|
|
Industrial Light and Magic Deploys 600
Intel-Based Workstations
By Charles King
Industrial Light and Magic (ILM), a division of
LucasFilm, revealed that it has purchased and deployed 600 Pentium 4-based
animation workstations running Linux, continuing the company’s planned
migration away from SGI RISC-UNIX workstations to Intel-based systems. ILM
began using Intel-based systems on Star
Wars: Episode II — Attack of the Clones, and continued with Men In Black II and Minority Report. In addition, ILM is
using Intel-based systems in the development of Star Wars: Episode III, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, The
Hulk, and Terminator III.
According to Intel, its systems are currently being used for animation and
special effects work by studios including DreamWorks, Weta Digital, Walt
Disney Pictures, Digital Revelations, and Sony Pictures Imageworks. In
addition, several of these studios have announced plans to either employ or
evaluate Intel Itanium-based systems for future projects.
ILM’s deployment of 600 Intel-based workstations
offers yet another example of how things have changed (and will continue to
do so) as what were once considered lower-end, commodity-based, largely
consumer products develop capabilities that allow them to enter and compete
in increasingly higher-end markets. From a historical standpoint, the
animation and special effects space has long been dominated by SGI, whose
RISC-UNIX based products played pivotal roles in virtually every special
effects masterpiece (or monstrosity) produced by Hollywood over the past
decade. SGI’s dominance began to slip a bit, however, as the enthusiasm and
deep pockets of gamers and game developers drove the creation of PCs with
increasingly powerful graphics engines. As those high-octane graphical
capabilities accelerated and matured, coupled with the ongoing evolution of
Intel’s processor family, it was only a matter of time until Intel-based
products could offer price/performance qualities that caught Hollywood’s
attention.
Does this mean that RISC-UNIX-based products are
over the hill and gone? Hardly. While Intel-based products have found places
on special effects desktops and in rendering farms, most studios still use
RISC-UNIX machines for more precise final animation work. SGI and other
RISC-based graphics vendors may not be flat on the mat quite yet, but we expect
the migration of commodity-based platform products to continue upward in the
special effects biz, with Intel’s Itanium processor family members gaining
increasing ground in server installations and final rendering systems.
Overall, we see ILM’s announcement as a PR-laden win for Intel and
Intel-based product vendors, a painful black eye for SGI and a warning to
other RISC-based graphics aficionados that Hollywood is not likely to remain
as friendly a town as it once was long, long ago and far, far away.
|
|
|
More Security FUD
By Jim Balderston
The Business Software Alliance (BSA) announced the
results of a survey it conducted earlier this year in which some 600 IT
professionals were asked about U.S. business security and the chances of
cyber attacks on enterprises in the wake of 9/11. According to the survey, 62%
say the risk of a major cyber attack on U.S. businesses has increased since
9/11, and 47% believe that a major attack will occur in the next twelve
months. At the same time, the survey indicated that 58% of IT professionals
believed that U.S. businesses’ ability to defend themselves against attack
had increased, but that 45% thought that are not prepared for a major attack
today, despite improvements. The survey also notes that IT pros believe there
is a gap between threats and ability to defend against them, and that the gap
has either remained the same or grown since 9/11. The survey also found that
71% of IT professionals said enterprises should spend more money and time
defending against major cyber attacks than they did in proofing themselves
against Y2K glitches. The survey also listed what enterprises are doing, including
the installation of antivirus software, firewalls, etc. In a press release
accompanying the study, BSA representatives urged that the Congress include
network security as part of the Homeland Security initiatives underway in
Washington, citing risks to power grids, emergency communications systems,
and financial systems.
Enough is enough. This relatively unremarkable survey
— noting that vague and undefined security concerns remain on IT
professionals radar screens — is being touted as a warning that the U.S.
government better up its commitment to “cyber” security lest evildoers take
advantage of the Internet and shut down power grids or unlock dam floodgates,
or the like. In our mind, this is just the kind of FUD that makes The Little
Boy Who Cried Wolf look like a piker. In many ways, this type of effort goes
beyond simply self-serving and into the realm of irresponsible.
Let’s take a look at the survey itself, for a
moment. In a rather ambiguous way, it attempts to link ongoing concerns with
IT security with the 9/11 attacks, and implies that evildoers have somehow
increased their ability to do harm to U.S. business interests. What the
survey really says is that some IT pros believe the risk of some sort of
attack is higher than it was before 9/11. One suspects that any survey asking
a security question — be it physical or electronic — would elicit a similar
response when coupled with the events of 9/11. The survey offers no data
beyond IT personnel beliefs. Furthermore, the study offers no definition of
“major” when describing a possible attack, only that respondents express
concern about it. The survey also illuminates the obvious: IT security gets
better every day, but is not where it should be and gaps remain — or grow in
slowing economies — just as they did before 9/11. All of which is not to say
that information and communication systems security is unimportant. It is and
remains so. But addressing questions like national infrastructure security
should be done in a level-headed, rational fashion that does not conjure up
images of children’s fairy tales.
