Google's Eric Schmidt on 2014: 'Big data' will be everywhere

Google's executive chairman, Eric Schmidt, is known for making some rather bold, and sometimes incorrect, public predictions about his company, and the tech world in general. Remember when he said in 2011 that Google TV would be inside all new televisions by mid-2012? More recently, he offered the idea that everyone in the world will have an Internet connection by 2020.

This week, Schmidt is making some 2014 predictions for Google in a new Bloomberg TV video clip. This time, his prognostications are fairly unexciting. One of them is, "Everyone is going to have a smartphone." He notes that there are now more smartphones and tablets being sold than personal computers and that those mobile devices, combined with cloud services, will lead to a "whole new generation of applications."

He also says that 2014 will also see the "arrival of big data and machine intelligence everywhere" which he believes will change "every business globally", thanks to companies being able to learn more about each of their customers. One major development that Schmidt says is still something of an unknown quality is new advances in genetics research that could help solve many medical issues.

So where did Google miss the boat in 2013? Schmidt admits the company underestimated the rise of social networks, which he says he takes responsibility for. He adds that Google won't make that same mistake again but doesn't go into details. Google launched its own social network, Google+, in 2011, and it has slowly been integrated into many other of the company's services since then.

Source: Bloomberg TV on YouTube

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Report: Samsung and Apple in talks to settle their patent disputes

Next Story

Samsung announces 8Gb LPDDR4 Mobile DRAM; will it show up in the Galaxy S5?

64 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Just predictions like lots of other big name people have made over the years. Silly or not, time will tell and I am sure there will be plenty of Schmidt quotes people will be saying years from now like other silly quotes from other big names.

It is obvious that not everyone will have a smartphone by the end of 2014. Not everyone can afford a computer let a long a smart phone. Or dumb phone for that matter.

"By the summer of 2012, the majority of the televisions you see in stores will have Google TV embedded." - Eric Schmidt, Dec 7, 2011

I would not put much behind his predictions.

His proactive leadership will decidedly enable new cloud paradigms to achieve their aperture moment globally, define the best practices and continue to level up the future-proof diversity exponentially, while increasing the shareholder value through accessible and responsive value-added services of nearly unlimited integration capacity.

Edited by Phouchg, Dec 30 2013, 9:55pm :

If they were less invasive and not so determined to force people to fold into their ecosystem I might still use some of their services. Company motto "Don't Be Evil" pffft

Social Media is a sea of one hit wonders and its annoying the Google is pressing their Google+.

Sorry big G but yall ain't hip!

Whether or not you trust an online service, there are always security breaches that are out of your control. Don't put out any information you don't want the public to have access to. If you simply must, at least encrypt it and trade keys offline with the parties you want to grant access, and make sure you trust them too. Separate watermark for each party. Host it yourself. Sneakernet. Better yet, just keep it to yourself. ;P

trojan_market said,
but smart. I wish Microsoft will get a CEO as smart as him
Eric Schmidt is anything but smart. Google is lucky to have survived him as their CEO--and now just Chairman of the Board--because he had absolutely no vision. He was in the right place at the right time; there's a reason that he is not the CEO anymore.

Google thrived because no one came close to them in search under Schmidt's reign, but that was because the competition could not figure it out rather than some special strategy. He's creepy, and he makes terrible public statements. I completely believe that it is because of his "leadership" that Google has really only three successful products: Search (and AdDuplex, which they bought, on there), Gmail, and Android. Android is hardly theirs given that the most popular variant is pushed by Samsung, and Google continues to do a poor job supporting it because they refuse to tie down the manufacturers to standardize. They (and Microsoft) only recently realized that the only way to beat the carriers is to force certain things, or release core services as apps that can be updated outside of the OS (thanks carriers).

trojan_market said,
but smart. I wish Microsoft will get a CEO as smart as him

Medium bright and good hearted would be much better.

The Emperor was also brilliant...

I don't that to relate to this thread specifically, just your M.O. You need to poke your head out to the sun every once in a while!

I think Google is quickly reaching the "has been" stage. When was they last time they produced a new successful product? The last was Android and they had to rip off Java to do that, so it's only partially their product.

Mr. Hand said,
I think Google is quickly reaching the "has been" stage. When was they last time they produced a new successful product? The last was Android and they had to rip off Java to do that, so it's only partially their product.

agreed. Google is all about purchasing boats they missed or trying unsuccessfully to force people to use their me-too products. They are too big and they don't get social at all.

