Slashdot Mirror


Bill Gates on the 360

Engadget had a sit-down with Bill Gates at CES, and they talk for a good while about the Xbox 360's launch and subsequent issues. From the article: "We played quite a variety. Actually, the Xbox Arcade was a big thing, a lot of the adults wanted to sit down and play for five or ten minutes. It was Hexic or Zuma that were easy for them to learn the rules, get used to the controller. We had some younger kids who were just beating the heck out of me at Project Gotham Racing, Kameo, basketball, Perfect Dark Zero. We have, I think, a dozen titles in total."

40 comments

  1. Don't bother by Mursk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Don't bother reading the article (not that most do). There's hardly any Xbox talk, and most of the rest of the stuff is freaking boring. This doesn't really belong in the Games section, IMO.

    --
    "This thing does science so hard, you say, 'I've never seen that much science.'" -Sam
    1. Re:Don't bother by Wisgary · · Score: 0

      Yeah, this seems to just talk a lot about architecture and format wars and not at all about games.

    2. Re:Don't bother by FinestLittleSpace · · Score: 3

      Yes, agreed. I find Gates interviews an absolute joy to read (he is a bloody good speaker) but they say NOTHING useful. Ever. And this is no exception. He needs proper probing one day. One day...

    3. Re:Don't bother by Jarlsberg · · Score: 1
      There's lots of talk about the Xbox 360. Did you notice you could scroll down the page? :)

      Here's a very interesting tidbit from the interview re. the recent talk about the external HD-DVD addon for the 360:

      Engadged: You announced yesterday that the Xbox 360 will have an external HD-DVD drive, and so it seems you've firmly committed to that platform as opposed to Blu-ray, but do you risk fragmenting the Xbox 360 as a platform by introducing an HD DVD drive? Is that going to be an issue for developers if some consumers have a version of the 360 with an HD-DVD drive and others don't?

      Bill: There's no fragmentation here. The developers are creating games that run on the DVD-9 format that's in every Xbox, and whatever we do with the drive, they'll all be upwards compatible with that. So that's how the games are written and it's a very clear message that lets game developers get huge volumes and payback for the big investments that they make.

      So, Xbox360 will get HD-DVD games, but the end user will get both and if he doesn't the external drive, he plays the dvd version.
  2. He Lies through his teeth! by tb3 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "Apple has always leveraged technologies that the PC industry has driven to critical mass, the bus structures, the graphics cards, the peripherals, the connection networks, things like that, so they're kind of in the PC ecosystem and kind of not."
    There's no way he could have said that with a straight face. It should be more like, "the PC industry has always leveraged technologies that Apple pioneered." Stuff like local area networking, laser printers, 3.5 diskettes, digital cameras, USB, Firewire, ....

    --

    www.lucernesys.comHorizon: Calendar-based personal finance

    1. Re:He Lies through his teeth! by SteveX · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's an interesting spin he's got, but there's a grain of truth to it.

      Apple may have invented USB (I don't know the history of it), but today most USB devices are connected to Windows based computers. If Windows hadn't adopted USB, it wouldn't have become the standard that it is. Apple has had it's share of proprietary failures too - I don't see a lot of NuBus systems today for example.

      It's an ecosystem, and both companies are part of it.

    2. Re:He Lies through his teeth! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple *popularized* USB, not *invented*. I believe Intel invented USB but component makers wouldn't bother making any peripherals until Apple started selling iMacs like crack sandwiches.

    3. Re:He Lies through his teeth! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps "technologies that Apple incorporated into their design," but to say that they pioneered all the technologies you mention is plainly wrong.

      Apple pioneered the digital camera?

