Nvidia's Tegra Designed To Match Intel's Centrino Atom

Sumner Lemon
Nvidia jumped into the market for mobile Internet devices (MIDs) on Monday with the introduction of a processor family based on the Arm processor core.

Tegra will primarily compete against Intel, which released a chip platform called Centrino Atom in April. Atom is designed for MIDs, a general name for portable computers that can be used for Web access and other activities while being small enough for users to carry them around in a pocket.

"This is a complete computer on a chip. It's got CPU, graphics, GPU, all the imaging and all the peripherals necessary to build a Mobile Internet Device," said Michael Rayfield, general manager of Nvidia's Mobile Business group.

"It's aimed at devices that want ultra-long battery life, that want to do great Web browsing, great video, run your productivity tools but not be caught into a form-factor that looks like a PC," he said.

The Tegra line comprises three chips, including the 800MHz Tegra 650 and 700MHz Tegra 600. The lineup will also include the APX 2500, an Nvidia processor designed for cell phones and smartphones that was announced earlier this year.

The heart of the Tegra chips is an Arm11 processor core from Arm. The chips also include a GeForce graphics core, high-definition video decoder and other components, allowing them to perform functions normally carried out by several different chips.

Putting all of these capabilities in a single chip allows system makers to produce smaller devices and reduces the amount of power these devices consume, allowing longer battery life.

To illustrate how Tegra can save space, Nvidia showed an Eee PC from Asustek Computer with the motherboard removed and replaced with a Tegra-based board that measured 43 millimeters square. The only other component required for the computer to function was a battery.

The Arm processor core uses a different instruction set than x86 processors made by Intel. This means that software written for a PC or laptop cannot run an Arm-based computer. But Arm processors have long been used in mobile devices and generally consume far less power than x86 processors, making them ideal for small, portable devices.

Indeed, two of the most successful devices that fit Intel's description of a MID are based on Arm processors: Apple's iPod Touch and Nokia's N800.

Sphere: Related Content

Apple TV, End of Set-Top Cable Boxes?


Richard Siklos

The announcement this week that Sony plans to work with other television makers to eliminate the need for set-top cable boxes could not have gained more affection at Fortune magazine's Hollywood digital test lab - also known as my living room.

Under the auspices of a cable industry standard called Tru2Way, Sony's plan is to sell TVs that will allow consumers to access interactive services like video-on-demand without renting and hooking up these bothersome cable boxes. (When was the last time you saw a cable box on top of a set, anyway?)

Last weekend, it so happens, I ventured into the newfangled world of gizmos designed to bypass the cable box - and cable altogether. These devices aim to bridge the computer and TV and, finally, allow people easily to download movies and shows directly from the Internet to their big screens. I decided to give the year-old Apple TV a whirl, and, as is often the case with things from Steve Jobs' elf-works, I was tickled to see that it arrived as a perfect little shiny white box with a wee remote. Hooking up the little guy was a little trickier, mostly because of the confounding array of inputs and controls on the LCD TV. (Truth is, had we not had a houseguest who happens to specializes in hooking up Apple networks, the Apple TV box would have been packed up and sent back - thanks John.)

Once up and running, it was great to use Apple's elegant navigation system to browse and order movies - and to watch trailers - compared to a typical cable-box remote and on-screen guide. The selection of movies (around 1,000) is better than what's available on cable video-on-demand, but still considerably less than the 10,000 that Netflix offers on its new set-side device. One cool feature of Apple TV: for a dollar more than the $2.99-$3.99 rental price, a lot of the latest films are available in high-definition. Podcasts, TV shows and selected Youtube videos are also available - plus the ability to look easily at photos and listen to music via my iTunes library.

Jobs has said he's disappointed with Apple TV sales, and, despite all its features, I can sort of see why. Undoubtedly cool, it was also something that most could live without - unlike, of course, their laptop, phone or music player - at least in this early iteration.