Lol if you are saying that about Google then imagine Microsoft's plight for a second. Their main cash cow is a product from the 80's and they had to rip it off IBM

recursive said,
Lol if you are saying that about Google then imagine Microsoft's plight for a second. Their main cash cow is a product from the 80's and they had to rip it off IBM

Microsoft is still selling DOS?

recursive said,
Lol if you are saying that about Google then imagine Microsoft's plight for a second. Their main cash cow is a product from the 80's and they had to rip it off IBM
If you mean windows they ripped it off from Mac which themselves ripped off from Xerox. IBM sold the BIOS use to MS which is not a ripoff.

Mr. Hand said,
I think Google is quickly reaching the "has been" stage. When was they last time they produced a new successful product? The last was Android and they had to rip off Java to do that, so it's only partially their product.

To be fair, google made right choices. Yes it was a iOS ripoff, yes, they stabbed oracle from behind for java but when they introduced android nobody gave a **** until they made it open source, then it started to pickup then it got into a mess, then they fixed it by unifying all android versions after 4.xx then they introduced google's version and google play store. they made right decisions. Although eventually the seed they planted (fragmentation of android) will come and hunt them down if they don't make it closed source again.

trojan_market said,

To be fair, google made right choices. Yes it was a iOS ripoff, yes, they stabbed oracle from behind for java but when they introduced android nobody gave a **** until they made it open source, then it started to pickup then it got into a mess, then they fixed it by unifying all android versions after 4.xx then they introduced google's version and google play store. they made right decisions. Although eventually the seed they planted (fragmentation of android) will come and hunt them down if they don't make it closed source again.

Now take a step back and ask yourself?

Why does Microsoft make more per Android device sold than Google?
(Google makes their money after the sale, they don't give a flip about Android itself.)

Next ask yourself why Google made Android OSS?
(They had no choice, it was purchased technology and built on OSS licensing. If they wanted to create a NEW mobile OS technology, they would have written one, but that was not their goal.)

Why would Google buy out a mobile OS technology that they new they could never control and never make a profit by selling?
(They could care less about Android, they saw it as marketing/data collection for ad revenue.)

The problem with Android beyond being a crappy OS model, is that once Google no longer cares about it, it goes away, and all the kings horsemen and all the kings OSS developers will never put it back together again.

Look at Google Reader (or other dead products), as soon as they stopped serving the needs of Google, they were not just left to die, they were killed. Reader is a good example as it started competing with Google itself by aggregating a lot of information that was available without a return profit motive for Google.

PS Sun/Oracle both were ******* in their day, yet Google out 'bastarded' even them. And right now the Linux kernel itself is being bastardized by Google that could leave the gains it made technologically in recent years, completely worthless.

Schmidt was never a good fit for Google. He's a beancounter, and everything he does it purely to make profit. Google has suffered tremendously under him, and turned 180° to being a greedy company, instead of an innovative one. Big Data is just a marketing ploy to get companies to part with their money for a solution that they don't understand, but they are told they "need" to remain competitive by the likes of Schmidt and his ilk.

Mobius Enigma said,

Now take a step back and ask yourself?

Why does Microsoft make more per Android device sold than Google?
(Google makes their money after the sale, they don't give a flip about Android itself.)

Because they are a bully and have been one ever since their inception? Don't say they own the 'patents', because if they own all the 'patents' to technologies that are so unique and crucial to Android's success, why isn't Windows phone the leading platform on the market right now?

Mobius Enigma said,

Next ask yourself why Google made Android OSS?
(They had no choice, it was purchased technology and built on OSS licensing. If they wanted to create a NEW mobile OS technology, they would have written one, but that was not their goal.)

Because their goal was never to sell the OS, but the services that run on it, so the sooner the OS is commodotiZed, the more people can use their sevices? Think about it, if I sell hamburgers, wouldn't I want the price of bun and meat to go down so I get the biggest slice of the pie? Does that mean I am out to harm my customers?


Mobius Enigma said,

Why would Google buy out a mobile OS technology that they new they could never control and never make a profit by selling?
(They could care less about Android, they saw it as marketing/data collection for ad revenue.)

See above. They saw it as a platform to sell their services, including email, search and advertising. Nothing wrong with that, last I checked, microsoft are throwing money at the same businesses/services as well, despite being unsuccessful in their ventures so far.

Mobius Enigma said,

The problem with Android beyond being a crappy OS model, is that once Google no longer cares about it, it goes away, and all the kings horsemen and all the kings OSS developers will never put it back together again.

