Slashdot Mirror
BBC Bill Gates Interview
securitas writes "The BBC's Stephen Cole interviews Bill Gates in the first of a two-part interview. In the first half of the interview with the technology show Click Online, Gates discusses his view of the 'digital lifestyle' that Microsoft has been pushing for some time, lately with its Windows Media Center PCs.
Sample quote: 'People don't want lots and lots of single purpose devices.... The PC has more software, more competition, more richness than anything else. So making it simple and rich, that means the PC will be the key device.' Streaming media in Real format is also available. [Video: Broadband | Narrowband]"
"Streaming media in Real format is also available"
Hah stick it right back at them!
How can he say that after Apples recent enormous success?
Is there anything this guy has done or said that is of even the slightest bit interesting or relevant to the world of computing?
"The PC has more software, more competition, more richness than anything else...."
Excuse me, are we sure this is the real Bill Gates?
Talk about being ironic...
And here's the second part of the interview.
aterr - an open source threaded discussion board.
The second part of the article is here
It just seems like more marketing spin to me. Regardless of your view of MS products, security is a major problem and all Gates seems to do here is to calm the fears of the less knowledgable technology users who haven't the in-depth knowledge to worry about these security flaws.
I'm not stressed. I'm just terribly, terribly alert.
Um, some people do. Having one multi-purpose device running everything means there is a single point of failure. You could build in tons of redundancy on everything (essentially multiple PC's) but then that's not much different (and more expensive) than multple devices to begin with.
People don't want lots and lots of single purpose devices....
...? Most of these devices are still selling very very well, despite the fact that PCs can do all they do and much more.
Then why do people keep using TVs, DVD players, stereos, watches, telephones,
Admitedly, some devices show a lot of feature-convergence, like cellphones or PDA, but people want to keep separate devices, be it because they're less of a pain to set up and use (no boot time, no crashes, dedicated remotes, no windowing environment to detract from the real use) or because people just don't want complex devices with menus, settings and double or triple-function buttons all over the place.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
DVB card. apt-get install vdr. shove skype on it if you _really_ want to. job done.
total cost: £270 plus a monitor of your choice (£200 for the computer, £70 for the terrestrial DVB card).
£200 if you want a DVB-S satellite card.
vdr also supports a modified (soon to come out of development) version of xine which allows you to no longer need a hardware MPEG decoder on the DVB card.
Actually I do, I want seperate items that do one thing well instead of a Windows PC that does a multitude of things badly. I've not watched the stream because I'm not installing realplayer, there's a lesson for Bill there as well.
of a wrong solution for a problem at the right moment.
And it seems that they continue to do so.
>'People don't want lots and lots of single purpose
>devices.... The PC has more software, more
>competition, more richness than anything else. So
>making it simple and rich, that means the PC will be the key device.'
So we can forget Xbox 2, right.
What Gates doesn't appear to get is that my "single-purpose device" called a VCR works accurately and precisely like a VCR every time that I attempt to use it. Same thing for my DVD player. Same thing for my TV. Turning all these things into a multi-function device running on Microsoft Windows wouldn't be my idea of an ideal future.
Especially once the adware/spyware starts to appear on my kid's DVD player. "Daddy, there's boobies on the TV and they want me to click on them."
I'm a big tall mofo.
I think Bill is slowly growing out of touch with the majority of the general public. Most people I know don't want their computer to be there video system, and their DVD player, and entire media system. Most people I know prefer seperation. Most people would rather buy a computer, a stereo, DVD player, etc., so that they aren't limited to one thing at a time. Could you imagine having to wait until your kids are done watching some DVD so you could listen to your music collection. You'd end up having to buy several media pc's to handle what you could buy with several smaller items.
My son wanted to watch your interview on his Media Center PC, but RealPlayer has caused an exception fault and now the whole thing has locked up so he can't watch Spongebob either. Does the Media Center PC have a "excessively silly" filter built in?
In ten years, we will probably be using that quote the way we use the "640k of ram ought to be enough for anyone" quote.
Gates is wrong on this one. A well designed dedicated device beats the multi-purpose device when it comes to regular every day use. You don't see an auto mechanic with only an adjustable crescent wrench in his tool kit. He'd be laughed out of the shop.
...that is part 2. Part 1 was last week.
I was conned by an old man in a cloak. It turns out those *were* the droids I was looking for.
People don't want lots and lots of single purpose devices. They do not want to have to learn how to set up something for photos, another thing for music, another thing for video.
I can relate. It was a real pain to learn how to set up my iPod. I mean, gosh, had to crawl behind my computer and plug in this little white cable!