    4. Re:He Lies through his teeth! by kafka47 · · Score: 1
      Yeah! And monitors too. If it weren't for Apple, nay, if it weren't for Steve Jobs, we'd still be on punchcards today! :-)

      /K

    5. Re:He Lies through his teeth! by LoRdTAW · · Score: 5, Informative

      Apple invented fire wire not USB. It was proposed back in the 80's as an SCSI replacement. It was fully developed in the 90's and made it debut at nearly the same time USB did. I think USB was either first developed by Intel or adopted by Intel, can't say for sure. Fire wire never gained popularity over USB because Apple had a hefty per port license fee along with naming problems (Supposedly no one but Apple could call it Fire Wire). Apple used the name Fire Wire, Sony called it I-link and most others called it 1394. Imagine joe six pack presented with three names for the same thing. The only thin that really saved it was its wide adoption in the video world as the interface for most every DV cam.

    6. Re:He Lies through his teeth! by Nasarius · · Score: 0, Troll
      The only thin that really saved it was its wide adoption in the video world as the interface for most every DV cam.

      Take it back a step: FireWire is popular because there is no viable alternative. It's the fastest thing available.

      --
      LOAD "SIG",8,1
    7. Re:He Lies through his teeth! by Psx29 · · Score: 2, Informative

      USB2 is faster in theory although in practice I doubt theres much difference something like 480mbps versus 400mbps

    8. Re:He Lies through his teeth! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Way to make up history. Apple did no such fucking thing.

    9. Re:He Lies through his teeth! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      USB 2 may thoretically be faster than FIREWIRE 1. (which is 400) but it isnt faster than FireWire 800 (the second fire wire which is 800mbps).

    10. Re:He Lies through his teeth! by antifoidulus · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but there is no USB equivalent of Firewire 800....(most pcs don't even have firewire, let alone firewire 800 though)

    11. Re:He Lies through his teeth! by Bobsledboy · · Score: 1

      As far as I understand, firewire typically performs better under real world circumstances due to differences in the way data transfer is handled. Of course, this isn't really an issue for stuff like ipods and the like, hence the migration to usb only.

    12. Re:He Lies through his teeth! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh please, if I'm "making up history" then that would mean Apple did nothing to popularize USB, which just isn't true.

    13. Re:He Lies through his teeth! by Creepy · · Score: 2, Informative

      Apple wanted $1 per port to use the name FireWire, not for the technology itself, and the extra cost was to recoup co-marketing expenses - the actual technology was licensed as IEEE1394 for the standard rate most people including Intel charge for technologies, something like 25 cents per port. Sony called it iLink because they didn't want to pay Apple's marketing cost, which was perfectly fine with Apple. Incidentally, Intel let manufacturers avoid co-marketing costs if they agreed to exclusively put "Intel Inside" stickers on their machines (outside the computer's brand name), otherwise they were charging rates similar to Apple.

          Intel invented USB as a low power small periphrials bus that could be chained together and would eliminating device specific periphrial drivers by including drivers in the device itself. I believe it ultimately targets PS/2 mice and keyboards, which is a licensed IBM technology (Intel has "not invented here" problems as bad as Apple, IMO). USB was originally intended for low power devices only, and therefore items like USB disk drives also need power adapters. USB 2.0 was a quick ploy to steal market share for high speed devices, but it still is underpowered (500mA/5V max), if a slower device is plugged into the bus (a USB 1.0 or 1.1 device) the entire bus runs at the slower speed, and requires a special controller (e.g. a PC). USB 2.0 has a 127 device limit, while firewire is 63, and USB 2.0 has a 5m cable limit, while firewire is 4.5m.

          IEEE1394 (firewire) is meant to be a powered bus (up to 1.5A/12V), like ATA or SCSI and can run independently between devices without a specialized controller (e.g. without a PC). A 400Mbps device plugged into an 800Mbps chain will not slow devices earlier in the chain (unlike USB, which slows everything to the slowest device), so it is advantageous to chain firewire devices by speed.

    14. Re:He Lies through his teeth! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The liar lies, and he is you.

    15. Re:He Lies through his teeth! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      USB2 is faster in theory but dramatically slower than fw400 in practice. Also it consumes a lot of CPU because of the shit interface to USB. I forget the details but someone (toms? anand?) had a head to head where they compared usb2 and fw400 and on a 2+ GHz P4 (IIRC) the USB was half the speed of the fw400 and used about 10 or 12% of the CPU getting there, the fw400 access used about 0.5% CPU. USB is shit. IEEE1394 is wonderful. Too bad no one made any native FW devices.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  3. Re: i-wonder-what-he-plays-in-ffxi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (It's the department, in case you missed it.)

