(continued from previous page)
way down, and that's where you really see widespread computing breakthroughs.
The hardest thing, by far, is communications, then the hardware costs. We can make sure the software cost is never really holding things back--that it's a small-enough percentage. In educational things, we do a lot of software giveaways. We've been very generous to make sure that when people first come into computing, software doesn't hold them back.
That's interesting--the mesh--because that way, people can actually share a connection.
Yeah, the hard thing is the back haul of the Internet out of the village. Within the village, sure, you can mesh that up, but if people are going to be streaming video, you need quite a bit of capacity there. So it's not a simple problem to solve; we've got actually multiple research locations at Microsoft working together on this mesh thing, and we've had a lot of conferences working with third parties, so we're optimistic that that's the thing that can solve the thing that holds back developing-world computing.
In recent years, there's been a lot of people clamoring to reform and restrict intellectual-property rights. It started out with just a few people, but now there are a bunch of advocates saying, "We've got to look at patents, we've got to look at copyrights." What's driving this, and do you think intellectual-property laws need to be reformed?
No, I'd say that of the world's economies, there's more that believe in intellectual property today than ever. There are fewer communists in the world today than there were. There are some new modern-day sort of communists who want to get rid of the incentive for musicians and moviemakers and software makers under various guises. They don't think that those incentives should exist.
And this debate will always be there. I'd be the first to say that the patent system can always be tuned--including the U.S. patent system. There are some goals to cap some reform elements. But the idea that the United States has led in creating companies, creating jobs, because we've had the best intellectual-property system--there's no doubt about that in my mind, and when people say they want to be the most competitive economy, they've got to have the incentive system. Intellectual property is the incentive system for the products of the future.
I'm wondering, too, as you look forward 10, 20 years from now--what are the big problems that technology industry really needs to focus on?
Well, the technology business provides tools of empowerment, tools to let people be creative, to communicate, and there's no end in sight and certainly a decade's worth of work to make the ease of use and the power of these tools better. If you just think about meetings and the ability to record the video and the audio of the meeting--create a transcript, notify people, have them see the parts they care about--it's crummy today, and that's solvable.
When people want to manage a project with many companies involved--keeping data confidential, tracking and knowing what's going on--that's very crummy today compared to what it can be.
We, with our Office franchise, are committed to making workers far, far more productive than they are today. And believe me, we're not running out of ideas. The phone is inefficient today with phone tag and busy signals. E-mail is inefficient today with seeing stuff that's less relevant and how you organize it--bringing in the blog-type capabilities is very important there.
There's plenty of room to do dramatic horizontal innovation that will drive productivity in every sector of the economy. Whether it's scientific discovery, health care, engineering, marketing, sales--you name it--the tools around Windows and Office are not even half of what they will be.
If you take that and map that into the home, that's where you get the idea of movies, music, games. There, again, we're not even halfway to what we can deliver in that digital lifestyle.
136 comments
Join the conversation! Add your comment (Log in or register)
Just because someone says something, be it Bush or Gates,
doesn't make it true.
"Iraq has weapons of mass destruction"
"Well, no one invests more in security of their browser than what
we do on IE"
As for Gates....
Well, you have no idea how much time and money Microsoft sends on IE. The plain truth is that spending time and money just does not mean a quality product. If IE were done correctly, 6 would have fewer problems than 5.5 instead of having more and XP would less than 98se instead of more. MS probably does spend more on IE, but that really doesn't mean anything.
These people stated that Microsoft's final-goal was to fundamentally redesign the PC to be nothing more than an, entirely Microsoft-controlled, delivery-system for "rented content", -where even the hardware obeyed Microsoft, not consumers.
These people also predicted that, eventually, all consumer-choice would eliminated, by this fundamental redesign, because it would leave no room for any product or service not sanctioned, and licensed, by "...the holder of all the keys", ...Microsoft.
These people were, at best, ...ignored, or made fun of. At worst, these forward-looking critics of Microsoft's actions, were actively attacked and demonized.