The endless parade of new gizmos that crescendos each January around the Consumer Electronics Show and Macworld highlight two vital questions for the gadget gods as well as the media mavens who are churning out the stuff to play on them. First, just because you can, does it mean that you should? For instance, because you can distribute all your content inexpensively for free online, is it really the best way to go? If you look at subscription-based cable channels like HBO, the answer would be no (or at least not yet). Similarly, the debate over whether all print media is created equal - and should be free and advertising-supported online - is still far from resolved. Of course, the specter of Napster-like piracy is a powerful inducement to play with new business models, however unproven.

Now for the second vital question: Is your product a solution to a real problem, or an answer to a problem that does not yet exist? In this category - and I know I'm inviting flaming by saying this - I'll put the well-received Amazon Kindle book reader. While it makes visceral sense that the production and distribution of books is amazingly inefficient and archaic, it's also not clear that book lovers have been yearning for a portable digital solution the way music lovers were (nor are they likely to start ripping them online).

So, back to the living room. Is a TV set that doesn't require an external cable box an answer to a real problem? Absolutely. But here again there are limits to what Tru2way can and can't do - for instance, you won't automatically be able to access the Web or a service like iTunes or Youtube from the built-in program guide. Therein lies the groaning irony: By the time the cable box is truly gone, new and improved versions of Apple TV and its ilk will probably take their place on ye olde set top.

Sphere: Related Content

No Merger For Microsoft And Yahoo, Microsoft Can't Pay

MIGUEL HELFT and ANDREW ROSS SORKIN

Microsoft said Saturday that it was abandoning its blockbuster bid to acquire Yahoo after it raised its offer by $5 billion but Yahoo rejected it as still too low.

The about-face followed a meeting on Saturday morning in Seattle between Microsoft’s chief executive, Steven A. Ballmer, and Yahoo’s chief and co-founder, Jerry Yang, according to a person familiar with the talks.

At the meeting, which also included Yahoo’s other founder, David Filo, and a Microsoft president who oversees its online unit, Kevin Johnson, Mr. Ballmer increased Microsoft’s offer to $33 a share, or a total of about $47.5 billion, from $29.40 a share. Mr. Yang told Mr. Ballmer that Yahoo would not accept an offer below $37 a share, this person said.

“Despite our best efforts, including raising our bid by roughly $5 billion, Yahoo has not moved toward accepting our offer,” Mr. Ballmer said in a statement. “After careful consideration, we believe the economics demanded by Yahoo do not make sense for us, and it is in the best interests of Microsoft stockholders, employees and other stakeholders to withdraw our proposal.”

A person close to Yahoo said the price was not the only stumbling block. The person said Yahoo was also concerned that the deal could be blocked by regulators and wanted a higher offer, in part, as a hedge against that risk.

Microsoft’s decision to walk away casts a cloud of uncertainty over Yahoo and its shareholders. The breakdown in the talks is likely to send Yahoo’s shares plunging, and Mr. Yang and his team will have to decide how to placate investors.

The company has been exploring alternatives to a marriage with Microsoft, including a partnership in search advertising with its arch rival, Google, which could lift Yahoo’s profit and perhaps its stock price. Yahoo has also discussed possible mergers with the AOL unit of Time Warner and the MySpace unit of the News Corporation. The MySpace talks have not been active of late.

But both remaining options pose challenges. A Google partnership would be likely to attract scrutiny from regulators because of Google’s dominance over online search and advertising, while AOL and Yahoo have many overlapping businesses and technologies, making a merger difficult.

In a statement issued late Saturday, Mr. Yang said, “With the distraction of Microsoft’s unsolicited proposal now behind us, we will be able to focus all of our energies on executing the most important transition in our history.”

Reactions inside Yahoo are likely to be mixed. Several senior executives favored selling to Microsoft and said in recent days that they were hoping to see a deal happen. Yet other executives were high-fiving each other for defeating Microsoft’s bid, people close to the company said.

While its stock may fall on Monday, Yahoo’s management was encouraged by discussions with its largest investors in which they urged management to not accept $33 a share, these people said. For Mr. Yang, Microsoft’s withdrawal is considered a “personal victory,” according to one person who spoke with him.

