Read more on Cloud Computing
February 20, 2008 1:15 PM PST
Newsmaker: Gates explains why Microsoft needs Yahoo
See all Newsmakers- Related Stories
-
Microsoft's big bid for Yahoo
September 10, 2008 -
Memo to Microsoft: Yahoo's A-list
February 13, 2008 -
Microsoft buys speech recognition company Tellme
March 14, 2007 - Related Blogs
-
Gates on Yahoo: It's the people
February 19, 2008 -
Keyboard, mouse to get company in Windows 7
February 19, 2008 -
Cultural differences loom large in Microsoft-Yahoo
February 1, 2008 -
Microsoft wants to bring Surface home sooner
February 4, 2008
(continued from previous page)
What are some of the big technical challenges to getting to the type of technology that you talk about? When you think of the top two or three technical hurdles that we're working against today, what are some of the things that jump to mind?
Gates: Obviously, natural user interface requires software. I was just reviewing the next version of Windows and the great advance they make in that. Will that be enough that everybody will obviously want to use it? Well, it didn't happen last time except in modest numbers, a few million, but that's still not mainstream. We've got vision software in the Surface, and we're trying to get that not just into retail stores but into homes and offices.
You've got touch, which is going to come in, and that's fairly inexpensive. We worked with some partners to do some really great things on the touch technology. So, I think that can move mainstream fairly quickly.
(In) speech recognition, it's many decades of work and building up the databases and just learning where the mistakes happen to get made. That was part of the great thing TellMe had. They had been doing directory assistance for a lot of the big phone companies, so their database of information of how people utter things was quite broad. And applying machine learning to improve the quality of that was a great synergistic opportunity. So, there are huge software improvements, and, of course, we need our chip guys to give us the memory and speed to be able to execute these natural interface things.
So, I'd say that's one whole area that's very important. There are some things about how we write software and prove its correctness...We've got to make it a lot easier to write complex software, not just because we want to write bigger things, but because we're relying on software in a more fundamental way for key infrastructure and private information.
Will the next version of Windows move natural language interface beyond the niche thing, or do you think it will still be a niche thing when we're talking about whatever comes after Vista?
Gates: The version after Vista is a big step forward in terms of speech. It's a big step forward in terms of ink. It's a big step forward in terms of touch. I'd say that the likelihood is that touch will become mainstream on certain form factors very quickly, because we're working hand-in-hand with the hardware companies.
With speech and ink, it's a little harder to say. I'm a big ink lover, and so I'm hoping that that's where every student decides, yep, this is the time I want to get not just a portable Windows machine but a machine that I can put in notebook mode and use the pen as well. We have OneNote, which has been a great advance in terms of showing people the application software that works with that. That's what these schools are building their curriculum around. Now we're getting feedback on that. Anoop Gupta has our educational vertical--our group that is taking and doing enhancements of OneNote and doing enhancements to SharePoint to try and drive that. So, with ink I'd say it's unproven. I would vote yes, but I have a known bias. 
See more CNET content tagged:
Bill Gates, Yahoo! Inc., engineer, engineering, chairman
26 comments
Join the conversation! Add your comment (Log in or register)
Not a good mix.
Windows servers.
Maybe they've reached the same conclusion as everyone else and
have decided to grow their business on a Linux/Unix infrastructure.
Could be they need the Yahoo! guys' expertise to save them.
If you think this deal would be good....all I can say is too bad Sucker, cause your gonna regret it !
Ex-Yahoo Microsoftie: Wonderful. I've been working on this exciting new internet application that . . .
B: Wait, wait. This idea of yours, will it run exclusively on Windows servers? Is it optimized solely for Windows PCs? Will it protect and preserve our Windows and Office monopoly?
E-Y M: Well actually no because frankly it leapfrogs the Windows infrastructure, which is frankly kind of old technology.
B: Oops, on second thought your idea sucks. Forget about it. If it doesn't protect and preserve the Windows-Office monopoly it's not going to see the light of day.
E-Y M: Can you tell me again what highway goes from Redmond to Mountain View?
make Microsoft a place where people want to work instead of
stealing them from another company? After Yahoo has turned them
down and everyone's pretty much in agreement that they don't
want to work for Microsoft, how could any good come out of
Microsoft taking over the company so aggressively?
I was thinking what about 14 billion and increased year on year decided by inflation.
