Project Christine “Definitely Still In The Works,” Says Razer

[PyroDonkey]

 

Maximum PC inquired whether or not Project Christine was dead and received a response from Tan who said, “Project Christine is a work in progress – which is why we called it a concept project in the first place. We do believe that for Project Christine to be a success, it will require global OEMs to come together to push innovation in the PC forward instead of obsessing over short term profits. Like the many other projects within Razer, we take a long term view on innovation and Project Christine is definitely still in the works.”

 

http://www.maximumpc.com/project_christine_%E2%80%9Cdefinitely_still_works%E2%80%9D_says_razer_2014

[Fred Castellum]

I really don't see how this will work out, and pick up steam. 

[Misanthrope]

I don't think obsessing over short term profits is the reason nobody is getting on board. This is very deceitful of Razer, they're trying to change industry standards, standards nobody has to pay for, for proprietary ones so they can monopolize the licensing to create PC parts. 

Razer needs a little history lesson: The reason why we have standards today and there is a PC market to begin with is because IBM basically opened up their specs to everyone. Once people didn't have to commit to a locked in hardware platform things took off. Why would be willingly go back to locked in hardware specifications copyrighted by someone? Do you really think hardware manufactures would go "Yeah ok, I'll pay you for the privilege of creating parts compatible with your unproven new standard" ?

[mr moose]

I don't think obsessing over short term profits is the reason nobody is getting on board. This is very deceitful of Razer, they're trying to change industry standards, standards nobody has to pay for, for proprietary ones so they can monopolize the licensing to create PC parts. 

Razer needs a little history lesson: The reason why we have standards today and there is a PC market to begin with is because IBM basically opened up their specs to everyone. Once people didn't have to commit to a locked in hardware platform things took off. Why would be willingly go back to locked in hardware specifications copyrighted by someone? Do you really think hardware manufactures would go "Yeah ok, I'll pay you for the privilege of creating parts compatible with your unproven new standard" ?

 

 

Yes, but every piece of technology we use today started as proprietary technology owned by an entity.  That is not to say Razor won't try to charge, but It is also just as likely that if they do charge it could be so little so not as to effect the development and ultimate standardization of said technology. Just  think about wifi, blu ray and blue tooth as examples of proprietary technology that is either free or cheap enough that it may as well be free.

[zanduh]

Christine won't go anywhere. It's a performance boost that will only entice enthusiasts but alienates enthusiasts by eliminating customization. The average consumer doesn't care enough about how modular their computer is so long as it turns on. OEM's aren't going to spend their time and money developing new industry standards that only benefit Razer. 

[Misanthrope]

Yes, but every piece of technology we use today started as proprietary technology owned by an entity.  That is not to say Razor won't try to charge, but It is also just as likely that if they do charge it could be so little so not as to effect the development and ultimate standardization of said technology. Just  think about wifi, blu ray and blue tooth as examples of proprietary technology that is either free or cheap enough that it may as well be free.

 

The tech? Yes, but not the form factors or the CPU for a PC. That's what keeps the wheels turning here: People can be competitive without taking a huge investment to introduce a brand new platform every time. Then in comes Razer trying to be oh-so-smart and break the party so no one could choose different form factors that are pretty much necessary to keep innovating. i.e. If GPU manufacturers would have to go to Razer to get a longer GPU that draws extra power it would involve Razer having to upgrade their standard, waiting for them to get to it, etc. It would grind innovation to a halt because now GPU manufactures have the ability to say "Fuck it make it 15 inches long, 3.5 PCI slots wide and put another secondary power input, if it's fast enough people will just make or buy bigger cases and more powerful power supplies" 

[mr moose]

The tech? Yes, but not the form factors or the CPU for a PC. That's what keeps the wheels turning here: People can be competitive without taking a huge investment to introduce a brand new platform every time. Then in comes Razer trying to be oh-so-smart and break the party so no one could choose different form factors that are pretty much necessary to keep innovating. i.e. If GPU manufacturers would have to go to Razer to get a longer GPU that draws extra power it would involve Razer having to upgrade their standard, waiting for them to get to it, etc. It would grind innovation to a halt because now GPU manufactures have the ability to say "Fuck it make it 15 inches long and put another secondary power input, if it's fast enough people will just make or buy bigger cases and more powerful power supplies" 

My point still remains, other tech like blue tooth, bluray and wifi are all patented but the repective owners either don't charge or charge so little it is not an issue. There is nothing to suggest (other than razor being razor) that this will be the same.

[Misanthrope]

My point still remains, other tech like blue tooth, bluray and wifi are all patented but the repective owners either don't charge or charge so little it is not an issue. There is nothing to suggest (other than razor being razor) that this will be the same.

 

Yeah there's also nothing to suggest Facebook will ruin Oculus Rift, other than Facebook being Facebook. 