Right, but windows RT and windows phone would thrive soon after microsoft abandon it, right? Android will probably stick around a lot longer than any of its competitors simply because it is open source (think Linux, nobody owns it, yet it runs most of the internet) and also because it has the most marketshare (see Windows XP, microsoft want it to go away, but can't no matter how hard they try)

Mobius Enigma said,

Look at Google Reader (or other dead products), as soon as they stopped serving the needs of Google, they were not just left to die, they were killed. Reader is a good example as it started competing with Google itself by aggregating a lot of information that was available without a return profit motive for Google.

By your argument, Microsoft must support Windows XP indefenitely even though they make no money off it anymore, simply because a lot of people still use it.

Mobius Enigma said,

PS Sun/Oracle both were ******* in their day, yet Google out 'bastarded' even them. And right now the Linux kernel itself is being bastardized by Google that could leave the gains it made technologically in recent years, completely worthless.

The same way microsoft out 'bastarded' IBM and Apple back in the day. The grass is green, the sky is blue, what else is new?

Now don't get me wrong, I am no Google fan myself (at least not of late), even though I still like Android. I just want to point out that your argument is full of holes, kinda like Schmidt's.

Edited by recursive, Dec 31 2013, 2:09am :

dvb2000 said,
Schmidt was never a good fit for Google. He's a beancounter, and everything he does it purely to make profit. Google has suffered tremendously under him, and turned 180° to being a greedy company, instead of an innovative one. Big Data is just a marketing ploy to get companies to part with their money for a solution that they don't understand, but they are told they "need" to remain competitive by the likes of Schmidt and his ilk.

Agreed 100%. 'Cloud' companies have just figured out they get a bigger slice of the pie by marginalizig you and me, the guys that run IT locally. Management nod along like dolls in a china shop, heck most of them don't even know what a browser is, let alone understand the long term implications of 'cloud hosting' and to comprehend 'big' data.

Heck, microsoft even admit it openly that your software will run better on their 'cloud' (except when they forget to renew their SSL certificates):
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/12/16/scott_guthrie_azure/

As a Linux user I could care less what Google does with Linux, Android is their prerogative and their platform and they can do as they see fit. It doesn't change anything about me using Linux for my own uses except the additional testing and patches which is fine with me. I never saw Android as being a GNU/Linux alternative, but its own thing. My TV runs Linux and I don't care how they modify it, but likewise am happy for the additional testing and support, as I'm sure they're happy to have a great kernel to work with. It's a symbiotic relationship that all Linux developers and users benefit from.

That's why I don't understand this "putting it back together" comment; Although I'm happy to use Android, it's a fine platform, their use of Linux does not preclude my ability to use Linux for my own purposes. It's only additive and complimentary.

Also, Google didn't make Android OSS because they were forced to, they could have built a proprietary environment on top of the Linux kernel and never had the cooperation of outside developers and never given out the source to the parts they created. There's nothing stopping anyone from making a proprietary closed source software that sits on top of the Linux kernel. They could have also made their own kernel if they wanted to, but chose to use a robust and tested kernel that was already available. Nothing is stopping them from swapping it out later for a proprietary solution. They could easily take a BSD kernel, modify it, and close it up if they wanted a quick solution.

Edited by Geezy, Dec 31 2013, 3:16am :

Geezy said,
As a Linux user I could care less what Google does with Linux, Android is their prerogative and their platform and they can do as they see fit. It doesn't change anything about me using Linux for my own uses except the additional testing and patches which is fine with me. I never saw Android as being a GNU/Linux alternative, but its own thing. My TV runs Linux and I don't care how they modify it, but likewise am happy for the additional testing and support, as I'm sure they're happy to have a great kernel to work with. It's a symbiotic relationship that all Linux developers and users benefit from.

That's why I don't understand this "putting it back together" comment; Although I'm happy to use Android, it's a fine platform, their use of Linux does not preclude my ability to use Linux for my own purposes. It's only additive and complimentary.

You need to read about Google's involvement with the Linux kernel going forward. It will affect you.

Pray tell. I don't see how a fork of a project will affect the primary project, which can choose to reject any modifications if they desire. That's like saying I can't eat a banana split because someone else decided to make pies out of theirs.

recursive said,

Because they are a bully and have been one ever since their inception? Don't say they own the 'patents', because if they own all the 'patents' to technologies that are so unique and crucial to Android's success, why isn't Windows phone the leading platform on the market right now?

Because their goal was never to sell the OS, but the services that run on it, so the sooner the OS is commodotiZed, the more people can use their sevices? Think about it, if I sell hamburgers, wouldn't I want the price of bun and meat to go down so I get the biggest slice of the pie? Does that mean I am out to harm my customers?


See above. They saw it as a platform to sell their services, including email, search and advertising. Nothing wrong with that, last I checked, microsoft are throwing money at the same businesses/services as well, despite being unsuccessful in their ventures so far.


