So I was reading a bit about Intels “Larrabee”. The newest info that Intel has released + the SIGGRAPH-papers have been doing the rounds around forums all over the world. Now, even though I my understandings about CPU/GPU architecture is “somewhat” limited, I still do understand some of the basics.

Well, after reading about Larrabee, it made me think about possibilities with this kind of “processor” on a console. Well, at first my thoughts of Larrabee was that it was a CPU with GPU capabilities and in a way it is so, but it seems that this is Intels solution to compete in the high-end GPU market against Nvidia and AMD/ATI. So the more I read about it, the more it seemed that it was a “GPGPU” and maybe not the CPU I was thinking it was. My question for the more knowledgable guys out there, how good would Larrabee with general purpose stuff, like using it for office, web-browsing and such, being an in of order processor and all? I have read some more about it and it seems that it will manage to do general purpose stuff to, is this correct?

Well, being in this train of thought, with Larrabees and consoles, I came to think about the future. In a way, it must “suck” to be a console-manufacturer. Sony and Microsoft makes these machines that pushes the home electronic boundries and puts lots of advanced technologies at a “cheap” price. The business model is that these companies sell the machine at a loss but “recoup” the money by software/peripherals and service (online) sales.

But my question is, why does these 3 companies have to dictate what kind of hardware that comes out? Granted, I assume that these companies talk with game developers to see what they “want” and what they hope for in coming hardware but I think its time that this way of releasing hardware changes. Hardware is an expensive necessity to play software, let the software “dictate” the hardware then. Let the games companies be a part of the console making process. My aim here is, why not create a consortium with companies such as EA, Activision, UBI, Microsoft and of course, Sony and Nintendo. I guess that these japanese companies want to do it “alone” in the future too, especially Nintendo because they have a business model that works for them.

I think that MS is the one company that is in the best position to propose something like this. MS develops great software and services, and with Xbox and Xbox360, they have created good hardware too.

But, for the next battle, why not share the expenses with this consortium for a hardware that let´s the developers have so much power to play with, that only their visions and fantasies will be the limit.

I am a great advocate for One Console Future (OCF for future reference). The problem has been the business model. People say that without competition, technology will not be pushed and prices of hardware will be expensive. I say, not necessarly. It also depends on what kind of life-cycle these product can/will have. One idea can be that for each contract, hardware makers such as Nvidia, Intel, IBM, AMD/ATi etc, “fights” to make the best hardware possible from a price/tech-standpoint. The best solution provided from this companies, will be used for the console, all decided by the consortium. Now that the hardware components is decided, there can still be variations of this hardware. The basic model can perhaps only play game and the higher end the you come to, the more features the machine will be able to do. So the highest end model could be “a PC” with all the functionality of a PC. Lower end models can maybe have DVR capabilities only etc etc.

So there can be different SKUs, provided by the likes of Samsung, LG, Philips etc. This way, there is still price competition but the different is with features. The higher end you get, the more features you will have.

I think it´s time that to change how the videogames business operates, especially the hardware makers. There are new times and with new technology, software and services, consoles of today can do so much more than to just play games. So we have to create a new business model in order to makes this work properly.

Also, the issue with the PC-gaming segment. It is mentioned very often in forums like Neogaf, that the PC-gaming segment is dying. Comments made by developers say that their software has been pirated “from hell and back” and therefore, the revenues and profit of software sales in the PC-segment is lower than in the console-segment. More and more developers are choosing the console-segment as their primary focus because there is where the money is. I think it´s time to put these two segments together. Like I said earlier, with every new console that gets release, the more and more they start to be like PCs in functionality. Microsoft, who has the Xbox and Windows platform, is in the best position to, together with partners, to join these two segments together. How can this be done?

Well, enter the Larrabee-like processors and the whole consortium idea. Together, these partners can release a hardware so powerful, that developers only need to think about making software to it because they will have access to “the whole market” or “a majority of the market”. The hardware should be opened enough to connect peripherals a la PC but maybe that there can be some form of “approval needed” from the consortium. I imagine a machine with something like maybe, let us say for arguments say, a 32 + 32 core solution or more as CPU/GPU with a genereous amount of RAM and these kinds of things in order for the machine to last the projected/desired life cycle in order to get back the investment. (Remember also that this is a shared cost by the consortium members).

Having a machine like this, it will let developers focus on the software, maybe it can be easier to implement and release peripherals as “motion sensitive” controllers with disrupting so much of the market, and so on.