But it was worth all that trouble. I sure am glad that this is not a single purpose device. I mean, my friends and I all use it to keep our contact info, calendars, and to keep entertained in class with its nifty little built-in pong game. I think that having all of these daily use features in a single device is my favorite part about it!
No, seriously though, I think the success of the iPod is evidence that Gates is totally wrong here.
People also don't want to have to make little johnny stop watching his barney video to show grandma pictures of their last vacation, and then stop grandma because jenny wants to listen to their mp3s. I guess Bill's solution is to buy them all one of their own.
You rich simpleton, may your cyborg entity get infected by a Microsoft worm and have its 640 kb memory wiped in an attempt to protect itself using the latest Microsoft Antimalware Solution!
I'm afraid the PC meant by Gates seem to be 'Windows PC' and don't include other kinds at all.
It's such a PITA to find networking HW and SW that aren't going to be obsolete with the next release of whatever OS that it's CHEAPER to schlep a CD over to the stereo instead of buying one of these streaming thingies and all the gadgets that make it work.
Right now, this PC is running Firefox, SETI, radio, apache, firewall, anti-virus and email.
The AV and firewall are because my kids want MS for the games. Them aside, I get this PC to do plenty of different things. Does your PC only do 1 thing then?
I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
Microsoft wants you to buy a bare system that doesn't do much but is able to be upgraded with more modules that will provide the "everything" he mentions.
Of course, MS will be (already is) in the fore-front of this new market. It's not much different than computer hardware (you can do pretty much everything with it nowadays), but nevertheless the home-theater market is still out of reach for computer hardware/software companies.
It sounded a nervous interview to me. How many times did he use the word: 'certainly'? It's a word you use if you're trying to convince a skeptic...
Did he inhale?
That's a very unconvincing Bill Gates being interviewed. He's really not on the ball and seems uncomfortably pre-occupied. He said little to nothing of import and was phased by the longhorn probe ...
A slashdotting - you get the stick first and then the carrot !
I have a TiVo season pass to Click Online so I watched these two clips when they were on TV over the last two weeks.
I've got to say, I thought the interviewer (I forget his name) was trying to push a few too many buttons on Bill... Like when he goes "Did you ever think, for a second, that Microsoft was being anti-compeditive"... We all know what Gates' reply was going to be, so I don't see much point in asking the question other to annoy Gates...
I think they said at the start their last interview was three years ago - I'm guessing it's going to be another five before the next...
> Then why do people keep using TVs, DVD players, stereos, watches, telephones, ...?
Because the PC is not as good for those purposes. For example, I can watch TV on my PC, but if I do that I have to sit in a chair through the whole thing to be close enough to see the screen clearly. If I could redirect output to a larger screen on the living room wall, I wouldn't need a TV or a DVD player. People want stereos because they go in the living room, while the PC is in the office. If I could control the PC from the living room and have the sound card output to the speakers there, then I wouldn't need the stereo.
It all comes down to having the interface and the output where you need them, so if Mr.Gates wants us to use the PC for everything, he'll need to make everything into a PC periferal. This will undoubtedly make them cheaper than standalone gadgets, since they will not need processors, memory, software, etc. And I would be quite happy to buy them for the price, the convenience, and the centralized (and programmable!) control.
Y, because history shows that complex systems composed of single-purpose, modular, and user-interchangeable/serviceable components are never desirable relative to opaque, monolithic, keep-your-hands-out-of-it-we're-the-experts systems.
Amazing...still doesn't get it after all of these years. What an ego.
and I'm sorry, but we have been Slashdotted.
Many moons ago, I thought I would give a combo TV/VCR unit a try. I thought it would be cool to have all the features of my VCR built directly into my TV. And for a year or two, it was great.......
Then, the VCR stopped working.
Whereas before I could have simple unplugged the VCR and carted it to a store for servicing, I had to lug the entire damn TV around. In addition, when I did get around to bringing it to a store, the price they quoted me for repairing it was more than the cost of some new, uncoupled VCRs!
While the Windows Media Center isn't necessarily heavy, the idea is still the same -- having all of these different functions integrated into a single unit present the possibility of a single point of failure. Never mind that the Windows OS is nowhere near as stable as what I would traditionally expect from electronics manufacturers. And when you consider the frequency with which Windows OS's require patching...... it just doesn't make sense.
in theory, modularity is great, but out here in reality most people are content with their on-board video & sound.
Isn't the BBC great??! This show explains complex new technology in simple, easy to grasp language without dumbing it down. It's refreshing to witness good computer journalism since there's such a lack of it. I'll definitely put this in my bookmarks.
The Bill Gates interview wasn't great. Gates just ducked and dived out of every question and promoted his company all the while. I suppose, what would you expect him to say, "Yeah, you're right. MS does have a really bad history with security and Longhorn is constantly being delayed. We're a crap company, sorry!"?
