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]"
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
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.
How can he say that after Apples recent enormous success?
Newsflash: Pepsi says Coke tastes like shit. News at 11...
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
"Success is a lousy teacher. It seduces smart people into thinking they can't lose." -- Bill Gates
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.
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?
...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.
* Play games
* Take pictures
* Allow me to browse online
But I -do- want my phone to play games (so I don't have to drag my GB with me) ; I -do- want my phone to take pictures (I can leave my camera at home), and no, I don't mind browsing some sites that I might have to checkup quickly for whatever info that is now within my reach from my mobile.
Yet companies are constantly putting stuff together, in an effort to convince consumers that they're innovative and to upgrade.
Well, -you- might not like it ; Does not mean you make up the -whole- targeted demographic.
Certainly charity is respected and NEEDED from the more wealthy in the country, but when it is done PURELY as a tax write off to hide money and refrain from paying your share,then it is questionable whether it is heartfelt or a good business decision, thus the donor really doesn't warrant too much credit as a humanitarian that is looking out for the less privaledge with a heartfelt act. No sincerity.
When ordinary people donate money to good causes, it's their personal choice, their hard-earned cash and it is to be applauded.
When companies and governments donate cash, it is actually our cash that should have been used to offer cheaper or better products or services or to lower taxes. This is NOT a good thing.
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.'
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.
I think the attractivness of multipurpose devices is that they give the illusion of more value for your money. This was certainly the case for the ps2 when it was first released. A $500 game machine sounds a bit pricey but a $500 game machine/dvd player/music player sounds like a good deal; especially at the time. But once DVD players hit the 50 dollar mark that illusion was gone. I used to watch dvd's on my PS2 but I can't imagine anyone using their PS2's for that purpose anymore. I think Nintendo is very smart to focus their energies only on games and I don't think they're given enough credit for it. If only they would fix their 3rd party policies they could really make some noise next time around.
I'm sorry, this doesn't wash with me.
Of course he is the largest contributer to charity. He is also the richest man on Earth.
This guy is absolutely *loaded* with money. If a $1000 bill fell off his pocket it wouldn't be worth his time picking it up.
If he gives away 90% of his multi-billion personal fortune away, this still leaves him with hundreds of millions of dollars under his own name. Most people can only expect to earn at most a couple of these same millions over a life time.
In other words he doesn't feel the difference. On the contrary giving away money gives hime a sense of achievement, some kind of warm feeling, etc.
This is great that the guy is giving away some of his money, but he is not doing it for the people he gives the money to. He does it for (a) ego, (b) feeling of accomplishment and (c) warm fuzzy feeling.
In other words for himself.
In my eyes it is much more worthy to give away $1000 that one could also use for one's own personal purposes, rather than $1B that one wouldn't be able to use anyway. If you are Christian, Jesus said exactly the same thing if you remember.
What makes me most unhappy about the Bill Gates situation is that I'm forced, through his main accomplishment (Windows almost everywhere) to use his products even when I really don't want to (e.g. at work, etc), thereby contributing directly or indirectly to his wealth.
I've also been forced to even *buy* his products (with new computers for example), over a period of years, only to never actually use them. Various Microsoft licenses have been bought under my name without my consent at various workplaces supposedly to enable me to work. Only I've never actually used them or indeed needed them.
Essentially this guy is taking money that I've earned to give to his ideas of charity for his own ends, and this is simply not a kind of thought that I enjoy.
Allow me not to applaud.
here's an even better Bill Gates interview. We could rephrase it thusly:
Bill Gates: "I love the smart communist government because they work people like slaves for little money or benefits; that would make me *really* rich. Let's do like they do"
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.
Well, -you- might not like it ; Does not mean you make up the -whole- targeted demographic.
You don't seem to get it. It's about choice. Or - in this case - the lack of it. They push all the crap on people, and you can only choose between a very crap A, a less crap A, a crap A, a good A, or even a better A. There's hardly any B around.
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.