Microsoft has spent years and billions of dollars trying to build an online business. Yet it has steadily lost ground to Google in the search business and has failed to gain significant momentum with advertisers.

Microsoft’s decision to abandon its pursuit of Yahoo is not necessarily the last chapter in the three-month-old saga. If Yahoo’s shares fall significantly, the company will be under intense pressure to act, and may choose to resume negotiations.

Earlier this year, under intense shareholder pressure, BEA Systems did just that, agreeing to a takeover by Oracle soon after Oracle dropped an unsolicited offer it had made for BEA.

“This seems like a very strong but serious negotiating tactic,” said Jonathan Miller, the former chairman and chief executive of AOL. “It will be up to Yahoo to come back to the negotiating table.”

Microsoft had threatened to pursue a hostile takeover if it could not come to an agreement with Yahoo’s management. That could have involved an appeal directly to Yahoo’s shareholders and an effort to remove members of Yahoo’s board of directors.

In a letter to Mr. Yang sent on Saturday afternoon, Mr. Ballmer wrote: “It is clear to me that it is not sensible for Microsoft to take our offer directly to your shareholders. This approach would necessarily involve a protracted proxy contest.”

He added: “Our discussions with you have led us to conclude that, in the interim, you would take steps that would make Yahoo undesirable as an acquisition for Microsoft.” Mr. Ballmer took particular aim at Yahoo’s discussions of a partnership with Google, noting that it would “make an acquisition of Yahoo undesirable to us for a number of reasons.”

Microsoft’s decision to abandon its bid is likely to raise questions among investors about the judgment of both Microsoft and Yahoo.

When Microsoft made its initial bid, it said Yahoo was an important part of its strategy to take on Google. Its choice to withdraw, after threatening to force a shareholder vote, may prompt its shareholders to doubt its resolve. At the same time, many Microsoft shareholders who did not want the company to bid for Yahoo may be relieved and send shares of Microsoft higher on Monday.

For Yahoo’s shareholders, the abandoned bid may create even more uncertainty over the company’s management. Many Yahoo shareholders would have preferred that the company accept the offer of about $47.5 billion, which was roughly 70 percent higher than the company’s market value at the end of January.

Over the last three months, the companies had infrequent talks, according to people involved in the negotiations from the start who were not authorized to be quoted by name.

Frustrated by the lack of discussions, Microsoft sent a threatening letter to Yahoo on April 5 suggesting that Microsoft would try to force a shareholder vote to circumvent Yahoo’s management if the companies could not reach an agreement within three weeks. At the same time, Microsoft began seeking a partner for its bid, holding talks with the News Corporation, controlled by Rupert Murdoch, as well as AOL. Both of those companies had been holding concurrent negotiations with Yahoo about their own partnerships.

On April 15, Microsoft and Yahoo held a secret meeting in Portland, Ore., in which the companies discussed “social issues” — like who would run the Yahoo unit if it were folded into Microsoft — but no decisions were made.

Three days later, bankers for Microsoft and Yahoo held a conference call in which Yahoo’s bankers suggested that $40 a share would be a “slam dunk” that would get the deal done. A week later, Microsoft’s deadline passed without Microsoft proceeding with a proxy contest as it had threatened. Microsoft decided that it would still try to seek a friendly deal and that a hostile bid could impair the value of Yahoo.

Last Tuesday, three days after the deadline, Mr. Ballmer and Mr. Yang had several telephone conversations as Yahoo sought to reach a deal to keep Microsoft from turning hostile. In those talks, Mr. Yang overruled his bankers, telling Mr. Ballmer that Microsoft did not have to go as high as $40 a share to get a deal done, and suggested that they begin negotiations.

The next day, Microsoft and Yahoo began talks in earnest, pulling in dozens of bankers and lawyers to try to reach a deal. Mr. Ballmer flew to Yahoo’s headquarters in Sunnyvale, Calif., where Mr. Yang said Yahoo would be willing to accept nothing lower than $38 a share. Each dollar per share is equal to about $1.4 billion.