1) To Create a higher distribution of billionares and to work a higher representative group.
2) to create a stronger Kasian Bilionare market (Especially usful when considering the amount of managment minds needed to solve Earth affairs and make the future space market work properly not to mention to give a better stand point politically.
This way it could actually social capitalistlically work that infact Billionares had a strong but Fairer voice and Gained more Bang for there buck in an even more sustainable way.
Uncapping this leads to more potential for market inbalance and less balanace that could allow better bang for buck.
If you held everyone down at a couple of mill then you would risk falling into a burocratic nightmare and if you went down further than that you could risk having very low market dynamics indeed and less cultural spread.
So just as much as there should be a clever Minimum wage stratagy and good fair population control in the future we should consider Capping Fairly billionares but not in a way that would prevent good strong industrious minds from achieving good potential just to bolster dynamic strengh at that range to let more solutions occur in the world.
Either way the issue must be addressed and handled with care the last thing anyone need is a nanny or to great a market distortion or other poor Market equlibrium nightmares the last century of industrial revolution was far bad enough in those respects.
"What If you capped Billionares for two resons.
I was thinking what about 14 billion and increased year on year decided by inflation.
1) To Create a higher distribution of billionares and to work a higher representative group.
2) to create a stronger Kasian Bilionare market (Especially usful when considering the amount of managment minds needed to solve Earth affairs and make the future space market work properly not to mention to give a better stand point politically..."
In such a case some very smart engineers and other commercial folks had better get going with the "CONCORDE" real fast. ;-) !
Microosft the growing Software solutions group.
These two ventures are heavily dependent on very strong engineering communities.
Yes indeed somthing like yahoo or google need a damn good Engineering communty and Backbone but it Needs highly lingustically trained experts in everything and Managers who are Masters in Nash Equilibrium alwys looking to socially capitalise and balance the professional load.
It's not the same.
Infact if MSN dosent support technical solutions well in the future it could be to the detriment of the wider Engineering community.
And if Microsoft dosent push at the Heels of the software community with others at their heels it could stiffle progress an cause the dreded world of generic products and Burocracy(I can hear the Jaw theme tune in my head for some reason).
Anyway my point you need more than just those very important engineers for that one mr gates.
Microsoft is successful at packaging and marketing the works of others via its monopolistic powers, but breakthroughs? There's none that are have really helped mankind.
Microsoft's cancer-like tendrils that contaminates mankind is the only breakthrough that it made.
2 It has been noted many home users are not able to function well with Vista. What do you thik of that?
3. Many have noticed that much software does not work well with Vista but works excellant with XP. What is your reply to that?
4. Do you use Vista (honestly now) on your home computers?
5. What is the dominent operating system being used at Microsoft?
6 If it is Vista, how are the employees putting up with the abuse?
I could go on and on, but I am sure you got the drift
6.
1. While not perfect, neither is the flavor of the month *nix variants. For instance, loading a damn adobe add-in, you have to go to the damn command line. Duh.
2. I have 2 vista laptops, 1 vista media center, multiple vhd files (with various test OS implementations), Windows Home Server, XBOX 360 Elite. My stuff works 'cause I am not an idiot, and I do not generalize like the kiddies on this site.
3. How much does not work in Vista? What, huh? Name 1? Again, try to install software on the *nix of the month that is not on the distro (talk about Microsoft bundling???) If Microsoft bundled as much as Apple or *nix geez, you guys would be more rabid.
4. Yes. Well. So does my Dad, Uncles, Wife, Friends, co-workers, etc.
5. On the desktop, Windows Vista is deployed throughout the majority of the company. The only complaints are generally driver related.
6. Abuse? How silly is that. Use Ubuntu or any of the other distros and talk to me then.
7. You are uninformed, and look stupid generalizing something you obviously do not know anything about.
Why? Because modern teaching, like medicine, is still a people-based enterprise when so much of the process could be computer-assisted, even directed.
If teaching is defined as conveying a skill set of facts, and then learning applications of those facts; math, reading, then a computer is much more able to convey a programmed learning environment that moves students as fast as they are comfortable in going, doesn't tire or get angry at the process of correction, even motivation. An education environment designed around the technical and productive capability that the computer could deliver would be far and away the greatest advance possible. And then teachers could do the real job of teaching, helping students learn how to think; rational and reasonable thinking through the Socratesian-teacher process has everything to offer for children that we expect to be the leaders of the next generation. Our current system is focused on the wrong things, at the wrong time, even in the wrong place. Why couldn't peer networking, all live and in real time be part of the education day? Why can't we "wiki" our education process into real collaborative learning? Does it have to be in a classroom?