The Blue Ray vs. HD-DVD section was much more interesting. It seems like Blue Ray is the better technology but with HD-DVD having a years head start and being much cheaper to produce, it looks like HD-DVD has the upper hand. Only time'll tell I suppose...
Interviewer : Are rich are you ?
Bill Gates: Rich
Interviewer : You mean very rich ?
Bill Gates: Yeah, very rich
Interviewer : You mean very very rich ?
Bill Gates: Yeah, very very rich
Interviewer : You mean very very very rich ?
Bill Gates: Yeah, very very very rich
Interviewer : Can you give me some money then ?
Bill Gates : No
Interviewer : Why not ?
Bill Gates : Because I want your money
The downside to having the PC in your living room handling your audio (CD, radio) video (DVDs) and TV and recording (PVR) is that you have all your eggs in one basket.
Another potential downside is that resoruce demands for each task are not necessarily insulated from each other. If I wanted to record a TV show, record from the radio and watch a DVD at the same time a PC would still be pushed to achieve this at the moment. It would be annoying for the radio recording be choppy because of the DVD playback, for example. So until a PC can do the sort of things that a home user with a typical set of separates can achieve (with a video recorder, radio, tape deck and a DVD player the above scenario is very possible) there is a problem. Luckily upcoming dual core processors should help with some of the insulation
between tasks. In theory a well designed suite of tools should be able to achieve this gracefully now, given a fairly beefy PC, but I doubt testing always involves these scenarios.
A further issue is tolerance to faults. Currently a video recorder ends up creating a number of tapes. If one fails you still have a series of others that are likely to work. If everything is on a single hard drive, however, you are vulnerable. Backup systems exist but they can be expensive extras. Also they can take quite a while to create a version of a piece of media that can be removed for safe keeping. It takes a long time to replicate a video cassette too, but the recordings are separate and not likely to be lost in one fell swoop unless your house burns down or something. At the very least I think media centre PCs should ship with two drives, either mirrored or performing disk-to-disk backups at quiet periods. Ideally the second drive should be accessible via the front panel, held in by a lock. If you have a series of treasured memories held on your machine you want to be able to remove it and take it with you if your house is in danger of destruction.
The final issue is interfaces. If the interface doesn't allow me to easily achieve the scenario above, then this is also a problem. Ok, it isn't necessarily a scenario that turns up very often, but if a PC can't do it then it is a step backwards on some levels in terms of the total functionality available. One of the advantages of separates is that they typically have pretty simple interfaces for simple tasks. The disadvantage is the lack of integration and the sometimes bewildering quanity of wiring spaghetti and remote controls you can end up with!
I think we will see the PC dominate, but I think it will be a 3 or more years before all the above issues are solved in terms of high street plug-in-and-forget products. What is on offer now is fine for early adopters, though.
Having said that, imagine being able to crop out that last second game-winning 3 pt shot, and emailing it to a friend.
Or remotely logging on to your device from work to set it up to record a show that was just recommended to you.
Or being able to access your CD collection from all rooms of the house or anywhere in the world, over the internet.
I would rather have a single device that did everything seamlessly rather than worrying about formats and cables to transfer information between them.
Bill says the case was ironic, because 'The idea of low cost computing, letting people have a choice of the very best PC, making sure the prices are constantly coming down ...'.
Yeah, but what about Software?
five years and a whitewash of an antitrust settlement makes. after a bit of googling, i present the following (and link to source article) for the dark humor value:
Microsoft, meanwhile, called as its first witness an economist who described as irrelevant whether the vendor holds a monopoly in the desktop personal computer operating system market because, he said, potential competition will come from alternative computer platforms.
[rant omited]
I watch click online every week due to being up about 3am when it airs on BBC 24 repeat wise. I'd say the show is aimed at "Joe Sixpack" at very very best. They did a feature on Mozilla and then a week later it hit the 1 million or whatever it was download mark. They pretty much claimed they made it happen.
The host is at best someguy ment to look smart, he clearly has no real intrest in any of the technology and it all boils down to "hey look at this new... thing!"
I also saw the first part of the interview and I have to say it sounded and looked like one long advert. Bill gates sat there with about 50 Windows boxs around him and countless over MS products easily visible. Then he went on to say how "inovative" MS is and how they will change the whole household.
Personally I'd take anything said in this interview with two grains of salt (rather then the usual one) and even then that's a push.
I like muppets.
For that, it has to be Windows, by Microsoft.
...that it's a computer.