    Come on, now, I know it's popular to bash Microsoft on Slashdot, but I don't think that even Bill Gates is dumb enough to play THAT turkey of a game! Besides, everyone knows that he plays a Shaman in World of Warcraft. ;-)

  4. Re: i-wonder-what-he-plays-in-ffxi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, no, no... that's blatent mis-information

    It's been widely reported on several well known gaming sites that he plays as a Human Paladin, spec'd in Retribution. A less well know fact is that RMS has indeed rolled a Orc Shaman, Restoration spec'd.

  5. Take a look in your Mac by snuf23 · · Score: 3, Informative

    And you will find mostly commodity PC components now. Let's see:

    PCI bus = check
    ATA or SATA hard drive = check
    ATA CD/DVD/ROM/R drive = check
    Standard PC style graphics card or chip = check
    USB = check (while Apple was one company in the standards body, so were Microsoft and Intel among many others)
    DVI connector for monitor = check
    Standard Ethernet using TCP/IP = check

    And coming soon... Intel x86 CPU

    Interestingly, it seems that Apple is phasing out Firewire (which it did create) in favor of USB (see iPod Shuffle, Nano and Video).
    Long gone are Localtalk, ADB, NuBus etc.

    One of the big trends in Apple since Steve Jobs came aboard was transitioning the Macintosh to use lower cost commodity components. This approach in addition to reducing the number of different Macintosh models and configurations, allowed for cost cutting and increased margins on Mac sales.
    I'm not saying Apple hasn't innovated in the hardware space over the years, obviously it has. Today's Apple however leverages commodity hardware and innovates in overall system design, operating system and software.

    --
    Sometimes my arms bend back.
    1. Re:Take a look in your Mac by Psykechan · · Score: 1

      PCI bus = check
      Newer Macs don't use PCI, they use PCIe. Then again, newer PCs use PCIe as well. It seems that everyone went and dropped their older AGP, NuBus, VLB, ISA, EISA, MCA, etc. for a newer standard.

      ATA or SATA hard drive = check
      As opposed to using SCSI which was a commodity PC component?

      ATA CD/DVD/ROM/R drive = check
      See above. Actually, it was Apple that was using SCSI optical drives while the PC was using a mixture of SCSI/Matsushita/Sony/Mitsumi interfaces; SCSI evolved and is still in use while the other three are long gone.

      Standard PC style graphics card or chip = check
      This point baffles me. Are you trying to point out that everyone is using the same video hardware manufacturers? I'll agree with that then.

      USB = check (while Apple was one company in the standards body, so were Microsoft and Intel among many others)
      The USB standard was a collaborative effort. The fact that it's in wide use today was due to Apple.

      DVI connector for monitor = check
      It's good that Apple dumped that ADC interface but while I still see new OEM PCs shipping with VGA I can hardly call this a commodity PC component. Plus it's likely that Apple will be using UDI soon with PCs to follow.

      Standard Ethernet using TCP/IP = check
      I've got an old Mac sitting here that shipped with Ethernet on board in 1992. That would've been around the time that PCs were using a mixture of Ethernet, Token Ring, and ARCnet. By the way, TCP/IP is hardly a component.

      And coming soon... Intel x86 CPU
      You got that one. I'm not so sure that this is a good thing though.

      You also missed that new PCs have been dropping legacy components such as Serial/Parallel/Game ports as well as Floppy drives whereas Apple did that a while ago. Maybe both computer lines are just nearing each other?

      I'd also like to point out that there has been no official word that Firewire is going to be removed from Macs. There is only rumors that the FW400 ports may be removed in favor of a single FW800 port. This would allow all Macs to have higher speed FW and only needing one port on the systems. People can still use their much-needed-for-video FW400 devices with a cheap adapter.

