Slashdot points to a Forbes article on Michael Stonebraker's new company "to tackle one of the toughest jobs in computing--analyzing huge amounts of streaming data on the fly."

Stonebraker calls his product a stream processing engine. On top of that engine, customers write applications to handle specific tasks, using a version of Structured Query Language that traditional database programs use. Streambase's version is called StreamSQL and is designed to handle data on the fly.

Unlike traditional database programs, Streambase analyzes data without storing it to disk, performing queries on data as it flows. Traditional systems bog down because they first store data on hard drives or in main memory and then query it, Stonebraker says.

"Relational databases are one to two orders of magnitude too slow," says Stonebraker, who is chief technology officer at Streambase, a 25-person outfit based in Lexington, Mass. "Big customers have already tried to use relational databases for streaming data and dismissed them. Those products are non-starters in this market."

For now Streambase is focusing attention on financial services companies, which hope to do things like track how well traders are performing on a real-time basis, rather than aggregating trades at the end of the day and analyzing them overnight.

A bigger opportunity involves processing real-time data feeds generated by sensor networks and RFID tags. A military contractor wants to use Streambase to keep track of soldiers and vehicles in the battlefield. A casino in Las Vegas is considering using Streambase to track the performance of individual gamblers.

The New York Times writes:

As chief technology and chief information officer, Mr. Eslambolchi is the technological strategist behind AT&T's ambitious turnaround plan to become a data transmission company selling an array of software products like network security systems - with phone calls being just one of many digital services.

For the first time, voice calls generated less than half of the revenue in AT&T's corporate business group in 2004.

A few years ago, this approach was heresy at AT&T, where connecting calls was the cornerstone of the former monopoly's business. But with falling prices, growing competition and cheap new Internet phone services from start-up companies, AT&T's future depends more than ever on vigorous cost-cutting and focusing on its worldwide data network.

The way to stem the slide, Mr. Eslambolchi contends, is to merge the hundreds of computer systems AT&T created over the years. With phone calls and data now transmitted increasingly via high-speed data lines using Internet protocol, the need for multiple systems is also diminishing.

AT&T is also using more software to route more of its phone and Internet traffic. By getting rid of bulky circuit switches, the company is significantly reducing costs connected to operating old-fashioned switching stations.

Mr. Eslambolchi is also pushing engineers in Bell Labs to develop software for computer firewalls and security systems that detect viruses days before they attack a corporate client's servers.

ZDNet UK News writes:

TI has created a single chip that integrates most of the computing functionality needed by a mobile phone. Putting the digital baseband, SRAM, logic, radio frequency (RF), power management and analogue functions on one piece of silicon will, TI says, make it cheaper and easier for manufacturers to build entry-level phones.

Typically, mobile phones contain one chip devoted to handling the RF, as well as other chips for other functions. A high-end phone might have a separate chip for polyphonic ringtones, for example. But these chips are only one part of the overall cost of manufacturing a phone, with the battery and screen also key factors.

Dean Bubley, founder of analyst firm Disruptive Analysis, believes that it could help to push the cost of making a basic mobile phone as low as $25 within a couple of years, which would mean handsets could actually be given away.

WSJ writes:

For more than two decades, software vendors have been in control, selling tech-hungry companies a steady stream of new products and services largely on the vendors' terms.

No longer. In the four years since the collapse in corporate technology spending, the tables gradually have turned -- to the point that now, it's the buyers who are clearly calling the shots. They are wrangling for better prices, demanding software that's more reliable and secure, and resisting software companies' push for constant -- and expensive -- upgrades.

All this represents a seismic shift in power to tech buyers from sellers. Limited tech budgets have given chief information officers more negotiating clout with vendors, who know that many buyers already feel burned by disappointments with previous purchases. Meanwhile, open-source and subscription Web-based software services have emerged as more-serious competitors to the established software giants, putting downward pressure on prices. Combined, these trends mean that customers are demanding -- and getting -- more and better software for their money.