|
|
|
HP Erases Dell Printer Deal
By Charles King
Hewlett Packard announced this week that it has
discontinued its agreement to supply HP printers, cameras, and scanners to
Dell Computer. According to news accounts, HP stated that the basis for the
two companies’ relationship was invalidated by Dell’s plans to sell its own
Dell-branded printers. Speculations regarding those plans arose in May 2002
as the result of a Bear Sterns research report. Dell has claimed that it is
still evaluating its options, but last week company president Kevin Rollins
stated in an interview with the Austin American-Statesman
that the company would likely introduce a Dell-branded printer by the end of
2002. Dell began selling HP products in 1998.
Depending on one’s point of view, HP’s decision to
step away from its relationship with Dell qualifies as a mere temper tantrum
by a company besieged by its ablest competitor or a practical strategic move
by a company in the midst of reinventing itself after completing a remarkable
merger. Tantrum fanciers are likely to point to the PC market where,
depending on whose projections you believe, HP currently holds a solid lead
(due to the Compaq merger) or a nominal lead, or is tied neck and neck with
Dell, which vaulted into the lead a few months before the merger. To these
folks, HP’s decision is an essentially hopeless gesture that will do little
to slow the inevitable ascendancy of Dell back to its primary position in PC
sales. Those who favor the practical strategy scenario would likely claim
that HP is simply playing the game smartly and aggressively. The printer deal
made sense at one point, but Dell’s decision to bring their own name-brand
printers to market (along with their less than adroit strategic footwork in
concealing their tracks) gives HP little choice but to step away. Some might
suggest that every sale is a good sale, but this notion is outweighed
(apparently in HP’s mind, anyway) by the inherent dangers of sustaining your
enemy while he is preparing to attack you on a new front. Beyond the basic
drama of the announcement, two things are certain. The loss of Dell’s sales
of HP printer will do little to dent HP’s commanding lead in printer sales,
and the loss of HP should not impede Dell’s ability to sell PC/printer
packages, since one presumes printer vendors including Lexmark, Epson, Xerox,
and Canon are ready and waiting to take up the slack.
That said, should HP’s
desertion of Dell be considered little more than a tempest in a teapot? More
like a message in a bottle, from where we stand. In the heady days prior to
the HP/Compaq merger, we wrote that one benefit of the deal would be HP’s
unique ability to develop and deliver integrated computing and imaging
packages for both consumer and business customers. That may seem a minor
issue to some, but to our minds as PC’s and related devices become
increasingly commoditized, vendors who are able to offer customers complete
product sets and one-stop support services stand to reap long term customer
loyalty and financial benefits. We expect that this concept is at the heart
of Dell’s decision to jump into the printer business, but at this juncture HP
is the only vendor that can seriously ponder or deliver such offerings. From
that standpoint, HP’s decision to discontinue its relationship with Dell
makes perfect sense, since doing so plays to its own strengths and
illuminates its chief rival’s weaknesses.
|
|
|
Above the Law (That Applies to Others)
By Jim Balderston
Congress will consider new legislation that would
allow copyright holders, specifically the music and movie industries, to
actively disrupt peer-to-peer networks and disable PCs involved in violating
copyrights, while granting them immunity from state and federal laws
governing such behavior. According to published reports, the proposed
legislation — authored by Representative Howard Berman (D-CA) and Howard
Coble (R-NC) — would allow copyright holders to perform hacking activities if
they have a “reasonable” basis to believe that file swapping of copyrighted
material is taking place. The proposed legislation states that copyright
holders must give the Attorney General’s office a complete description of
what measures it intends to take to disrupt P2P networks, but such
descriptions will remain secret. The bill also reportedly limits the amount
of damages individuals can recover through lawsuits if the hacking activity
damages their computers or data stored therein. Lawsuits would only be
allowed if approval was granted by the Attorney General, according to
reports. The bill is expected to be taken up later this year.
As more and more details of the music and movie
industries’ legislative lobbying efforts come to light, we find ourselves
more and more dumbfounded by their obvious desperation in the face of new and
evolving consumer habits. While the industry takes baby steps forward to
embrace new revenue models — like offering back catalogue tracks for download
on subscription service websites — they take giant leaps backward in an
effort to protect a distribution model that may be largely made irrelevant by
the Internet and changing consumer behavior. This legislation — prompted and
wholly supported by the entertainment industry — is such a step. A more
sanguine approach, we believe, might include offering more content online,
whether in subscription download models, pay-per-view/hear, or for free. This
would surely decrease the incentives for piracy. Such a move should also be
coupled with retail price cutting for hard copies of titles. Such is the
stuff of “paradigm shifts” and inflection points. The entertainment industry
has the right to protect copyrights, but it will be forced by the market, not
by legislation, to deal with the realities and opportunities that technology
brings.
This particular legislation recognizes none of these
changes. The mind reels at the possibilities for abuse. Not only will all
actions be largely secret, but consumers who are inadvertently damaged by
industry hacker actions will have little or no recourse but to lump it.
Corporate self-governance has proven to be largely a failure in the
marketplace, and we have no reason to believe that somehow the entertainment
industry will rise above the temptations of unfettered freedom to mess with
any and everyone they have the slightest suspicion of possessing or sharing
copyrighted material. While supporters of this legislation continue to argue
that technology-driven theft must be fought with technology, we still must
point out that law enforcement and prosecutorial behavior — including the
disabling or damaging of another’s property — has traditionally lain in the
hands of law enforcement agencies who serve under some level of public
oversight. Of course, the Law of Unintended Consequences is sitting eagerly
around the corner, just waiting for the industry to go out and harass
millions of moderately dissatisfied consumers, turning them into an angry
consumer movement that will have ever-increasing technological tools within
their reach. In such a future, we suspect P2P networks will end up the least
of their worries.
|