Now, Bill Gates freely admits that the "X-Box", in Microsoft's vision, is the computer of the future. Furthermore, he bluntly states that Microsoft's goal is, in fact, for the entire electronics-industry to finally, exclusively, adopt Microsoft's concept of,
...Microsoft Hardware (the locked-down "Trusted Computer"),
...Running Microsoft software (a Microsoft OS and Microsoft-allowed applications),
...which Microsoft can change or disable at any time ("Automatic-Updates" without choice)
...using Microsoft DRM (which cannot, under any circumstance, be controlled by consumers),
...to deliver Microsoft-chosen content (thanks to MS-DRM and mandatory MS-Licensing),
...over Microsoft-controlled networks (since Microsoft's "Trusted Computing" is already being implemented by network-hardware companies, in order to, "...protect the Internet, and other important networks"),
...all of which, by the way, would have to be 'perpetually' paid-for by the consumer (remember Microsoft has been claiming for years that consumers don't actually own the products they have bought).
And, thanks to the recent extensions of "Intellectual Property Rights" (which most people are finally realizing is little more than an underhanded-charade), ...the imposition of such anti-consumer concepts as "computer-use as a Service" (not a 'tangible' product-sale) is now steadily moving within Microsoft's grasp.
I could almost hope that they try to do this, as it would completely burn off this unsightly and large anal wart on the arse of computing.
beleaguered PC community today when recently IDC
confirmed that the PC accounts for less than a
fraction of 1 percent of all computers. Coming
on the heels of the latest Netcraft survey which
plainly states that the PC has lost even more
market share, this news serves to reinforce what
we've known all along. The PC market is
collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly
exemplified by falling dead the other day at
CES.
You don't need to be a Gates to predict the PC's
future. The handwriting is on the wall: the PC
faces a bleak future. In fact, there won't be
any future at all for the PC because the PC is
dying. Things are looking very bad for the PC.
As many of us are already aware, the PC
continues to lose market share. Red ink flows
like a river of blood. IBM is the most
beleaguered of them all, having recently sold
off its PC business to China.
[okay, my limited creativity is at an end, so
I'll skip to the end]
Fact: The PC is dead.
No More Microsoft!
<a href="http://www.de-gier.info/">Daily Mozilla News</a>
To me it seems Mr. Gates is more in touch with the world today then I thought before. Be interesting to see what microsoft will do for the industry in the next 10 - 20 years.
How he can say that people who want all business to operate and compete on a level playing field are communistic is a sad statement. Of course Gates doesn't want a level playing field, MS would be shoved out or at least severely marginalized out of nearly every market they are in.
The only good thing that MS constantly produces is comedy.
And to Bill: sure Bill, you have many great ideas in mind regarding IE and that should be the reason why you kept them for more than 4 years and security updates was the only area innovations have occured on.
/Donny
Did this lead engineer of Firefox write this to a blog or was it and html document the same as what your reading right now? I would say that it was a html document stored on a server called weblogs. You can't advertise "blogging" to me as I understand that a blog is the same thing as any other form of browser viewable web document. Just as this document is also a blog.
SF Gate News article / Associated Press AP:
Bill Gates touts 'digital lifestyle,' despite technical bugs
RACHEL KONRAD, AP Technology Writer
Wednesday, January 5, 2005
(01-05) 21:19 PST LAS VEGAS (AP) --
Despite suffering technical glitches that prompted jokes and
guffaws, Bill Gates promised Wednesday that Microsoft Corp.
would help millions of consumers stay seamlessly plugged into a
world of digital music, movies, video games and television
shows.
But while promoting what he calls the "digital lifestyle," Gates
showed how vulnerable all consumers -- even the world's
richest man -- are to hardware and software bugs.
During a demonstration of digital photography with a Nikon
camera, a Windows Media Center PC froze and wouldn't respond
to Gates' pushing of the remote control.
Later in the 90-minute presentation, a product manager
demonstrated the ostensible user-friendliness of a video game
expected to hit retail stores in April, Forza Motor Sport. But
instead of configuring a custom-designed race car, the
computer monitor displayed the dreaded "blue screen of death"
and warned, "out of system memory."
The errors -- which came during what's usually an ode to
Microsoft's dominance of the software industry and its
increasing control of consumer electronics -- prompted the
celebrity host, NBC comedian Conan O'Brien, to quip, "Who's in
charge of Microsoft, anyway?"
Gates, who was sitting next to O'Brien on a set staged to look
like NBC's Late Night set, smiled dryly and continued with his
discussion.
Gates also announced several partnerships with
telecommunication companies such as SBC Communications Inc.
and television networks.
Microsoft and music network MTV last month inked a deal that
will eventually allow people to send cable programs from rock,
pop and country music channels and Comedy Central to their
laptops, hand-held computers and other devices.