Even failing that your parallel doesn't works: Is not the same to give you an operational standard that you can fit into whatever physical form you'd like than choosing whatever operational standard you deem necessary but having to physically constrict it to make it work with a very closed up form factor. 

And to top it all off you mention bluray completely forgetting about HD-DVD and how the industry was forced to take sides to see which format would prevail. In the end it end up hurting everybody and by the time there was enough confidence for bluray mass adoption it was already outdated when compared to digital delivery now. If anything that particular example shows you why open standards are a better idea.

 

[zanduh]

My point still remains, other tech like blue tooth, bluray and wifi are all patented but the repective owners either don't charge or charge so little it is not an issue. There is nothing to suggest (other than razor being razor) that this will be the same.

 

The three pieces of tech you just cited aren't restrictive though. That's the huge difference. Motorolla isn't going around demanding manufacturers to standardize circular PCB's to better utilize the space in the moto360. It's a niche form factor just like Christine. Standardization should only occur when the market has an overwhelming long-term demand for something or it is mutually beneficial for all developers and manufacturers involved

[dizmo]

While I get why people would like the idea of Christine, I don't think it's ever going to take off.

For starters, the modules would be pretty expensive. Take a look at what Apple charges for their "Mac parts" and you'll get an idea on pricing. The companies have to alter their design to conform to the Christine set up.

It's such a small market, I bet a lot won't even bother. You're targeting a subset of a subset: the person has to want the Christine tower, and then want the video card (for example) that you're offering.

I think a lot of us here build our own systems. I wouldn't want this. I like building them. It's easy. I don't see the need for modularity. Not only that, but you're basically locked in once you buy it, and you have to like the design they come up with.

Want a new case? Nope, sorry.

There's also Razers refusal to use any color but green. So much for personalization. Yes, you could paint it, but that's besides the point.

I think even if the do launch it, sales will be so poor that it never makes it to a third year.
 

[mr moose]

Yeah there's also nothing to suggest Facebook will ruin Oculus Rift, other than Facebook being Facebook. 

Even failing that your parallel doesn't works: Is not the same to give you an operational standard that you can fit into whatever physical form you'd like than choosing whatever operational standard you deem necessary but having to physically constrict it to make it work with a very closed up form factor. 

And to top it all off you mention bluray completely forgetting about HD-DVD and how the industry was forced to take sides to see which format would prevail. In the end it end up hurting everybody and by the time there was enough confidence for bluray mass adoption it was already outdated when compared to digital delivery now. If anything that particular example shows you why open standards are a better idea.

 

I never forgot about hd dvd, they were both introduced and bluray survived, it's a patented technology yet still isn't cost prohibitive so whats your point?  we pay something like 20c per item we buy with a bluray player in it, If razor charged the same that would add a total $2 to the cost of pc, big deal. hardly worth complaining about considering the other advantages it has for non enthusiasts.

 

 

The three pieces of tech you just cited aren't restrictive though.

 

 

That is exactly what I am saying, they aren't restrictive, that's why I used them as examples.  They are all owned technologies just like christine, but there is not prohibitive cost to their use.  Christine is an owned form factor, but that does not automatically mean it will be cost prohibitive.

 

 

While I get why people would like the idea of Christine, I don't think it's ever going to take off.

For starters, the modules would be pretty expensive. Take a look at what Apple charges for their "Mac parts" and you'll get an idea on pricing. The companies have to alter their design to conform to the Christine set up.

It's such a small market, I bet a lot won't even bother. You're targeting a subset of a subset: the person has to want the Christine tower, and then want the video card (for example) that you're offering.

I think a lot of us here build our own systems. I wouldn't want this. I like building them. It's easy. I don't see the need for modularity. Not only that, but you're basically locked in once you buy it, and you have to like the design they come up with.

Want a new case? Nope, sorry.

There's also Razers refusal to use any color but green. So much for personalization. Yes, you could paint it, but that's besides the point.

I think even if the do launch it, sales will be so poor that it never makes it to a third year.

 

 

Razor were talking about many different companies making components for it, which means there will just as much competition for them as any ATX pc.  We don't know how big or small the market is.  Also because many different companies will be making parts that are all interchangeable, you will actually be much less locked in.  Don't like your HDD, go buy a bigger one and plug it in, want to upgrade your GPU, just buy a bigger one from a different company and swap them over.

[Misanthrope]

We don't know how big or small the market is. 

 

 

Yes we do, it's comments like this that would discourage people from replying, I'm done here.

[mr moose]

 

Yes we do, it's comments like this that would discourage people from replying, I'm done here.

 

What does that even mean?  how could you know how big the market is for Project Christine? have you done research?  There's none publicly available that I can see, so how would that discourage anyone from replying?