I know plenty of people who use computers provided they don't look like computers and they don't know they're computers. They are happy with their games consoles, their digital TV set top boxes, their DVD players and their mobile phones. But if you took them all away and replaced it with a computer that did exactly the same they would look at you in horror.
Then there are people like me who like their technology to be bleeding edge but invisible. I would much rather have the ability to stream media from my LAN via my set top box, than watch TV on my computer.
"Then why do people keep using TVs, DVD players, stereos, watches, telephones, ...?"
Because convergence is happening now - it's evolutionary rather than revolutionary. Along the way, some companies will get it right (cameras in phones, although I have yet to find a use), and some will get it wrong (Bluetooth in DV cameras - what was that about?).
Granted, single devices are much easier to use, but they are bitches to get to interact with each other if you need/want them to. Here in the UK we don't get TiVo, so I bought a Freeview box with a HDD recorder in it. But can I get that video off it? Hell no. So I've just invested in a Nebula DigiTV card for my PC; Freeview, PVR, Teletext, recording in MPEG format and a remote for £120. The key here is that these are the right kind of converged functions I'd like to see. The downside - as you rightly say - is that I have a damn PC attached to the back-end that makes the process way too complex... stick all this is a cheaper consumer box and I'd snap it up.
I hate to say it, but much as Bill Gates wants to solve the problem of the 'digital home', he's also perpetuating it. The best way to take Media Center PC's would be to stick Windows CE in them and make them consumer boxes without the Windows OS proper in them, but as this is their flagship product, convergence for the masses looks like it's going to be overcomplicated - and crippled by proprietary standards - for so time to come.
He's talking like if the idea is new.
For example, Freevo, is has out there for some years now, you can watch tv, listen to music, watch dvds, even you can play mame games!.
I saw Windows Media Center, it looks nice, but it seems the strong point is the video streaming and the integration with napster.
ajf
The PC has more software, more competition, more richness than anything else. So making it simple and rich, that means the PC will be the key device.
What common people need is a digital video recorder/player, MP3 jukebox and device for web browsing. I am professional user and my needs are slightly different. I need things like kernel, multitasking, virtual memory, networking protocols, compilers, linkers, interpreters, statistical software, computational software, numerical analysis tools, journaling FS etc. etc. etc.
The problem of Microsoft is that they are pushing one OS, one environment for everyone. That's why (nearly) no one is really happy with them. IMO, their environment is really good only for office workers. It's still too complex for "common people" (a.k.a. "home users") and inconvenient for many professional users.
Yesterday, I was asked by my friends (blacksmith artist and his wife) to help them with their computer running Windows XP (and a whole bunch of viruses and troyans). The only choice was to reinstall OS and most of software from scratch. While performing this task, I realized that Windows XP usage requires tons of knowledge. You have to know about partitions, registry, services, drivers and other mysteries. That's not what most people want or can.
Some people criticize Linux (which is my current OS of choice) for complexity. In fact, complexity of Windows is nearly the same. It requires lots of knowledge even for everyday use. People learn many years how to use it and some facts become obvious to them. Anything different seems too complex then.
Looks like MacOS X is the only mostly intuitive OS these days. At least people start using it without asking too much questions or reading any manuals. MacOS is simple for non-professionals while offers rich underlying structure for professionals. Mac mini makes me think of switching to MacOS X. Relatively simple for family and friends, functional and convenient for me.
Ballmer: Developers, Developers, Developers.
Gates: Richness, Richness, Richness.
Gates: We founded the PC industry based on having standards, based on increasing our R&D every year.
Me: Bullshit, Bullshit, Bullshit.
Jonathanjk.com
So making it simple, and me rich
is the correct quote
And all information coming from MS is therefore marketing-speak. MS has never and will never convey a single nugget of information that is not crafted to be in MS own best interest. Period.
People do want devices that perform one task, but it has to be a task they can comprehend completely and without complication. Evidence: go into an office supply store and see that there are still basic touch-tone telephones, P-touch label writers, dictation machines, handheld calculators, electronic typewriters, adding machines, and all sorts of little electronic devices that by all accounts should have been made obsolete by the debut of the computer technology of ten to twenty years ago.
The cutting edge device today is one that still performs a basic, understandable task alone, but will perform more advanced tasks when coupled with other simple devices. Evidence: the digital camera, the iPod, the camcorder.
This is not a good business model for a for-profit company. It's almost become a necessity to graft useless features on to many devices even when not needed just to create an upgrade demand. GPS units are being upgraded with flashier displays and functionality of PalmPilots just because the basic GPS features aren't really improving much. The printer market seems divided into the "cheap" disposable variety that will probably not survive more than 6 months and the other variety that tries to add features of photocopiers, fax machines, and so forth. These days even devices that have little R&D in them like hard drives tout upgradability and compatibility ("Best used with Windows XP" etc).
