On Thu, 22 Feb 2001, Gregory Alan Bolcer wrote:
> An office working on P2P could
> collaborate instantly. If one employee is at
> lunch with a cell phone and another is at
> the airport with only his Palm Pilot, they
> could simultaneously edit a power-point
> presentation on a third employee's personal
Sounds like client (palm/cell) server (win32) to me, but what do i know.
> Napster gives anyone with access to the
> Internet the ability to download songs for
> free. The songs come from other Napster
> users in the process called file sharing.
> And file sharing is the essence of P2P.
Bullshit, the essense of P2P is that the USER IS IN CONTROL. When said user
is in control, they certainly will never pay anyone else for the privalege.
> P2P is expected to make Internet searches
> more penetrating because files won't be
> limited to static information posted on the
> Web. Instead, it should allow Web
> browsers to poke into files of other
> computer users to find more telling information.
one word - scaling.
> "With P2P, all these different components are equal peers
> communicating over the Web, and the network effect goes up
wild idea - isn't it more realistic to say it goes up to:
benefit = users * [avg users "buddy list" size on protocol]
My "buddy list" is about 1-2k people - friends, associates, and lists -
spread across about a dozen protocols - aim, icq, email, majordomo, etc.
My benefit is limited to the number of people in my world using the product,
certainly not exponential. Of course, if you consider the protocol TCP...
> CAN IT MAKE MONEY?
No, of course not. Everyone knows this. Everyone I talk to admits this
OPENLY to others provided they aren't a VC or a member of the press. (see
above about who is in control)
> "You're using the distribution power of the network without losing
Ah, the holy grail... *chuckles*
> "It would be incorrect to say that the information is unbreachable even
> with Digital Rights Management," said Robert Weber, chairman of the
> industry advisory board for TrustData, a digital-rights firm in San
> Jose. "If someone provides me access to their machine, it's conceivable
> that, if I am skilled, I can compromise that data."
Not conceiveable, provable possible and usually easy. Why is everyone
treating this like it's a solveable problem? Oh wait, i'm not supposed to
say that am I...
> So far Endeavors hasn't licensed its technology, which embeds P2P
> software in any machine with access to the Internet and in a Windows
Has anyone? Everyone is too busy trying to lock everyone into their
proprietary protocol and namespace because THAT is how you make money.
> P2P could gain immeasurably from having a company such as software
> giant Microsoft, with its limitless customer base, include P2P
> software in its Windows package.
Hrm, Microsoft was and is real big on the whole making money idea, why would
they do this? They are adding more and more rights management stuff in every
> Kan said P2P will catch on as soon as people get over the notion that
> information can only travel in one direction.
Did someone suddenly remove all the NATs and firewalls and not tell me? Last
I checked the net is becoming MORE one-directional every day.
Gotta love the fictional world the press lives in :)
- Adam L. "Duncan" Beberg
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 27 2001 - 23:18:15 PDT