Although he accepted guffaws from audience members in the
theater, the technical hiccups didn't prompt Gates to engage in a
hard-hitting analysis of computer reliability and security.
It will likely take Microsoft years to understand the consumer
electronics market and produce simple, glitch-free products for
consumers' living rooms, analysts say.
"Microsoft was founded by programmers and is still run by
programmers, and the bias of programmers is that software can
do anything," said Paul DeGroot, an analyst at Kirkland, Wash.-
based Directions on Microsoft. "While Microsoft's goal is to turn
the PC into a superhub that does everything -- plays music,
works as a cell phone, stores your photos -- they're running up
against the fact that most people buy discreet components that
do particular things."
This was also announced on Channel 4 KOMO News - ABC in
Seattle, WA. as well...
Redmond, we have a problem...
Excuse me? Is this an implication that communists are the main people against government-granted monopolies that disrupt the free market economy? Yes, such as (software) patents?
And how does this compare with the fact that the EU commission is trying to jump through hoops currently to please Microsoft, among others, and disregard the will of the democratically elected parliament in the software patent issue?
I don't like to underestimate Bill's intelligence, therefore I must conclude that he's simply talking PR bull. And, in the spirit of respecting his intelligence, I must also assume that we both know that him resorting to reality-challenged communist rhetoric is rather desperate.
First they ignore you. Then they fight you.
No. It is an acknowledgemet of the similarity between anti-patent arguments, and the communist belief that people may not retain the right of ownership for products they invent and build.
As far as your "disrupting the free market economy" goes, I think you have it completely backwards. Anybody is free to disrupt the market economy. Release an amazing new product, and you will potentially introduce tremendous disruptions. Or how about this... introduce a large collection of products that people don't pay for... that is far more disruptive to the market economy. Communistic governments try to retain tight control over a market economy. Free markets allow market players much more freedom.
I think Bill's analogy was correct. Unfortunately the term "communism" is a loaded term that most people don't interpret correctly because they have an emotional response. "Ignorant" is another good example. Call somebody ignorant, and they are insulted because they do not adhere to the true meaning of the word.
I am still left asking why any dvr would need an internet connection for simply recording a movie. My vcr never needed it and a dvr is in that regard, the same thing.
In fact, would the IP laws have been the same as they are today, some of us would today be running Wordstar and Visicalc on Altair computers, but most of us would still only be able to dream about using a computer.
The IP laws have been reformed since and are still in the process of becoming more and more restrictive. The so-called communists that Gates refers to are only trying to reverse this in order to bring back the balance that allowed the whole industry to exist in the first place.
Hmm sounds like Billy boy is brown nosing to the RIAA and MPAA. I mean instead of talking about fair rights he basically called anyone who wants to restructure IP rules communists. Lovely. It also suggests the mindset of where Microsoft will prob take DRM in Windows in the future. e.g. Favor the big corp's agenda rather then fair use to the end user.
Look at the "get your pictures printed" wizard in Windows XP - it's the way that MS wants everything working in the future. XP sees that you've plugged in your digital camera and offers to get prints of your pictures ordered. The software grabs the photos, and ships them off to one of 3 photo developing labs, you enter your credit card number and *poof* you get your pictures delivered in about a week - and Microsoft gets a nice kickback for every picture developed (that's why the MS photo developing partners are so much more expensive than other online photo labs).
Right now you have a choice about who does your photo developing, but with each revision of Windows it will become more and more difficult to make your own choices.
I predict that in future products MS will allow you to buy DVD movies from some on-line retailer at a discount much deeper than the going rate, but you'll have to pay a $2 "viewing fee" every time you play the movie back (and you'll only be able to play it in MS DRM'd machines). It'll all be very slick, and you'll hardly notice as your cerdit card bill gets bigger and bigger every month and more and more "services" are added to your PC/Media Center/Game console.
There'll be people that might think it's just great - and that's fine for them, but I think that myself and a lot of other people see which way things are headed and have already chosen to abandon MS's vision of the future. We've chosen to secure our own freedom of choice. We'll use Linux, BSD, and Macintosh systems that are all free of Bill's "vision".
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://vnuuk.typepad.com/ces/2005/01/gates_keynote_t.html" target="_newWindow">http://vnuuk.typepad.com/ces/2005/01/gates_keynote_t.html</a>
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.vnunet.com/news/1160317" target="_newWindow">http://www.vnunet.com/news/1160317</a>
I'll wait for Shorthorn 2006
(entire keynote unedited by C/NET)
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://games.slashdot.org/games/05/01/06/1337228.shtml?tid=109&tid=211" target="_newWindow">http://games.slashdot.org/games/05/01/06/1337228.shtml?tid=109&tid=211</a>
power cord to my iBook, call my husband away from our 21"
screen iMac, and pull the children away from their Flower Power
iMac...