If there are any companies in these markets that don't compete in the constant upgrade cycle, they're probably looking for ways to get their customers on this treadmill or are getting very worried because making a good product is no longer sufficient.
Imagine enough of these peripheral device makers getting together with RedHat, SUSE, or just making their own standards for a "Mill"
The "brain" is a Linux box that's has a small cheap 24x80 LCD display for diagnostics and errors. It serves as the connectivity and upgradability box that allows these manufacturers to compete with upgrade treadmill devices.
Buying a good quality electronic typewriter gives your system a great keyboard and line printer, but if you ever need to use the device strictly as a typewriter (e.g. your "brain" has been cracked and owned) you can.
Adding a midi keyboard and passing information through the brain lets you print your music as you play.
You no longer need to buy a label writer for your computer and a separate hand held device. Your
Transfer your answering machine messages to your MP3 player.
Adding something like a Palm Pilot or a simplified operating system would allow enhancement to many devices.
When some other technology takes off in the future (small looms that allow you to print your digital images as cloth? an inkjet printer that uses a flavorless frosting to ice your food with?) The concept of using the "mill" and "brain" to provide the upgrade features would add functionality to all of the devices one already has and knows how to use. If one already knows how to download and print photos, they could make a spectacular, pornographic birthday cake. Or if someone wants to wear a jacket with the latest financial reports on the outside, they can.
Right now, Georgia is recovering from a bad, ice storm and my power is being knocked out at random (I'm saving about every 10 seconds and have had about 27 power losses trying to write this). Since my computer takes 15 seconds to boot, a lot of devices I have wouldn't work well in the "mill" in this situation, but I could easily fall back on my electronic typewriter and not have to worry about power restarts if I just needed a physical piece of paper printed (or with a couple of AA batteries, and some Flash storage, I'd have a document I could save and export to the "mill" later).
Of course, what MS wants is a situation where they control the upgrade treadmill. They drive the technology. They enslave the manufacturers of devices they don't even make.
Personally, I see such an alternative market as something that only technology geeks without a for-profit interest could drive in a way that wouldn't constantly be raping my pocketbook. In other words, the perfect market for a Linux / BSD / or other open source system.
People don't want lots and lots of single purpose devices....
On the average trip, I take with me my car keys (the ignition key has an IrDA-ish interface), a cell phone, sometimes a digital camera, laptop, and/or a PDA.
I may also take a large or small notebook, or many notebooks, and a pen.
Consolidating all of these devices is exactly what I don't want. I want many single purpose devices that can be easily and independently replaced or serviced.
I have to agree with Bill Gates - on the most part. I have built a media PC (sorry, not Myth, not Media Center either) that is my VCR (records TV), my radio (Shoutcast), my web server, my backup hard drive for important documents, my file server, my CD player, and much much more. And I did it myself for around $200 (well, digging out a hard drive that I had already purchased and a TV card that I got about 5 or so years ago). And I don't have to hunt around too much for it. Heck, my 5 year old knows how to play movies and TV shows on it.
Of course, if I am leaving the house, I want the cell phone, the camera, the mp3 player, etc. etc. But that's because I am *cheap*. I have a pay as you go cell phone, an old camera...etc. I don't NEED integration if I am not at the bleeding edge.
I suppose buying not new toys goes against consumerism, but I find it satisfying to rework old machinery into new uses.
...as "The Road Ahead" was. Go read PJ's rant on "I want to be an analyst" - it applies even more directly to Trey, here.
I personally would rather own a separate camera that does a good job, plus a separate 'phone which is damn near indestructible, plus a separate highly capable PDA than the latest flashy but fragile phone with sucky camera and really cramped PDA features jammed into it. IPOF, I do own a capable camera and indestructible 'phone, and if I had a PDA it would be something like a Zaurus.
And who wants to cram their delicate home stereo system into their car?
If this man had any more foresight, he'd need a white cane.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
People don't want lots and lots of single purpose devices....
The emperor is trying to use a Jedi mind trick.
Is it me or is he telling people that they shouldn't want an Xbox?
'People don't want lots and lots of single purpose devices.... The PC has more software, more competition, more richness than anything else. So making it simple and rich, that means the PC will be the key device.'
I gotta try that one, it must have lots oBuffering: 10% 25% 45% 61% 75% 87% 98% 100%f exclusive content you won't find anywhere else.
You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
Steve can still give a better demo. I think Bill is strating to come out of his mansion cave to the public because computers are becoming social enough that they need spokes-heads, and Steve is a better public speaker than Bill. My gosh, listen even to the line quoted in the /. post: "The PC has more software, more competition, more richness than anything else"
More competition?? I, as a user, can assure all you leads of the computer world that when I am using your computers I do not think of how much competition that there is among application developers. Try this one on for size: I don't even care that there are applications! I just want to do things with data!