Microsoft pushed back, saying it would pay no more than $33 a share. The talks culminated in a final meeting on Saturday in which Mr. Yang flew to Seattle to meet with Mr. Ballmer. Mr. Ballmer stuck to his $33 price, and Mr. Yang said Yahoo’s board would accept $37 a share. Hours later, Mr. Ballmer sent Mr. Yang the letter saying Microsoft would withdraw its bid.

Sphere: Related Content

Friendsters, Southeast Asia's Top Social Networking Website

LING WOO LIU

If they recall it at all, most Americans probably remember Friendster as the also-ran of social networking sites. Although the site had a head start when it launched in 2002, its founders squandered their lead when software glitches and slow access times prompted users to flee to the now hugely popular MySpace and Facebook. Friendster seemed destined for the scrap heap, remembered mainly as the company with the smiley-face logo whose owners in 2003 turned down a $30 million buyout offer from Google.

But Friendster never died — it just moved. Thanks largely to an accident of geography, it's become Southeast Asia's top social networking site. Asia is home to three-quarters of Friendster's 58 million users, compared to 17% in the U.S., and it's the source of 89% of the site's traffic, compared to just 8% from North America. While its bigger rivals MySpace and Facebook are just discovering the land across the Pacific, Friendster is already the most-visited web site in the Philippines and Indonesia, and the second most-visited site in Malaysia and Singapore, according to rankings from web tracker Alexa. In 2006, Friendster hired a 20-person engineering team in the Philippines, and last September, it opened a sales office in Singapore. Friendster's second life came almost by accident. The company started in Mountain View, California, before moving its headquarters two years ago to San Francisco, "the most Asian of U.S. cities," says Friendster president Kent Lindstrom. As a result, thousands of early adopters were Asian-American Californians who formed a nucleus that quickly expanded across the Pacific as users invited friends and relatives in Asia to join the network. Until last fall, Friendster was available only in English, but that didn't impede its growth in Southeast Asia, where colonial history has left high English proficiency and romanized Asian languages. Still, the site's new home across the Pacific came as a surprise to management. "We never envisioned it'd be growing like this," says Lindstrom.

Friendster's international reach has become a competitive advantage, for the company as well as for users. Five months after releasing her first album, Malaysian pop singer Karen Kong uploaded a video of a recent concert performance onto her Friendster page last summer, attracting two million viewers, mostly from Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei, the Philippines and Indonesia. Her manager, Fred Chong, says that even though the record label created an expensive web site for the artist, Kong's Friendster profile is "way more powerful than any official page," attracting up to 800,000 page views per month. With more than 150,000 friends linked to her page, Kong has the biggest following of any Friendster user. "Her profile just exploded," says Chong. "For us, it's been a miracle."

Friendster's trying to pull off another miracle. It's reaching out to the 210 million Internet users in China, where the company's user base is already "in the hundreds of thousands," Lindstrom says. Last September, the company began rolling out foreign language capabilities: traditional Chinese for Hong Kong, Taiwan and other Chinese communities around the world, followed by simplified Chinese for mainland China, Spanish, Japanese and Korean. Unlike MySpace, which has launched separate, localized sites for different countries, Friendster is keeping all of its worldwide users on one multilingual site, according to Lindstrom, whose own Friendster profile shows pictures of him in Tiananmen Square and on the Great Wall.

Friendster may have a tough time staying ahead of its wealthier American rivals, which are starting to look to Asia for growth, as well as formidable local competitors such as Shanghai-based 51.com, which already has 90 million subscribers, and Xiaonei, a Chinese replica of Facebook. Less than 10% of visitors to MySpace and Facebook live in Asia, according to June 2007 figures from Internet research company comScore, but that is set to change. MySpace now operates separate sites in Japan and China, and has plans to launch sites in several more countries this year, including South Korea and India. Though Facebook has yet to release foreign-language versions of its site, comScore data shows the number of Asian visitors to its main site spiked more than 3,000% between August 2006 and August 2007.