    2. Re:Take a look in your Mac by cabjf · · Score: 1

      Apple may be phasing out Firewire support on iPods so that they only need to support one way to connect to a computer whether it be PC or Mac. Since both PC's and Mac's have USB ports but many PC's do not have Firewire, it makes sense to use USB. Combine that with the fact that USB 2 is much faster than the original USB was and able to power the iPod as well (probably the reasons for using Firewire in the first place) and it just doesn't make sense to support both USB and Firewire on new iPods anymore.

    3. Re:Take a look in your Mac by snuf23 · · Score: 1

      My point is that none of these items and many of the software parts of todays Mac as well, were not developed in house by Apple. This is in contrast to Apple many years ago which built their own flavor of many components internally.

      PCI/PCI Express - you know what I mean. And it's the same on the PC. It's not like Apple adopted PCI Express before it launched on the PC platform.

      ATA vs. SCSI - Once a long long time ago Apple even tried their hands at making their own hard drive interfaces. I'm talking back in the 5MB drive days. So Apple started in house and moved to a standard (SCSI initially). The move to ATA drives on the Mac was done as a cost saving move. Everyone complained at the time (myself included).

      Ethernet = Apple pushed Localtalk for a long time and eventually transitioned to Ethernet (a standard) when Localtalk speeds were not enough. My point about TCP/IP is that they adopted a common networking standard as well. MS did the same thing by running Windows networking over TCP/IP. When TCP/IP took over in the early 90s both Apple and MS moved towards it.

      USB = I think it's pretty debatable to say that it's in use because of Apple. The PC world transitioned to primarily USB over a much longer time period, but USB was standard on PCs back in the Pentium 2 days. The slow transition was done on purpose, versus Apple which dumped ADB overnight. Once again a lot of Mac users complained. All of a sudden their favorite mice, keyboards and printers would no longer work with a new iMac, just as their external SCSI hard drives, tape drives, Zips, Jaz and others wouldn't.

      Anyone the point is that as of today with the launch of the x86 Macs, what you have is an Apple built PC using commodity components running OS X. And even the core structure of OS X is built on open source software. This isn't a dig on Apple - what Jobs has done by leveraging both open source and common PC parts is probably the smartest thing Apple could do. The bulk of there innovation is in the OS and the overall design of the systems. This is also the most consumer marketable aspect of a computer.

      --
      Sometimes my arms bend back.
  6. Summary of article by RickPartin · · Score: 3, Funny

    I haven't read the article but here is an pretty accurate prediction

    Bill: I think the new Xbox is neet.

    There I just saved you all the trouble of reading.

    1. Re:Summary of article by Jackson_Ash · · Score: 1

      Is this some sort of jab about the system heating up and burning off the hair of anyone in close proximity? ;-)

  7. Bill Gates on the 360 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    BG: "What the fuck!?! I thought I had canceled that piece of shit!"

  8. Not true by rseuhs · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Gates: I mean, we're the hottest product there was at Christmas this year.

    Not true, in this holiday season more units of the 6 year old PS2 were sold than of the brand new XBox360.

    Gates: I don't think there's any doubt we'll have a substantially higher share in this generation than we had last generation.

    XBox360 sold less during the launch-month than XBox1 (in USA about 300000 instead of 500000, in Japan about 50000 instead of 123000 in the first 3 days, and just 70000 in 2005 http://www.the-magicbox.com/topten.htm) so I have lots of doubt that XBox360 will have "substantially higher share".

    And I think Bill has doubts, too.

    Don't forget that Sony sold 100 million units in 5 years and 9 months. Even if Microsoft keeps their new target of 4 million in the first 8 months and we assume that they continue selling at that rate forever, it would take 17 years to reach 100 million units.

    To reach "substantially higher share" with the XBox360, they would need to sell more than with XBox1, right?