.
-shpoffo
I think that's because there's no real education of customers on the extras.
What did they teach me in NYC for example? Word and Excel, Word and Excel. (Sounds like an Eminem line?) Oh yeah, and PowerPoint...and IE; thus we associate PCs with Word and Excel and the "typical" PC tools. People don't tend to use other OSs/tools unless they're told and taught about them, or they're needed for homework/work in general (which leads to the former by necessity). It's hard to print a book report with a Palm Pilot (or grade one that's saved on it with a red pen for that matter), so it's less popular. Furthermore, people who already have TVs/DVD+CD players/watches/phones/fridges won't usually get PCs with that stuff. Those who don't are getting a PC to reap the benefit in one fell swoop.
That's why Linux is becoming popular now, and why Windows 95 was before that, and why Mac was before that. It changes with the buzz and the curriculum (at least here in teh Bronx).
You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
We noticed that with the firewall in SP2 and the fewer services default services running on 2k3 server, that Microsoft has finally started to take notice to "the first rule" of computer security. But what was Microsoft thinking when they shipped XP RTM to non technical users with things like RPC and UPnP listening to connections from the internet?
We know hind site is 20/20, but there were many people who warned MS about the insecurities of XP long before it was shipped, what was the general response at MS to these warnings and would you say that you were "wrong" to ignore the early warnings?
Why are these services still running but now behind XP SP2's firewall, why not turn them off? Some people believe this is a ploy to add more "bloat" to windows to increase hardware (and by extention windows) sales, what is your response?
I could come up with about a 100 more, maybe Slashdot should try to get an interview with Bill Gates? :)
Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
But, there are others, quite a few, in fact, that don't want to be weighted down with a half-dozen gadgets, when a pocketable, multi-purpose, cell-phone, will do. The PDA in particular seems to be headed for extinction.
Or maybe you could get realPlayer and a proper broadband connection.
Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
just as great and insightful as the [insert latest hollywood film] interviews are
gratious products in the background of the camera shot, constant product and brand re-enforcement, probably the nth interview he had that day, keep reading that script Bill, smile and remember to plug plug plug !
perhaps i should complain to the BBC for showing advertisments as i can see little difference
perhaps he will make a documentary called "the making of [insert product here]" with Will Smith doing the voiceovers
I've not taken an in depth look at these technologies yet myself but I understand the basic concept of getting yet more data onto a DVD. The point I would like to raise however, is that the end result will be much the same as the VHS/Betmax one a few years ago. The better technology didn't win, it was the one that got the most publicity and exposure that did. In fact back then there wa a better technology than either of them - Philips had an excellent VCC system with two-sided cassttes, but Philips, whilst often being innovative, seem to have a crap marketing department.
Onwards & Upwards!
Player? Check. DSL? Check. I shouldn't need more than 768Kbit/s bandwidth to access a "225Kbit/s" video sans random buffering periods.
I also don't like moving the seek control while playing, only to notice, at times, the video not buffering again at all; the video just freezes, with no traffic to/from the line. I very rarely see this with WMP or <ugh>QuickTime</ugh> on my otherwise fully-functioning DSL, but then I've only seen progressively-loading, non-streaming trailers and such with QT.
You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
is OS X mentioned so bloody often? There seems to be a standard format, too:
1) MS is no good
2) Linux is the system I use
3) However, OS X is better
Jeesus!
Another article on the BBC today is about Gates and the amount he gives away - He may yet be able to CTRL-ALT-DEL some of the world's biggest killers.
Bill gates is constantly repeating thrum his interview that M$ is having biggest R&D and according to him M$ is driving industry forward with their R&D, and according to him they are again using their great R&D to improve quality off ordinary people. Weary nice off him to have such nice and important about him self. When in deed M$ have used only their R&D to squash other companies who really developed something new. Win 95 was lunched later then boom off Internet and M$ and their great R&D completely missed Internet, really I can't think off anting that was developed by M$ R&D, except maybe clippy. As far as I can tell M$ R&D is giant guillotine that is waiting to decapitate any competition who dares to developed something new.
I'm not wanting to sound ignorant. But whats your actually download speed? I bet its not 768Kbits. Thats most likely why its slow to load. Either find a way to get verizon to make the connection 768Kbits or change to a better provider. But my connection 2.5Mbit (9Mbit advertised www.cablesurf.com) download worked perfectly on it. The 20min video was downloaded in about 1min for me.
Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
Consider the logic behind Gates' assertion regarding small devices:
1) The PC is a feature-rich environment that is capable of delivering all of the digitial services people want and/or need.
2) Single-function devices serve onley *one* purpose.
3) The PC will only grow in size due to the increasing need for speed and function. While the actual processing side will grow smaller, the attachments and other interface devices will take up more room.
4) The only way to efficently move all of this capability- and feature-rich product around is to mount it on a cart you have to drag around.
So the Gates strategy would encourage the development of over-weight products with features NOT ALL OF US WANT. These multipurpose machines will have us all rolling around through our daily lives mounted in digitally-crammed wheelchairs.
The Gates Dream is feature-rich but portability poor.
Single-purpose devices are great because when they are designed well, the perform efficiently and often are extremely portable.
Does he really believe his vision is our vision? Is this attitude just marketing hype and posture or is he beginning to show symptoms of detached elitism?
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
"Now we last met three years ago when we played Xbox and I have to say I was very pleased to say I beat you."
what?
The typical download with my DSL is 187 KBytes/s, so it's actually 1.5Mbit/s, not 768 as I said before. If anything, that video should be halfway on my disk already after I click it. (Joking of course there.)
Real-rants aside, the video is a good one, Real-rants aside. Always interesting how Gates considers security the most important thing despite all the holes.
You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
If Microsoft is pushing for a single device, then what about any console Xbox games that they don't plan to port to the PC? I know the gamecube and PS2 has done this for a while, and more and more games are destined to stay in the console realm, but apparently to Microsoft, a single device means a PC running Windows, and an Xbox.
And they said zombies weren't real!
Sure they have a choice.
Funny, I don't want to carry a pocket full of shit with me. I'd rather have a single device that operated well as a phone, that could store information one might use a PDA for, and can take pictures in the 90% of the cases where I might find something novel, but have no desire to carry a 8MP digital camera with me. Now if I wanted to take high-quality images, that would be entirely different, but that also consumes probably 0.1% of my time, while having a single device capable of all three that meets my needs most of the time, is far more convenient for casual travel.
People don't want lots and lots of single purpose devices
An underlying UNIX philosophy is do one thing and do it well. Evidence can be seen in "devices" like cat, head, grep, etc. It is the amalgumation of these devices that provides the real power.
Allow yourself to be philosophical for a moment.
There are two common views in this thread -- one follows Mr. Gates and believes that devices will converge together, because people want things in "Swiss-Army Knife" style packages. This certainly seems to fit with what we've seen with cell phones.
The other view is the KISS view -- people want things to have a single purpose. This crowd has the historical perspective to realize that prior to the PC, things were built to do just one thing. Blenders blend, hammers hammer, and so on. Furthermore, when your phone breaks, you buy a new phone, and you aren't inconvenienced by the fact that you also just lost your date planner and camera.
The truth is, both are right, and we live in interesting times.
As we look into the future, I suspect everyone on this list predicts that the world will only become more connected, and this is down to the device and service level. For example, why shouldn't any of my devices that can play music all have access to the same massive collection and be configured to my tastes? It really is irrelevant to me whether I'm in my car, my living room, on the train, or at work, I still want to just have the music instantly available to me in exactly the form I want (IE: same playlists).
It seems likely some devices will have a singular purpose, while others will have many purposes. The interesting exercise over the next 1-30 years (things are never as fast as they should be) becomes exploring what devices should be single purpose, and which should be multi-purpose, and more interestingly, how do all of those things work together and how can location be made irrelevant?
What he meant was "making it simple and making ME rich"
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
And we feel very good about the dialogue we have had for many years with the content industries. How we have struck the right balance there and that is why you see an explosion in digital music.
Uh... Microsoft and the content industries (RIAA in this case) are responsible for the explosion in digital music?
Back in my reality, the RIAA were dragged there kicking and screaming while Napster started the illegal method and iTunes started the legal one.
Microsoft never managed to do anything save follow the competition... Ripping from CD got added to media player only after third party MP3 ripping software became popular. Even then, Microsoft initially crippled it with DRM and no one was interested. They finally removed compulsory DRM when they realised no one was using thier product because of it, due to there being dozens of more free options out there. Then Microsoft added CD burning - and even there used an already well established third party. They created an online music store to follow iTunes. Finally there were the portable players - where a bunch of not very useable solutions came out, then Apple created its [over priced but very damn cool so we payed it anyway] iPod - and Microsoft followed up by releasing its standard a while later.
During all of this time, the RIAA tried to bury its head in the sand and hope that suing twelve year old girls and grandmothers would make it go away. When that didn't work, they tried the most restrictive methods they could come up with, fighting the hardware and software industries every time they suggested giving people something free enough that it might be used over the less legal competition. Eventually, when provided with no other option, they accepted iTunes but only at prices where most 15 or 16 track albums were more expensive than buying the hard copy and ripping it yourself.