Right, but windows RT and windows phone would thrive soon after microsoft abandon it, right? Android will probably stick around a lot longer than any of its competitors simply because it is open source (think Linux, nobody owns it, yet it runs most of the internet) and also because it has the most marketshare (see Windows XP, microsoft want it to go away, but can't no matter how hard they try)


By your argument, Microsoft must support Windows XP indefenitely even though they make no money off it anymore, simply because a lot of people still use it.


The same way microsoft out 'bastarded' IBM and Apple back in the day. The grass is green, the sky is blue, what else is new?

Now don't get me wrong, I am no Google fan myself (at least not of late), even though I still like Android. I just want to point out that your argument is full of holes, kinda like Schmidt's.

There is so many things wrong with the logic and straw-man type arguments, I don't think I could help you understand this any better.

1) Android patents have nothing to do with WP, and WP technology has NOTHING to do with the technology in Android.

2) MS only enforces patent licensing on products sold for profit. This is why HTC pays and Cyanogen doesn't. This is why Redhat pays and Mint doesn't.

3) A bully doesn't give away more reference technology than they use themselves. 99% of all GPUs in every computer in the world is based off the Xbox 360 GPU MS design, they charged $0 for this technology. That is NOT a bully or a patent troll.

4) What you say about using Android is correct. However, dumping an OS for backend charges and leeching information is highly illegal. I hope Google knows better than to use this type of arguments when facing the DOJ and EU in the upcoming year.

5) Microsoft has been prevented from even offering a 'cheap' price on Windows to MFRs until recently, so they haven't been 'throwing' anything. They also don't data mine information from Windows users for revenue. If they did, they would be in court instantly.

6) XP - Microsoft HAS supported XP for 12 years after it went on sale, they even offer options to extend 'support' for enterprise customers beyond the consumer lifecycle. So a copy of WinXP sold via an OEM for $60 back in 2001 was still getting massive amounts of support and development and updates over 10 years later. Name ANY other OS or software support that has received this length or level of support.

7) With regard to #6, there is no Linux distribution that is 10 years old that is still getting updates. Support for really good distributions and WM projects from 2009 are already dead or have broken into 100 pieces. (All the kingsmen analogy fits perfectly.)

8) Even if Android MEETS Google's needs, don't expect your device today to work 5 years from now, let alone 10 years from now. (Insert the XP argument here and notice it doesn't work outside of Microsoft.)

9) As for MIcrosoft and IBM and Apple in the 1980s, you need to do some homework.

Apple licensed their GUI to Microsoft for 1.0, Microsoft also got licensing from Xerox. It was Apple that pulled and tried to restrict the license for Windows 2.0.

As for IBM, it was THEIR decision to keep OS/2 16bit based, because they had sold a huge contract of 80286 based PS/2s to GM the prior year, when they knew Microsoft wanted to take the OS 32bit. It was their greed based on hardware sales that they wanted to limit the advancement of OS/2, and Microsoft didn't need them, especially when their hardware wouldn't even run Windows 2.0/386 Enhanced.

Everything else between Microsoft and IBM was licensed and never a point of contention.

The Apple case against Windows ultimately failed, with all Apple's complaints against Microsoft being dismissed, it was only 'shell' and 3rd party software that Apple was still going after in 1997, specifically HP, and Microsoft settled with Apple to protect the 3rd party developers that had nothing to do with Microsoft. (Do you see Google protecting Samsung, nope.)


Wow....

Mobius Enigma said,

There is so many things wrong with the logic and straw-man type arguments, I don't think I could help you understand this any better.

1) Android patents have nothing to do with WP, and WP technology has NOTHING to do with the technology in Android.

2) MS only enforces patent licensing on products sold for profit. This is why HTC pays and Cyanogen doesn't. This is why Redhat pays and Mint doesn't.

3) A bully doesn't give away more reference technology than they use themselves. 99% of all GPUs in every computer in the world is based off the Xbox 360 GPU MS design, they charged $0 for this technology. That is NOT a bully or a patent troll.

4) What you say about using Android is correct. However, dumping an OS for backend charges and leeching information is highly illegal. I hope Google knows better than to use this type of arguments when facing the DOJ and EU in the upcoming year.

5) Microsoft has been prevented from even offering a 'cheap' price on Windows to MFRs until recently, so they haven't been 'throwing' anything. They also don't data mine information from Windows users for revenue. If they did, they would be in court instantly.

6) XP - Microsoft HAS supported XP for 12 years after it went on sale, they even offer options to extend 'support' for enterprise customers beyond the consumer lifecycle. So a copy of WinXP sold via an OEM for $60 back in 2001 was still getting massive amounts of support and development and updates over 10 years later. Name ANY other OS or software support that has received this length or level of support.