This is the basic thought and I think that MS is the one that has to take the initiative of this. MS, supporting two gaming platforms, needs to combine these two because the PC segment only excels in graphical prowess against the consoles. Sure, with the latest hardware you can have the highest resolution and settings but you are only aiming for a small piece of the PC-market by making a game with that awesome graphics fidelity. Business wise, it is harder and harder to recoup that investment due to piracy. And besides, does the extra resolution and higher AF/AA settings make the game funnier/better? I mean, comparing to their HD-console counterparts?

There are still lots of questionmarks with this whole idea and I would be happy to read feedback and see where Im way off or if I hit the spot with some comments.

Let´s see what can come out of this.

I better hurry up writing my ideas because I just saw one that is already in the works

This idea, it came to me like 3 years ago and I even approached Microsoft with it, but MS being the slow moving behemoth that it is, have not done anything yet. I believed that MS was in a very good position to make this work but like always, they fail to see what is good and basically, always comes late to the IT-party.

Anyways, so I read at arstechnica.com about “Mozilla Weave”. Here is the link:

Mozilla Weave

My idea was basically what Weave will offer. The same browser, with all the plugins, themes, and extensions, but on every computer. So what this means is that, at home, I have all my links and bookmarks and other stuff and I want to access these when im using other computers. So having a “log in” feature on the browser, and have all the information stored in a cloud, would allow me to access all my “stuff” from every computer.

The Weave solution is more or less what I had in mind, but I added another feature, a cloud storage solution. So not only can I have access to my bookmarks, extensions, themes etc, I can also have access to other files I have stored there. Perhaps I can store funny videos or music or documents or whatever and by having the cloud storage solution integrated with the browser, it would make things more seamless than by having to access another page just to access certain files that I have uploaded.

So Kudos for Mozilla to have the foresight of coming up with this solution but please, add a cloud storage solution too. Perhaps a joint venture with Google and access to Gmails huge storage can be a solution? An integrated cloud storage access would allow for some very nice and handy things, and it´s all about letting the end user have a seamless experience as possible, right?

See you next time,

cheers!

So, what do I mean with “reverse”? Well, you know when you want to make a dish but don´t know what to make? Then you perhaps check recipes online and see that you have to buy lots of things to make the food? My idea was, why not begin from the other end? Why not make a page were you can type in what you already have at home and with this information, you get lots of ideas/suggestions?

So basically, it would be like a database where I type in all (or several) ingridients and then do a little search. The result would be dishes that has some/all of the ingridients I typed. And this could be expanded, so that people could type in their recipes, from all around the world and well, you should get some really nice variations. But most importantly, you don´t need to go down and buy stuff just to make a special dish. Perhaps you already have what you need to make something really nice, you just don´t know it.

Now, I haven´t searched the net, so I don´t know if something like this have been made. If yes, please let me know because I would LOVE to know about it…

Well, that´s it for today.

Cheers!

So my first suggestion/idea is to improve Itunes. Being a macbook and Ipod owner, Itunes is an essential part of the experience. So im using Itunes as my main music-player. And it does manage to do the job ok. Some things bug me or im not so used to but its managable. However there is one feature I would LOVE to have and that is something I call “Itunes Play-filer”. I have not seen that something like this exists on Itunes, but if it does, it is badly implemented because it should not be difficult to find and use.

So, Itunes play-filter. It works basically as a “database” works. For example, let´s say that I only want Itunes to play a certain genre of music or only the music from one (or several) specific artist. Instead of always creating playlists and drag and drop the music to these lists, I can easily type in my playing criterias.

So sometimes I might just feel the urge to listen to some jazz but also to some U2. So I press the “Play filers” options and type “Jazz” on one field and “U2″ on another field and simsalabim, these are the tunes that will be played only. An option to save “filters” is also a must, to fasten the process even more.

Now, I have not checked ALL the players out there, perhaps something like this exists. But using Itunes so much as I do, it would be nice to see Apple implement this to coming versions. It is a nice feature for people that really likes to have a bit more of control to their listening habits.

So this is one of my ideas, Improve Itunes with “play filter” options.

You saw it first here

So the idea with this blog is to give myself a space to ventilate ideas that I come up or things that can be improved upon. And if someone “in charge” sees what I have written and perhaps likes my thoughts, then the world maybe will be a better place

My ideas will mainly be for the IT-biz, because it is here that I think I can contribute the most.

Cheers,