People ask me all the time who I call for home networking and
the blue screen of death...I tell them to call Steve Jobs in
Cupertino, CA. He's the best "computer guy" that I know...
If Bill really believes that the proponents of Intellectual Property Reform are communists, he's stupid. I don't believe he's stupid. I think he wants to protect the revenue stream from Windows Media DRM, so he's going to disparage anyone who would undermine the need for draconian DRM schemes.
Just because someone believes in Intellectual Property Reform does not make them a communist. Intellectual Property Reform is overdue.
- It was designed to protect small inventors from larger companies who would copy inventions and undercut the small inventor's selling price, thus eliminating any hope of them being able to profit from their invention. What we have today is a bunch of big companies (Microsoft and IBM being the two gorillas) being granted patents on "Method for converting oxygen to carbon dioxide" that they then turn around and use as a bludgeon against small inventors. Furthermore, some patents are written without the claimed invention having been realized (thus it wasn't invented so much as imagined). These problems undermine the value of patents as protections of new and useful *inventions*.
Beyond that, there is the fact that the patent system is not just about enriching the inventor. The other side of the coin is that it is also about advancing the state of the art. At least in the realm of new technology, the USPTO is woefully understaffed to be able to make the kinds of assessments to reliably determine what inventions constitute an advance in the state of the art and are therefore worthy of patent. James Gleick once wrote an article "Patently Absurd," which I remember mainly because it included a description of a patent that a gentleman had received on entertaining a cat with a laser pointer. I don't think I need to say more than that.
- Copyrights seem to me to be less problematic than patents, but they still need some work. The framers guaranteed copyright protection in exchange for the release of the work to extend the sciences and useful arts. The recent enactments affecting copyrights, DMCA and copyright term extension, both create new problems (including prohibitions on getting into things to see how they work and the possibility for interminable copyrights) while trying to solve valid concerns.
The intellectual property system in the U.S. needs more than tweaks, and I'm not a communist for believing that.
Gates never said that. That is an Urban Legend.
And last time I checked, being a "militant capitalist" was what America was founded on...and the last time I saw that term was from a tirade out of North Korea...
reporting with links only to Microsoft products and technologies
but no easy links for the uninformed reader to follow to
competitors' technologies mentioned in the interview.
Yes Bill, that's because you're a monopolist. You use dominance in one market to obtain unfair, anticompetitive advantage in other markets. You support the adoption of software patents in countries like mine, in order to gain further unfair advantage over any potential competitor, wherever they might arise. Software patents - if they should exist at all - should be for 5 years max not 25. But they shouldn't exist, since clearly the software industry has flourished as none other in history with just copyright protection. For an example of the new law that Microsoft supports, now any time I am asked to write a mail merge as part of my job, I have to wonder, will my method be too similar to one with your name on it at the patent office? Regardless if the algorithm is the same - I thought of it just like you did and until now in my country I had just as much right to use the idea as you. But you got to the patent office first with many tens of thousands of dollars I don't have, and now you own the idea for commerical purposes.
That's disgustingly unfair, anticompetitive and ultimately, anti-innovation.
Time I went outside and shouted the obscenities I refrained from typing just now...
Incidentally, I am not a libertarian, but I have respect for the position in this matter, and many, but not all, others. Note also that I don't count those self-proclaimed libertarians who seem to put property, not liberty, first (in the form of strong intellectual property limits on liberty). I tend to call them more appropriately "propertarians" instead. Even if we'd accept them under the title "libertarian", though, there is also a sizable flock of libertarians who'd fall under this neo-communism, and that is plainly ridiculous.
Yes, Bill, they will use Firefox
"In terms of our agility to do things on the browser, people who underestimated us there in the past lived to regret that."
No-one underestimated your Sofware Skills, just your Business Skills and ability to put companies out of business.
"And so with auto update and IE, you're getting the top security team and the quickest response team that there is anywhere."
And yet many problems go unsolved for years.
To add to that, Microsoft only fixes what they admit is a security problem. If they don't acknowledge that, the bug lasts for months or years before it gets fixed (if it even gets fixed at all).