This is worth watching if you have an hour to kill. Not only is the first 30 minutes relevant to HN, but the second 30 minutes about foundation stuff is pretty inspirational. In 20-30 years there will be countless people living full lives who would be dead if it weren't for BG. Pretty amazing guy.
As much as I hate to agree with Gates on anything, I too think it is a shame that neither the governments nor the markets have found it worthwhile to eliminate preventable causes of suffering such as Malaria. As much as I hate the Windows tax, it is a little consoling to think that some of it is being put to good use.
Gates' never refers to 'them' as Google - which in a funny way dramatises Google as a sinister force - I've noticed Steve Balmer avoids saying Google in interviews too, as if they feel just saying the name is giving Google extra promotion.
1- I agree there is still room for search and we definitely Microsoft in the game hoping that some of the smart guys there will come up with a better search experience than we have right now.
2- Bill Gates had a dream several years ago. Because most people hate Microsoft, they fail to recognize the magnitude of the impact Billy has had in their life.
3- I agree. We need different input/ouput. A mouse, screen, keyboard, is nice but we need more.
> Because most people hate Microsoft, they fail to recognize the magnitude of the impact Billy has had in their life.
What impact? If Bill Gates had never been born, Moore's law would still have been in effect and computers would still have got ever cheaper. The Apple Mac would still have been built; the IBM PC would still have been built -- but probably running CP/M-86, DR-DOS and (later) GEM. The Atari ST and Commodore Amiga would still have happened. Unix and C would still have been invented, and their intrinsic wourth would have let to them becoming popular. HTML and http (or something very like them) would still have been invented.
The only difference is that their would have been no baleful, anti-competitive Microsoft watching over all and limiting progress. (How many startups weren't started in the 1990s because their putative founders thought Microsoft would strangle them if they showed signs of success?). So, minus Gates, if anything today's technology would have arrived quicker.
Well, you don't really know that, do you? Perhaps another monopolist would have come along. Perhaps he would have been in the style of Steve Jobs, who is not at all known for philanthropy.
> Perhaps another monopolist would have come along.
There were certainly plenty of people who would have liked to dominated software the way Gates did. So, I agree, one of them might have succeeded. And if they did, the outcome would have been about that same as it was with Gates' dominance. In other words, we'd probably have been no worse off.
Could the alternative monopolist have been Steve Jobs? It's possible, though I think it's unlikely. Jobs' products have tended to be quirky (e.g. the original Mac had no expansion slot), with an NIH-flavour (e.g. Apple are about the only people who use Objective C), more expensive than the competition, and often locked-down (e.g. the iPhone will only run apps approved by Apple); all attributes that make mass adoption less likely. And Apple itself has often have the flavour of a religious cult about it.
This is not to denigrate Jobs: he's clearly a brilliant man, and Apple have clearly made some brilliant products. As opposed to Microsoft's products which tend towards the mediocre: they always work (sort-of) but are rarely inspiring.
So if there was an alternate monopolist, and it was Jobs, I think software technology would have progressed faster than it actually did.
Maybe Jobs isn't known for philanthopy, but that's irrelevant, since the original assertion was "the magnitude of the impact Billy has had in their life", and my life (and most HN readers' lives) has been changed more by technological advances in computing than by Gates' philanthopy.
All quite debatable. Excel, for example, is one of the single best pieces of software I've ever used. As another example, I find Itunes clunky and hard to use.
Don't get me wrong, I still hate Bill Gates the monopolist. What I don't like is the knee-jerk reaction that anything he or Microsoft does is evil, and anything that Apple/Google/etc. does is good. We can still learn from him as a businessman, and we can also admire his philanthropic contributions.
> Excel, for example, is one of the single best pieces of software I've ever used.
Let's consider Excel. It's a spreadsheet. Spreadsheets were invented by Dan Bricklin, and since VisiCalc, many have been written. It's therefore clear that without Bill Gates, spreadsheets would still exist -- no doubt you'd be describing another one as the best software you're ever used.
> What I don't like is the knee-jerk reaction that anything he or Microsoft does is evil, and anything that Apple/Google/etc. does is good.
Well don't complain about it to me, I'm not asserting either of these!
> We can still learn from him as a businessman
Indeed so. The way he pulled the wool over IBM's eyes and stole control of the desktop from under their noses was masterpiece of business strategy.
Although I wouldn't go so far, I think you have a point. If we are to believe the arguments in The Selfish Gene about evolutionary principles applying to ideas and culture, then it is likely that without Bill Gates in the world, someone like him would have appeared and played a similar role to promote the personal computer in business.
He's pretty forthcoming on how unsuccessful they have been in the search space. I don't think he is too worried though, he has his people working day and night trying to compete with google and during that hour interview he probably made $750,000.
As much as I dislike Microsoft, I respect Bill Gates. This interview reinforces that respect. Some of his answers to questions about Microsoft were lame, but the rest of it was pretty good.
But I don't understand this statement: "you get that death rate down, the population growth goes down because less kids are dying"
I honestly love this show, especially when Charlie has an opportunity to interview for an hour straight, uninterrupted.
It is very difficult to spit out crafted sound bites and PR scripts, when you're under the camera for a hour. And even if that happens, it certainly reveals something about the guest's ability to BS.