It's time for Education 2.0.
As for medicine, it's the same thing. We have the technological tools to enable medicine to absolutely leap forward in the health care arena; we're talking just adaptive processes, some good software, and a different mindset. The current drive towards centralized, personal medical records is an important part of the process. What precedes that record keeping and medical evaluation of what happens over time, historically, is more important.
How often do we evaluate our health? Could we do it daily with the right software-bio interface? When you get up in the morning would it be valuable for your system to record your blood pressure, temperature, heart rate and a hundred other things automatically? "Joe, your blood pressure continues to increase. It should be checked."
Could we do it monthly, every six months completely, top to bottom in a health diagnostic facility designed just for this purpose? I'd love to be able to walk through a computerized diagnostic scanner, have my blood, and eyes, and hearing checked through the automated process, get to the "checkout" desk, where Doctor Bill would advise me on the "state of health" I'm enjoying, and provide whatever information necessary regarding lifestyle choices.
Invasion of privacy? Driving force for hypochondriacs to get their health "fix"?
Maybe, but how about the other 99% that would appreciate the diagnostic and preventative care information that would offer?
And so much more would be aided by the efficiency that technology would offer. Computer-aided diagnostics in some experiments are already "right" over 95% of the time, and don't "miss" information and symptoms that generate a real diagnosis. Doctor's time should be reserved for the treatment process, the consultative process, the personal health care teaching process.
Health may be personal, but that doesn't mean it can't be efficient!
It's time for Medicine 2.0 as well.
Now we're talking real missions for computer technology!
NOW, we're starting to see what real societal improvement could look like!
The company pioneered many basic workflows and techniques like "Ultimatte" "quad split" "non-linear video editing" and others. In 1975 Industrial Photography started a column called "videography". I wrote them a "cease and desist" letter. They responded by publishing Videography Magazine. I sued them and the judgment of the court came down to them proving first authorship, which we held hands down.
During discovery phase of the trial, the magazine's lawyers found one letter I had written to the Hollywood Reporter saying "videography is an important generic term". When the judge saw that it was a disaster for "Videography Studios. An out of court settlement was agreed upon for "chump change" and we faced an amorphous future.
The magazine flourished as it catered to the ever growing universe of "videographers". As PCs began to emerge and home VCRs, lazer discs, CDs, MTV, digital still camera, low priced camcorders etc. I realized that the videography had grown well beyond the sphere of the magazine spawning competition getting close to "googol" proportion. I gave the keys to the studio to my backers and withdrew into the realm of theory in 1982.
By 1986 I realized that videography meant something much broader than just "video making". Combining Latin video "knowing" with Greek "writing" it described the entire universe of bit map and vector based content production and distribution that included all things digital. I published a videography treatise which was reviewed by linguists and verified as reasonable. In 1996 the Miller Freeman Company, which by than owned the magazine published a book entitled "The Age of Videography". [generic usage]
I knew at that point that the grand confluence of digital communications technologies fit the into the purview of videography. To put it simply "Best Buy" stores are videography stores and the "cloud" around it.
So how does Google get away with using their tradename as a verb. [You can google "videography lab" using Yahoo search]. How come they get to work both the generic and commercial side of a word. Furthermore "googol" was a mathematical term of art as early as 1920 described as "10 to the hundredth power", a fact that is I am sure is not lost in Google's business plan.
A lot of people have given Microsoft a bum wrap for heavy handed competition, but Bill Gates has been consistent in his vision and usage of his trade name. His vision of taking on Google is not monopolistic IMO and the algorithms for search need to be more diverse or we will all be homogenized into a bunch of "vidiots". Yes, we own a blog called vidiots.us
If Microsoft sans Gates can withstand the "slings and arrows of outrageous fortune" that is coming soon, it will take engineering elegance on a par with Apple or Google which PCs and Microsoft have never achieved. It will take a leap in vision that I don't hear in his interview. I fear that Microsoft, with all it's assets and grand intentions will drop like a dinosaur absent such vision.
Godspeed to Gates and Company,
Bob Kiger
Videography Lab