The privately-owned Friendster, which is operating on $25 million in venture capital, says it's not intimidated by these billion-dollar giants. "We're not surprised that people are competing in our space," says David Jones, vice president of marketing at Friendster. "That's validation of the industry we helped create." And the Americans who've written them off? "Most of the world is outside the U.S.," says Lindstrom. "We're very globally focused." Stiffer competition in Asia is surely on the way, but until then, Friendster has plenty of reasons to smile.

Sphere: Related Content

Abuja Technology Village: Is Nigeria There Yet?

Prof. Manny Aniebonam
Especially for those in the profession who had for many years wished that both government and private sector will come together and fashion out the necessary vehicle for leap frogging the giant of Africa in the 21st century. But then again, one is reminded of several lopsided ICT programs by the Nigerian government, staring with NUNET to the launching of a limited use satellite, and one must then wonder:

• Is Nigeria REALLY serious about designing, developing, deploying and maintaining a sustainable Technology Park in Nigeria?

• Besides quoting the huge amount of money required to build the park, and showing up on television to announce the concept, are the primary stakeholders in the project part of the discussion for what is really needed, by whom, where, and how such a project could be developed for maximum benefit to the country?.

• Finally, given a well defined set of objectives for building a centralized technology park in Abuja, have we considered alternative concepts such as decentralized technology parks, with broadband linkages, as a viable option?.

These questions are raised, not as arguments against the best intentions of the government to undertake this project, but as an additional thought provoking contribution by a circle of Nigerian IT Professionals in the Diaspora whose interest it is that a viable, functional and world-class Technology Park befitting Nigeria must not only be conceived but expeditiously built as a viable tool for accelerated economic development, not as a kangaroo show simply aimed at scoring a few political points.

To examine the role of Technology Parks (TPs) in economic development we must first of all fixate the concept of what we understand by Science or Technology Park. According to the International Association of Science Parks (IASP):

A Science Park, according to AISP definition, is an organisation managed by specialised professionals, whose main aim is to increase the wealth of its community by promoting the culture of innovation and the competitiveness of its associated businesses and knowledge-based institutions.

To enable these goals to be met, a Science and Technology Park stimulates and manages the flow of knowledge and technology amongst universities, R&D institutions, companies and markets; it facilitates the creation and growth of innovation-based companies through incubation and spin-off processes; and provides other value-added services together with high quality space and facilities.

This definition, which is now broadly accepted and used, encompasses not only the different models currently existing in the world, but also other labels and expression such as Technology Park, Research Park, Technopole, Technology Precinct, Learning Village, Science City etc. Although there may be some differences among the projects under these labels, such differences are not as significant as to constitute different projects or "categories", but rather different subtypes of one concept. Therefore it is perfectly possible in this definition to substitute the expression "Science Park" by any of the other expressions mentioned.

From this definition we can infer a first and important conclusion: TPs are tools for creating wealth, which have a social purpose, a purpose which Nigeria and all of Africa must see as a means of augmenting our foreign earnings if well implemented.

Having reached this point it is important to underline the main feature of Technology Parks:

They accomplish their "social purpose" (that is: "to increase the wealth of their community") by serving businesses, by helping companies to become more competitive in the global economy. In other words, the real "stars" of the TPs are companies, businessmen and entrepreneurs that make up the private sector. TPs are there to support them, and by so doing they will also serve and benefit their entire communities and societies.

In the last 30 years or so TPs have spread all over the world, and many different models have appeared, especially in the Americas, Europe and Asia. Perhaps because of their name (some times referred to as Science Park/Technology Park) there has been some confusion about the nature and meaning of these projects. These models, differences and types must be studied and understood before embarking into developing the appropriate model for the Abuja Technology Park. In essence, TPs not only deal with high-tech industry; they also deal with advanced services, with Research and Development processes, with the creation of new companies through incubation and spin-off processes, with technology transfer and technology commercialization. But most of all TPs deal with innovation: that is, with all the processes, methodologies and entrepreneurial attitudes that aim at constantly adding value to all the different elements of companies' activities: products, production processes and techniques, management, marketing, etc. In today's global economy it is only through innovation that companies can ensure their progress and their place in the market and can become strong enough to survive.