So, forgive me for not seeing, in my universe, quite how Microsoft and the content industry created that explosion. At best, Microsoft chased the explosion while the content industry were dragged there fighting every step of the way.
It's somewhat like a construction firm turning up to the tsunami hit areas and talking about how they worked with the locals to really start an explosion in land clearance and new construction.
Please - read a little before modding me to oblivion :-)
I don't want lots of single purpose devices - but, and here's the kicker, I don't want fully fledged convergent devices either.
I want my mobile phone to be a brilliant phone - but I also expect it to be a good enough web browser to read Slashdot. I don't want it to run flash / Javascript etc - but I want it to function well.
I want my amp to decode AC3, DTS and Pro-Logic - I don't want to be able to play Pong on it.
Xbox Media Center plays my DVDs, DivX and Oggs just fine - I've no need for it to tune my car's engine.
Do you see what I'm getting at? Appropriate convergence is a great thing. Appropriate convergence where the device is good in all its intended roles is bloody brilliant!
T
If a square is really a rhombus, why aren't all triangles purple?
They didn't really want their marketing campaign back but would prefer it if you stopped dragging it through the mud.
.NET is ok, but since it's officially Windows-only, it's just more Microsoft lock-in. Thank God for Mono)
In all seriousness though, Apple nailed this issue right on the head. Use the home computer as a digital hub. That is to say, a machine that organizes content and translates it from one form to another. Once again, Microsoft is trying to steal the idea (much like everything they've ever done that hasn't been a total failure). I'll have to check out a Media Center PC at some point to see if it's as much of a pathetic abortion of a project as Movie Maker or their OS in general.
Sorry if it seems like at least one Mac user does this on every single Microsoft story posted but that should tell you something about both Mac users (bitter) and Microsoft (business whores who haven't had a decent idea since they made Mac software). (Ok, so maybe
The problem with that is that Windows is designed to be driven by a keyboard and mouse. Doesn't sound like much, right? Well, stop and think; how do you drive a TV? A DVD player? A VCR? A games console? With specialised controllers -- remote controls have, at most, 40 or so buttons, most of which are ignored by most people to focus on the important ones: channel control, volume control, play, fast forward, rewind, pause, stop.
If you're designing software on the PC to control your audiovisual "experience", the temptation is to use the incredibly fine-grained controls of the mouse and keyboard. But nobody wants to hook up a keyboard or mouse to their TV or DVD player. They want to be able to point the remote and be up and running inside a minute. Even a minute is too long.
A "media hub" (god, I hate that term) needs to be simple. Robust. Elegant. That means it needs to be designed, from the ground up, to need only a remote control, with no more than 10 basic and 30 or so more advanced controls. Those controls need to be well laid out in a manner whereby Joe Average Public can pick it up and understand what each one does quickly, so he can get his fix of whatever crappy TV show is being forced down our throats this week.
The only way you're going to get that sort of elegance is by designing for it. Apple understands this. Microsoft doesn't. MythTV looks promising as well (although it does far more than what I want in a media box.)
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Wait, wait...
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!
Ohmygod...
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
I can't...I can't...
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Ohithurts...
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
ThisislikeGeorgeBushbelievesinfreedom...
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Microsoft originally approached Sony with their DirectX/XNA platform for use in the Playstation 2. Sony turned them down. Microsoft also contacted Nintendo who wanted nothing to do with them. Microsoft wants to install their platform universally into everything, so they decided to slap together a PC and call it the "X-Box" and sell it as a console to compete. That's why Microsoft sells it at a loss--it's not about making a profit; it's about spreading the DirectX/XNA platform everywhere. That's also why we're seeing all these crappy cross-ported PC/X-Box simultaneous releases.
It all depends on what you do with your phone.
Most teenagers here in the UK wouldn't consider a phone that didn't do text messages. I don't care. I would consider getting one that might replace my ageing PDA. I doubt they would.
When I was travelling on a long train journey in 2003, I used it to check train times on a website. I have not used the browser since but I like the idea of it being there.
Pictures would be interesting if it was a better camera than the one I've got.
I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
I think this site has turned into a bunch of Anonymous Cowards. Go away Anonymous Cowards, I don't want you here. :-P
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Chairman Bill would rather be the target of rapt cult-like adoration. But he'll settle for folks laughing at him or Ballmer. Any attention is good and means that people aren't spending time with the competition or with controversial legal issues.
This interview probably means that there's something very interesting happening with the anti-trust trial or software patents in the EU, or with F/OSS there or somewhere else in the world.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.