7) With regard to #6, there is no Linux distribution that is 10 years old that is still getting updates. Support for really good distributions and WM projects from 2009 are already dead or have broken into 100 pieces. (All the kingsmen analogy fits perfectly.)

8) Even if Android MEETS Google's needs, don't expect your device today to work 5 years from now, let alone 10 years from now. (Insert the XP argument here and notice it doesn't work outside of Microsoft.)

9) As for MIcrosoft and IBM and Apple in the 1980s, you need to do some homework.

Apple licensed their GUI to Microsoft for 1.0, Microsoft also got licensing from Xerox. It was Apple that pulled and tried to restrict the license for Windows 2.0.

As for IBM, it was THEIR decision to keep OS/2 16bit based, because they had sold a huge contract of 80286 based PS/2s to GM the prior year, when they knew Microsoft wanted to take the OS 32bit. It was their greed based on hardware sales that they wanted to limit the advancement of OS/2, and Microsoft didn't need them, especially when their hardware wouldn't even run Windows 2.0/386 Enhanced.

Everything else between Microsoft and IBM was licensed and never a point of contention.

The Apple case against Windows ultimately failed, with all Apple's complaints against Microsoft being dismissed, it was only 'shell' and 3rd party software that Apple was still going after in 1997, specifically HP, and Microsoft settled with Apple to protect the 3rd party developers that had nothing to do with Microsoft. (Do you see Google protecting Samsung, nope.)


Wow....

I would say the same for your arguments.

1) Pray tell, what is this magical technology that wp uses that has nothing to do with 2G, 3G, 4G, wifi, bluetooth, filesystem, etc yet manages to qualify as a phone?

2) Makes sense, they cant draw from a well that is already dry. But tell us now, since you claim that Google make no money with Android, and you also claim Microsoft only sue companies that make a profit off a product that allegedly infringes on their patents, why did they sue Google recently under the cover of rockstar?

3) I think you just pulled a Jobs there. Apple did not invent the smartphone or multitouch simply because they made it popular. Microsoft did not invent the GPU because they have a product that has one. Ever heard of Nvidia and AMD? I think they will disagree with you on that 99% claim as well.

4) No more illegal than making 'platform support payments' to force an OEM from making products for a competitior. As for leeching data, I suggest you start by reading the Windows EULA.
"Does the software collect my personal information?
If you connect your computer to the Internet, some features of the software may connect to Microsoft or service provider computer systems to send or receive information, including personal information. You may not always receive a separate notice when they connect. If you choose to use any of these features, you agree to send or receive this information when using that feature."
Vague much?

5) Ever heard of the billion dollar write down on Windows RT? Or the billions they lose on Bing every year perhaps?
http://www.businessinsider.com...ney-down-a-rat-hole-2012-10
Also, did you hear of the search ads in Windows 8? I guess they just show random ones then, and not ones that are relevant to what you searched for?

6) So the cost of support was included in the price you paid upfront. How much did you pay for Google Reader again?

7) Ubuntu has been around for over 9 years and the Linux kernel itself has been around for much longer. I don't think Canonical ever said they would abandon it and build another OS from scratch, like Microsoft did with XP and Vista. And last I checked, Ubuntu was still free for anyone to download and use as is the Linux kernel. See Android.

8) Sun released Java under an open source license. It was Oracle that came along and tried to claim the 'API is patented'. Last I heard, that case was thrown out too.

Just wow ...

For the 10+ year support I think he's referring to the support lifetime of XP and that one particular version of a distribution (say... RHEL 5) being supported for 10+ years. But, he's still wrong, because RHEL 3 came out 2004 and is supported until 2014 under extended support, and RHEL 6 has planned support until 2024... so 13+ years.

Anyway, carry on gents! http://images2.wikia.nocookie..../images/0/0c/MJ_Popcorn.gif

Edited by Geezy, Dec 31 2013, 5:30am :

i heard somewhere that bill gates and his friends who founded microsoft had another friend, who made himself a DOS-like OS that that "filing" or whatever it is that arranges files in folder according to name and he also had a file tree, which bill gates and his friends didnt have on their OS, so they decided to buy it from him, but he didnt agree, so one time they came over with weed and got him high and talked him into selling it for $200

.... and thats where windows comes from =_=

2) Makes sense, they cant draw from a well that is already dry. But tell us now, since you claim that Google make no money with Android, and you also claim Microsoft only sue companies that make a profit off a product that allegedly infringes on their patents, why did they sue Google recently under the cover of rockstar?