If innovation is crucial for single companies in Nigeria, it is also of the greatest importance from the Regional and National points of view. In more advanced economies, the political, social and economical authorities strive to create and foster the necessary conditions, infrastructures and programmes to allow and to encourage entrepreneurs and companies to be innovative, and not only today, or tomorrow, but permanently innovative. Innovation is a non-stop path. In the words of the famous Greek philosophical principle Heraclitus -that "Everything changes, nothing is permanent" , we see a dialectical nature of innovation.

By creating a favourable climate for innovation, developing country such as Nigeria and regions will allow their industries and companies to become stronger, to make more profits and to generate more employment. And by doing so, they will reach their most important objective in economic and industrial policy: to increase the social welfare, and the level of life of their citizens. In other words, to build better life conditions and social fairness.

To explore what the role of TPs is today in economic development, we must not only agree upon a definition of Science Park, but we must also have a broad picture and understanding of the frame and scenarios in which TPs operate.

Currently around the globe, we are not witnessing "the end of history", as some would have it, but rather a spectacular "acceleration of history". This new era has received many names, such as "Information Age", "Information Society", "New Economy", "Knowledge Economy", etc., and if TPs must be used as tools for economic development, a Public-Private Partnership must be designed to carefully fashion out the role of Technology Park constructs in support of the tenets of Nigeria's economic development strategies.

Today we are witnessing an amazing acceleration of historical processes and of social and cultural changes, very much based on the breathtaking IT revolution and, therefore, it is pertinent to ask ourselves about the relevance of TPs within this new world order, a world order:

• which is global and yet crowded with anti-globalisation movements (the paradox being that most of this anti-globalisation movements are themselves global),

• which has created a new environment, "the cyberspace", which we call virtual simply because it is not geographical, but which is, in fact, quite real and allows not only information and communication to take place, but also action,

• which raises doubts and questions about the role and legitimacy of states and governments,

• which is increasingly dependent on science and technology, and consequently on knowledge,

• which demands, more than ever before, a very high level of training and education and very solid skills from the individuals so that they are able to perform efficiently,

• which is dramatically changing the type of work, and worker and company profiles,

• which has promoted networks and networkers to a pivotal position,

• which has given birth to a new species -the 'globapolitans', who are like modern centaurs - half physical, half virtual, speaking languages and living in airports and in websites…

In other words, a whole new set of rules and situations is resulting in an interwoven world and society of astonishing contrasts, lights and shadows, which many find threatening and others, myself included, risky but also at the same time intriguing and fascinating, although not necessarily fair.

What then is the role of Technology Parks in the new World Order?.

After more than 30 years of existence of TPs as a world-wide movement, there is of course much to be said about their role and their nature. I shall try to briefly summarise a few important points.

To begin with, two things should be emphasized:

1. Technology Parks must be regarded as a tool, as the means to achieve certain goals and objectives, rather than as being an objective in itself.

2. TPs have proved to be very powerful elements for Regional Development, provided the adequate model is chosen for a given nation, Region or city.

At this stage it is important to underline once more that the best way in which TPs can be really effective in promoting National or Regional Development is by focusing on companies and entrepreneurs. The main aim of a TP is to help companies to become more innovative, and therefore more competitive, and in general, to increase the economic level of their region or municipality. Through global perspective, we all know that in today's global economy, the key words for economic success are technology, R&D, and knowledge management, and most of all innovation. We also know that one of the pillars in which innovation is based is research, and a large portion of the research potential of a Region or country is to be found in Universities and High-educational institutions. TPs are the bridge between Universities and companies. They are the "translators" of the often-different language and different interests of the Academics and the entrepreneurs.

It is indeed important to realise that by helping the businesses in the ways described above, TPs are also very significantly helping the universities to increase their own competitiveness, to better fulfil the new role that today's society demands, namely to be active agents of economic development, and last but not least to increase their income via research contracts with the Industry. This then raises the question: where are the Nigerian tertiary institutions in the design, planning, and implementation processes of the Abuja Technology Park?. In fact, how many first-class institutions, universities or national centers of excellence are within 20 miles radius of the planned Technology Park?.