Voxilla looks back at 2004 and offers the following predictions for 2005:

1. At least one major Internet telephony service provider will merge with another.
2. Skype will become a more open network or perish.
3. Asterisk will have some competition.
4. NAT Traversal for SIP will be solved elegantly.
5. A standalone, non-provider locked VoIP adapter will be released and retail for under $50 USD.
6. The four US RBOCs will offer VoIP to their residential DSL customers.
7. Major Internet telephony service providers will announce peering agreements.
8. Cordless IP phones will be introduced in 2005.
9. The press realizes that VoIP is International.
10. The VoIP revolution will be televised.

[via Russell Beattie] Anita Wilheim writes: about mobile design: "It's not about extending the desktop. It's not about interacting with the desktop. It's about making the mobile device a central unit and it's about placing a focus on the whole system... the phone and the desktop (maybe even the TV and radio). It's about figuring out when to push, when to pull, when to alert, notify, sync, and require confirmation. It's mostly about throwing out many of the interaction principles we've learned about and creating ones that make sense for that time and space."

As would have been expected with a post with the words “Microsoft” and “fear” in the title, there was a huge discussion that followed – both on Mike’s own blog and on Slashdot. There were about 700+ comments. I have compiled some of the interesting ones below.

Note: I have corrected some of the typos in the original comments.

osoman: it sounds more like going back to dumb terminals and mainframes… for example, the cable company will have the “server” computer and connected in every house are the dumb terminals… which are more powerful than today’s computers, but 0 maintenance!

tehf0x: this is really the mainframe concept, but the reason mainframes died is because home users came along, and with the bandwidth and latency available, a mainframe for home users wouldn’t be possible. Now this is a possibility and I don’t see why for 80% of users who check mail and browse websites this wouldn’t be a logical solution, plus a dumb terminal could easily cost around $100, which would only encourage more people to get computers at home.

jon: The only problem with this article is that it missing the massive advances in Microsoft’s Windows Terminal Services computing environment, and their new extended relationship with Citrix and their MetaFrame suite of remote access products.

Eric: Don’t count Microsoft out. MS is way more focused on systems management and large scale computing than any of the current open source offerings. Microsoft’s acquisition of Connectix and their virtual PC technology was a huge boost to their server virtualization efforts. Combine that with the technology they acquired from Citrix, and they are well poised to work in the environment you describe. Why? Because exactly of your main point - it’s not about the OS, stupid! It’s all about the apps. And here is where the MS/Windows camp stomps the heck out of everyone else. All the applications that people want are already there, with a familiar interface in the “MS Space".

Jonathan: What about the confidentiality and integrity of my data? I wouldn’t want to have my personal data – financial files, MP3s, whatever – on somebody else’s server. If my data is on a central store then someone else, or any number of unknown and unknowable someone else’s, could access it…With physical control, I have at least some expectation of privacy. With a terminal I simply do not.

Scott: If you take a look at recent history, you will see that the price of the MS OS has not risen as dramatically as its apps, especially MS Office. Microsoft knows this is it’s ‘cash cow’ and will exploit it to the fullest extent. Just as was the case with hardware, the OS is becoming more and more of a commodity every day. You can thank Linux in part for that… Microsoft would love nothing more than to move to an ASP model as it provides a regular revenue stream by charging say, a monthly fee for the life of the product vs. the current one time flat fee… This model is ideal as it provides MS the ability to patch / upgrade the application(s) in real-time vs. relying on its massive user base to do it.

mhack: The kinds of applications that the average user will have will also change dramatically in the future. They won’t just be running MS Word or checking the odd stock quote. Videoconferencing, virtual reality gaming, and home automation will all be a part of the future consumer’s life. Their home system will consist of a number of separate computer hosts linked together by local area networks. Centralized network administration will seek to find a useful niche for some segments of consumers, but the need for a variety of capable and sophisticated operating systems for local host machines isn’t going to go away, it’s going to increase.

Tomorrow: Comments (continued)