Google doesn't make money from Android the OS, they make money by charging ODMs to install Google Services (ie mail, maps etc)

3) I think you just pulled a Jobs there. Apple did not invent the smartphone or multitouch simply because they made it popular. Microsoft did not invent the GPU because they have a product that has one. Ever heard of Nvidia and AMD? I think they will disagree with you on that 99% claim as well.

Shows how much about technology you know. A lot of the work that went into designing a separate GPU (and even to some extent the CPU) came out of Microsoft's research division. MS is partly responsible for the GPU as we know it today.

5) Ever heard of the billion dollar write down on Windows RT? Or the billions they lose on Bing every year perhaps?
http://www.businessinsider.com...ney-down-a-rat-hole-2012-10
Also, did you hear of the search ads in Windows 8? I guess they just show random ones then, and not ones that are relevant to what you searched for?

Every single product a company makes doesn't have to be successful. Google was losing billions on Android for quite a few years, should we now start calling Android a failure because Google lost money at some point? The Xbox lost money for a long time too, maybe that's a failure as well.

7) Ubuntu has been around for over 9 years and the Linux kernel itself has been around for much longer. I don't think Canonical ever said they would abandon it and build another OS from scratch, like Microsoft did with XP and Vista. And last I checked, Ubuntu was still free for anyone to download and use as is the Linux kernel. See Android.

Um Microsoft did not abandon and rewrite Windows for XP and Vista, you have to be incredibly dumb to think that.

Gotta say it, you're right on, although I wouldn't say ms has shaped GPUs so much as GPU vendors have shaped DirectX.

Geezy said,
Pray tell. I don't see how a fork of a project will affect the primary project, which can choose to reject any modifications if they desire. That's like saying I can't eat a banana split because someone else decided to make pies out of theirs.

Google's Linux contributions are NO LONGER just a FORK. You need to look this up, seriously and stop just replying to me.

Geezy said,
Gotta say it, you're right on, although I wouldn't say ms has shaped GPUs so much as GPU vendors have shaped DirectX.

DirectX has moved the hardware, but beyond that Microsoft has had a bigger role in the hardware and based DirectX off their own changes.

Starting from the late 90s and their VS/PS model, their creation of the user shader language, they had a big impact on the hardware design that came out of NVidia, with the 5xxx, 6xxx, 7xxx silicon being based directly off Microsoft collaborative work.

The changes to the GPU model for Xbox 360 did change how GPU were designed, creating the unified shader, new BUS transfer technologies (UMA) and DMA technologies that are all important to any modern GPU.

You can find an interview from around 2007 where AMD's CEO and engineers talk about the new Xbox 360 GPU. They let Microsoft run with the hardware design, and themselves didn't think it was very good, as they had no plans to use the model in ther desktop PC products. It wasn't until the features and performance feedback from Xbox developers and testing that turned them around to use a the newer GPU architecture MS's hardware team designed.

The big fight with NVidia and Microsoft in 2006 was about DX10 certification, and NVidia wanted to extend their 7xxx series GPU, which they were advertising as 'Vista Ready' long before Vista shipped. It being a DX9 card was NOT going to get DX10 certification. NVidia first unified shader based GPU also didn't meet all the features of the Xbox 360 GPU, and the 8xxx failed initial DX10 certification. This is when Microsoft gave up features in DX10 that would later finally appear in DX11, just so NVidia wouldn't have to kill a whole generation of GPU technology.

Even today, the newest NVidia 780 GPUs don't fully support DX 11.2 - and it is hurting NVidia as they move to change their hardware to match the features. (This is a bit more of the software specification pushing the hardware, but it is based on changes to the GPU in the Xbox One Microsoft made.)

There is a reason the animation and movie industry gave Microsoft awards for creating and advancing modern 3D computing rendering, which came from their DirectX work and the hardware work on the Xbox and XB360.

The base technologies haven't come from GPU makes since the late 90s. (NVidia's last major contribution was working with Microsoft on the VS/PS design. Even what makes the modern GPGPU tech possible comes from the XB360 GPU and Microsoft's specific designs.* GPU MFRs optimize and create brilliant ancillary technologies, but they are essentially just adding more and more efficient stream processors and increasing the clock speeds reliably.

*The BUS and UMA tech that makes CUDA 2.x and OpenCL and DirectCompute possible all come from the XB360 GPU reference design, and you can find engineer interviews over the past 6 years that specifically talk about how it works and why the advancements from MS make them possible.

