Windows XP is not a two way firewall. If you invite malware past the firewall by visiting a questionable site, you have no protection from outgoing personal data. Get a two-way firewall and sleep better at night.
Until next month, be safe in life, and in computing.
Jud