    Well, XBox1 was sold 22 million times worldwide. Even if they can keep up 4 million / 8 months, they would need 4 years to get over that number. (Doesn't sound "substantially higher" to me) Of course they will not be able to keep up the current rate of sales and will probably never reach even the XBox1 installed base with XBox360.

    1. Re:Not true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey genius, maybe you don't understand the nature of "sold out." You make a long-ass post full of comparisons you just had to know were completely specious, why don't you find something better to do with your time?

  9. One solution by s0me1tm · · Score: 1
    Well, XBox1 was sold 22 million times worldwide. Even if they can keep up 4 million / 8 months, they would need 4 years to get over that number. (Doesn't sound "substantially higher" to me) Of course they will not be able to keep up the current rate of sales and will probably never reach even the XBox1 installed base with XBox360.
    Microsoft will have to drop Xbox360 prices substantially.
  10. Re: i-wonder-what-he-plays-in-ffxi by chrismcdirty · · Score: 2, Funny

    That's a lie! Everyone knows that RMS only plays GPL games!

    --
    It's like sex, except I'm having it!
  11. Wrong strategy by the+computer+guy+nex · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "And I think Bill has doubts, too. "

    1) The 360 has sold fewer units to this point due to the limited supply rather than low demand. This doesn't take away from the "buzz" around the product, rather the opposite.

    2) PS2 has sold over 100 million units, and the 360 will never reach that point for 2 reasons. 1) The 360 is strictly marketed to the United States. Hell Japan barely even knew a new console was coming out, same in Europe. M$ is avoiding the "Land War in Asia" against the PS3. 2) The 360 will make money from Xbox Live rather than extra units.

    Too many people consider this a standard console. Sell a piece of hardware underpriced and make up the difference on a cut of every game sold.

    The 360 is doing the same, but rather relying on Xbox Live membership fees and marketplace downloads. This is a business model that will strive. Every single 360 game is beautifully integrated.

    1. Re:Wrong strategy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The 360 is doing the same, but rather relying on Xbox Live membership fees and marketplace downloads. This is a business model that will strive. Every single 360 game is beautifully integrated.

      Just like it worked with the xbox, -$5 billion four years later.

      I don't know how you can honestly believe that a mere 2 million users paying a small monthly fee can cover the many billions of dollars invested into a console.

    2. Re:Wrong strategy by rseuhs · · Score: 1
      The 360 has sold fewer units to this point due to the limited supply rather than low demand.

      In the USA that might be true (however according to rumors its only sold out in the big cities) in Europe and Japan it certainly is not.

      The 360 will make money from Xbox Live rather than extra units.

      This is just something that I don't understand. XBox Live isn't new, why should more XBox360 owners want it than XBox1 owners? Either you like online-play or you don't, I don't see how higher graphics resolution would make you want it more.

    3. Re:Wrong strategy by cyp43r · · Score: 1

      Yes, but the XBox1 (and I presume Xbox 360) can really shine with the right games. So, although I like to think of the XBox as beating Sony, it's not ture, but I'll take the XBox over PS2 any day.

  12. Hold the phone Billy Boy... by smaffei · · Score: 1

    I mean, we're the hottest product there was at Christmas this year.

    Mr. Gates, the hottest product this holiday season was the iPod with 14 million units sold. Oh, sorry about that. That's one of the those heartburn words, sort of like "Google" or "Linux".

    --
    Sure, Windows PCs dominate the market. But so do cheap toupees.
  13. Too early to tell by AgentDib · · Score: 1

    It's not quite that cut and dried.

    It is important to take note that right now the 360 is an emergent technology with a high price breakpoint, dependence on expensive peripheral hardware for optimum performance, and a very limited selection of games. This places it squarely in the enthusiast market, and units are selling accordingly.

    Sometime between now and the release of the PS3 each of those factors is going to be greatly reduced. HDTV will become far more common, prices will be lowered significantly, and the available game library will be not only larger, but far more diverse. Whether the XBOX 360 will be able to have widespread success in the broad market when this occurs is unknown, but it's definitely too early to decry the launch as a failure.