Mobius Enigma said,
Google's Linux contributions are NO LONGER just a FORK. You need to look this up, seriously and stop just replying to me.
What a cop-out. Well, it would be impossible to look up something that is just crazy talk. Again, you have proven that you really do not know what you are talking about. Google does not have some brain slug in those who vet kernel contributions. Here's some research for you: https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/SubmittingPatches

I'm sorry you're getting so worked up about this, it's really very simple. Section 1, item 5. Section 1, item 10.

Edited by Geezy, Dec 31 2013, 7:19pm :

Geezy said,
What a cop-out. Well, it would be impossible to look up something that is just crazy talk. Again, you have proven that you really do not know what you are talking about. Google does not have some brain slug in those who vet kernel contributions. Here's some research for you: https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/SubmittingPatches

I'm sorry you're getting so worked up about this, it's really very simple. Section 1, item 5. Section 1, item 10.

You really won't look up what I am saying, so here, start with this stuff...

In 2009, Linus was ****ed at Google and the Android developers and dumped Android drivers from Linux.

This hit the wall in 2011, as Linus became very vocal about what Google was doing with Linux and not just their Linux FORK.

They made up, and by 2012, code from Google's Android FORK was being rolled into Linux itself, the trunk, not the Google Fork.

So from around 3.0-3.3, Android is now in the main Linux kernel trunk - NOT A FORK and NOT JUST SOME RANDOM SUBMISSION.

You could freaking google this, seriously and not reply with crap.

OK, and the problem with this is...? The additions were approved for a reason!

Edited by Geezy, Jan 1 2014, 12:30am :

recursive said,

7) Ubuntu has been around for over 9 years and the Linux kernel itself has been around for much longer. I don't think Canonical ever said they would abandon it and build another OS from scratch, like Microsoft did with XP and Vista. And last I checked, Ubuntu was still free for anyone to download and use as is the Linux kernel. See Android.


This is so wrong, it is embarrassing you wrote this down, believing it is true.

With a lack of basic facts like these, it is pointless to try to offer more accurate information or a different perspective, except for others that might be reading these comments.

NT started development before Linux, it is older. (Go look it up.)

Neither XP or Vista was a rewrite or even close to a rewrite.

From 1990-2013, NT has had only one (1) major change in how the kernel itself operates.

Linux itself has seen far more rewrites and core changes than NT. The 2.6 Linux scheduling changes were more a rewrite than the NT kernel has ever had to deal with.

This isn't because Microsoft is lackadaisical, it is because of the way the NT architecture and model was designed, that it could adapt without having to be rewritten. (See object based OS model. Things can adapt and be added without breaking old things or requiring a rewrite.)

-------

Beyond all this crap, you diverted my original comments about how Google is using Android and how Google treats Android and how Google will not stand behind Android if it no longer gets them what it was designed to do.

They will dump it, just as they do any other technology they don't need. If Android had Google's full support, ChromeOS would not exist or need to exist, instead Google would have retooled Android.

Android could be around for 50 years, or Google could decide to dump it this year and it wouldn't last in the main 'consumer' world for more than a couple of years unless the right company picked it up.

So, next time, at least stick to the subject and don't start offering things as fact that you could self-check on a bad wikipage.

Dude, who cares? Linux will stay Linux and Google can do whatever they want, it's their prerogative. Things were fine before they came along and they'll be ok after as well. I don't understand your problem with this arrangement.

I feel that you're trying to make a controversy where none really exists, and it's funny that you seem so affected by it when you don't even care about these products. The concern is not really needed.

Geezy said,
OK, and the problem with this is...? The additions were approved for a reason!

Wait, you gave me several replies saying this wasn't happening, and now you realize it is happening and no longer care? I'm glad you at least checked it out, so you get a +1 in my book for that.

They were approved for a reason, but they also are causing BIG problems. There are tons of issues and debates on this from implementing Android low power modes instead of 'PC' type modes to a long list of things. (PS The Android power modes are HORRIBLE in case you didn't notice.)

I didn't say contributions were being denied, anyone can contribute to linux. What you were saying was Google's contributions could harm linux, and I said the kernel maintainers wouldn't be forced to accept anything they deemed harmful.

I still don't understand what you think they are doing to subvert Linux development. Seriously, what are these problems you are referring to? You do realize the kernel can be customized on compilation and you don't have to use these modes, right? There isn't one specific configuration that everyone is forced to use. This is where the onus comes down to distro maintainers, and you can still roll your own kernel with the options you want enabled. How do you think such a variety of devices/use cases are possible?

I guess I can see how maybe someone unexperienced with the topic would think such things, maybe this isn't the type of project you are used to dealing with. I suggest you get a little more real-world info on the subject before you make wild accusations though.