In general, and to further provide the planners of this important project some KPI's at this planning stage, TPs must provide the following elements and services to their clients:

o High-quality and adequate infrastructures (space, landscaping, communications and transportation accesses, good location, good facilities and buildings, etc.)

o Good common services (office facilities, meeting rooms, parking, cafeteria, restaurant, hotel accommodation, security, etc.).

o Good value-added services (telecommunication infrastructures, quality access to Internet, videoconference, consulting services, commercial support to the companies, etc.)

o Efficient links to University and Research institutions, to the researchers, lab and equipment facilities, etc.

o Incubation units, to encourage and facilitate the creation of new local companies.

o International links and contacts to facilitate the access of their companies to international networks.

o Technology / knowledge monitoring and observatory, helping their clients to be updated, to know what their competitors are doing, to know where are the sources of new and relevant technologies and knowledge, etc.

In short, a TP must provide their companies and entrepreneurs with a range of services and infrastructures that will help them to better concentrate their efforts in becoming more competitive and in saving costs by making proper use of the synergies and scale-economy generated by the TP.

In other words, a TP must add value to their tenant companies. If they do not add value to the companies, they must not be considered TPs, but just simple conventional industrial settlements without a much lesser impact from the Regional Development point of view within the frame of a world knowledge economy.

Technology Parks are a means of supporting any knowledge economy, and fostering market-oriented technological development. They typically accomplish this by bringing together academic, business and governmental organizations into one physical location, and supporting interrelationships between these groups through incentives established by government policies. Since academic institutions tend to draw technically qualified personnel to a particular region , locations immediately near these institutions become prime candidates for such parks.

As possible models for Technology Parks which Nigeria may understudy for possible global best practices, two examples, from both the developed and developing economies are worth citing:

o The University City Science Center in Philadelphia is owned by a consortium of more than thirty academic and scientific institutions. It is physically located immediately adjacent to both the University of Pennsylvania and Drexel University. Established in 1963, it is both the oldest and largest urban research park within the US. More than two hundred technology and research-based organizations are located within the Science Center, and approximately 7,000 people are employed there. The Center was the world's first business incubator, and has also been the most successful - it has launched approximately 250 private sector companies during the past three decades.

o In China, the Zhongguancun Science and Technology Park is the first state-level high-technology development zone. There are many research institutions and universities with within its borders, including Beijing University, Tsinghua University, and institutes of the Chinese Academy of Science. And also, around one third of the members of both the Chinese Academy of Science and the Chinese Academy of Engineering can be found within the Science and Technology Park. The Science and Technology Park currently has five zones in which houses not only Chinese enterprises, but also local subsidiaries of internationally recognized firms such as IBM, Microsoft and Mitsubishi. In the Tenth Five-year Plan period (2001-2005), several major construction projects are being launched, including software, biotechnology/medicine, telecommunications and other high technology industries..

Both of these parks have developed and implemented a series of policies designed to provide assistance to fledgling enterprises and organizations, thereby laying an important foundation for establishing world-class science/technology entities. Such an approach could prove very useful in promoting much-needed new and emerging technologies for sustainable development, particularly for meeting needs in developing countries.

Technology Parks (TPs) such as the planned Abuja Technology Village, must ensure that their strategies for future growth and development match the features of the knowledge-based digital economy (KE), (generally referred to as the New Economy), which in turn is embedded in a bigger context: the global Information Society (IS).

Understanding the main features of this new context, and being able to make the diagnosis of the current social, economical and political trends, is vital for choosing the models and strategies that will enhance the role of TPs in the Knowledge Economy.