Edited by Geezy, Jan 1 2014, 1:24am :

Further, IBM was warned by their customers (in and out of the enterprise) about both Windows 95 AND the forthcoming changes with Windows NT - in 1994; in fact, the biggest alarm-sounder (and arguably one of the most vocal OS/2 fanatics of the time) was no less than John C. Dvorak. How (and most importantly why) would Dvorak know? Simple enough - when Microsoft started putting together the linchpin second wave of Windows 95 beta testers, they sought people with experience testing and/or developing OS/2. Windows 95 (and, oddly enough, Windows NT 3.51 Workstation the following year) both benefitted from IBM not listening to their own customer and developer base.

Geezy said,
I didn't say contributions were being denied, anyone can contribute to linux. What you were saying was Google's contributions could harm linux, and I said the kernel maintainers wouldn't be forced to accept anything they deemed harmful.

I still don't understand what you think they are doing to subvert Linux development. Seriously, what are these problems you are referring to? You do realize the kernel can be customized on compilation and you don't have to use these modes, right? There isn't one specific configuration that everyone is forced to use. This is where the onus comes down to distro maintainers, and you can still roll your own kernel with the options you want enabled. How do you think such a variety of devices/use cases are possible?

I guess I can see how maybe someone unexperienced with the topic would think such things, maybe this isn't the type of project you are used to dealing with. I suggest you get a little more real-world info on the subject before you make wild accusations though.

Ok you don't get it.

In theory, Google can't just force something; however, they have positioned themselves with outside support to push things the Linux purists are not happy about and things that are breaking existing models inside Linux.

This is happening for the sake of what Google keeps referring to as the 'mobile' needs of Linux.

This is not something I am creating, SERIOUSLY FREAKING GOOGLE IT. This has been an ongoing controversy in the Linux community for almost two years now.

Get away from here and spend some time in the core Linux crowd. Stop replying if you won't go outside Neowin or Wiki for information.

That's your big Linux conspiracy? It may have been a big deal to some hard core kernel geeks but in reality this happens all the time. Google did fork the Linux kernel and do some quick and dirty patches to get their device up and running quickly, including kludges and shims to make things work the way they wanted to. This did not meet the Linux kernel's standards obviously, so it was rejected from the main line kernel and remained in google's fork, as it should. Eventually things got cleaned up and working properly, and as this has been happening, modifications that actually benefit Linux were merged in. This helps avoid duplication of mutual efforts on common ground.

How is this some crazy harbinger of doom for Linux? Good for the kernel maintainers for doing their job and not accepting any garbage. Good for Google for evenfually cleaning things up into a respectable state instead of building on top of some teetering catwalk of a framework. I'm sure it was nail biting to some basement dwellers but this is just the natural evolution and progression of both projects and they are both better off.

Otherwise you'd have Google relegated to their corner working on some mutant and Linux carrying on as usual.

lol Linux is not doomed because of this! This is SOP!

Geezy said,
That's your big Linux conspiracy? It may have been a big deal to some hard core kernel geeks but in reality this happens all the time. Google did fork the Linux kernel and do some quick and dirty patches to get their device up and running quickly, including kludges and shims to make things work the way they wanted to. This did not meet the Linux kernel's standards obviously, so it was rejected from the main line kernel and remained in google's fork, as it should. Eventually things got cleaned up and working properly, and as this has been happening, modifications that actually benefit Linux were merged in. This helps avoid duplication of mutual efforts on common ground.

How is this some crazy harbinger of doom for Linux? Good for the kernel maintainers for doing their job and not accepting any garbage. Good for Google for evenfually cleaning things up into a respectable state instead of building on top of some teetering catwalk of a framework. I'm sure it was nail biting to some basement dwellers but this is just the natural evolution and progression of both projects and they are both better off.

Otherwise you'd have Google relegated to their corner working on some mutant and Linux carrying on as usual.

lol Linux is not doomed because of this! This is SOP!

I am a hard core kernel geek, so yes this type of crap raises big flags in my world.

The other aspect is how Google used political tactics to get their way, even with Linus. He essentially had no choice, which is NOT what Linux is about.

One large CORPORATION using leverage to shape the core of an OSS technology is just wrong.

How did Google coerce Linus? What does Google use as leverage in such a situation? What makes you feel he had no choice? No matter where I looked, I saw nothing about that, everything seems to say the opposite.

Some example searches that turn up nothing are: "google uses political tactics against linus torvalds", "Google pressures Linus torvalds", "Google coerces Linus torvalds", "Google forces Linus torvalds", etc.

On what do you base your claims?

Edited by Geezy, Jan 2 2014, 9:19pm :