Proposed Strategy for establishing the Abuja Technology Village

Given what we now know about the need for a sustainable Technology park for Nigeria, and our interest in seeing that such engagement is executed in the best national interest, it is worth pitching in our conclusion of this piece, some viable roadmap that this Abuja Technology Village planners may consider:

1. Review the Experience of Existing Science and Technology Parks

There are many different Science and Technology Park entities in many countries, two of which we have cited above. Some of these operate as independent organizations, some are attached to municipal governments, and some have national and international ties. Moreover, some have a narrow "high-tech" focus, while others have a broader technological base. The immediate task facing the Architects of the Abuja Technology Village is to: review the nature of these various parks based on global best practices; identify their institutional and/or organizational structure; estimate their "success" in developing and fostering new technological entities; and determine what fraction of these activities might be considered relevant to the Abuja Technology Village project in conjunction with international partnerships for sustainable development

2. Establish a Plan to Appropriately Cite the Technology Village

When these analyses have been completed, a development plan for the Technology Village is to be produced, outlining: the location of the park based on well informed logistics ; the nature of that facility; its technical focus; funding arrangements; financial viability; and short, medium and long term goals for new and emerging technological development. This plan should then become an instrument for promoting the role of business-science partnerships in utilizing new and emerging technologies for sustainable development - an important goal of both the Beijing Forum and the World Summit on Sustainable Development. With the announcement that the Technology Village should be cited in Abuja, it is necessary to re-evaluate this decision based on sound technical and logistic reasoning rather than political or sociological machinations. The purpose must drive the location; not the other way round as that will certainly lead to another federal white elephant.

3. Target Sustainable Development Technologies

While a wide range of technologies might be appropriate for sustainable development efforts, it may be appropriate for the Abuja Technology Village to become more narrowly focused. Some existing Science and Technology Parks in developed countries have addressed solely the information and communications technologies (ICT). It may be appropriate for the proposed entity to focus on clean energy technologies, eco-environment protection, cleaner production technologies, water efficiency technologies, agriculture, health issues, or other topics of immediate concern to developing countries. As an ICT professional, it is easy for me to recommend that Information and Communication Technology should be the main focus of the Technology Village. Nonetheless, a decision to target ICT as the main focus of the project must be informed by the potential income to be realized through creation of skills, products, and services at the Village capable of earning desired foreign income for the country.

4. Estimate Financial Needs and Develop Sustenance Program

When a potential institutional arrangement for the Technology Village is developed, the next step will be to estimate the financial needs necessary to establish the project, and to sustain its future efforts. The key is not in the initial financial cost of development but in maintenance of the facility for at least 20 years, something that hardly figures in many Nigerian projects. As noted above, a wide range of models for the development of such parks exists, and the first task will be to help select a successful one for this effort. Given the international nature of this effort, comparable seed funding is required from multilateral international agencies or bilateral donors, as well as from private industry. With the claim that Nigeria is ready to kick in 50 billion Naira in Seed money for the Abuja Technology Village, it remains to be seen to what extent this seed fund will go in establishing the necessary infrastructure needed for the take of the Technology Village.

5. Get the buy-in of all stakeholders into the Technology Village

Information on the development of the Technology Village must be shared with both private and public stakeholders, many of whom will subscribe to be partners, service providers, tenants or customers. Not only is this intended to promote their participation, but also to increase capacity building for the establishment of various other allied projects for sustainable development, in particular for states and local governments who would need to be linked to the Technology Village.

In conclusion, the idea of a Nigerian Technology Village is a needed shot in the arms of ICT development in Nigeria. There are, however, much planning to be done, more analysis to be conducted, several consultations and consensus to be built, and above all, major mobilization of critical human resources to be made. Until the right people from the private sector are engaged into this project, empowered to take ownership of different component of the initiative, with government as an enabler, there are reasons to believe that even this noble dream will go the way of several other projects of the past - yet another smoke screen of this federal government.

About the Author:

Prof. Manny Aniebonam is the National President of NITPA, The Nigerian IT Professionals in the Americas, based in Washington DC USA (www.NITPA.org). He is also the President/CEO of AfriHUB LLC, USA (www.afrihub.com) , with several years experience as a Professor of Information Technology at major US universities, including Howard University, and The George Washington University, Washington DC, USA. Further writing and lectures by Prof. Manny Aniebonam on Digital Access and ICT Solutions for developing economies are available online from www.aniebonam.com .

Sphere: Related Content