Empower the people: Gates' vision

Ian Grayson
Australian IT

September 12 2000

IN this exclusive interview with Ian Grayson, editor of The Australian IT, Bill Gates explains his plans for a .NET world and why Microsoft will defeat Linux, Sun and any other contenders.

Could you describe exactly what your new role within the company covers? Has it changed in scope since the management restructure?

As chief software architect, I spend much of my time working with our research and product development teams to ensure that our collective work aligns with our technical strategies and really supports our customers' needs.

We've been a pioneer in how to do large-scale software development, but we've also set some very aggressive goals for our technology that push those capabilities to the limit and call on whole sets of new technology coming out of our research lab.

This means we have to be incredibly smart about how we design our products. I play a central role in orchestrating that across the company, and I'm having a great time doing it.

How confident are you feeling about the antitrust court action?

We feel very confident in our case and always have. It's a long process, but we're getting away from the more sensationalist aspects of the trial that didn't really have much to do with the facts and the law. We think the courts, once they review our case, will agree we've been very pro-competitive, and that all our actions have been totally legal.

Windows 2000 has been embraced by corporate users around the world. Has uptake been as rapid as you expected?

Windows 2000 has had a great reception, and we're going to continue to work hard to ensure people understand exactly how good a product it is. We've seen early deployment from sites like Barnes & Noble, which actually deployed beta code on its website during the busy holiday shopping season last year. We've shown we can blow right through the performance standards set by high-priced vendors such as Sun, and we can do it at well under half the cost.

Our customers love the product, and our offering is just getting stronger. We're about to launch Windows 2000 Datacenter and a group of servers that will complete the strongest product range we've ever had.

Do you regard Linux as a serious threat in this space? If so, why?

Yes and no. Obviously Linux has had a great deal of attention and it's being used for some single applications and web servers, but you need to separate the facts from the hype. Even Linus Torvalds has said recently that Linux can't compete with Windows on ease-of-use and simplicity, and that it will be a long time before they can compete effectively on the desktop.

But it goes deeper than that. Windows 2000 is a modern operating system designed, built and tested with a huge amount of customer input and about $US4 billion ($7 billion) in investment.

There is an unbelievable support network, a roadmap IT managers can trust and a company that's accountable for the quality of the product. There is a huge amount of investment in creating tools that help developers build on the platform in a smart and effective way.

The myths of Linux just don't add up. It's not free, unless you don't place value on the costly development and support resources it takes to make it work.

It's simply false that open source has any great benefit in terms of reliability or security.

The idea that people's altruistic contribution will somehow evolve into the best product is wrong.

It's old technology that only gets improved when someone cares enough to write new code. That doesn't provide the functionality, reliability and predictability enterprises require for their mission critical systems. The open source model itself really stops anyone from making the intense investment they need to make the technology truly competitive.

Internet devices, handhelds and mobile phones are all tipped as the big growth areas of the next few years. Do you believe the phrase "the network is the computer" is actually happening?

There have always been people willing to predict the demise of the PC and project that one device or another will be the panacea that will solve everyone's problems.

I think the premise and argument are off course. People should not be slaves to a particular device, including the PC.

We recently updated our corporate vision, stating that our mission is to empower people through great software -- any time, any place and on any device. A few months ago we held an event to unveil how we are going to do that, a strategy and set of technologies called Microsoft .NET. One of the basic premises is that we should remove the barrier devices and create environments.

Right now you have to work pretty much the way your PC, PDA or cell phone make you. You might have four or five identities and passwords, three different calendars, separate email accounts, a variety of interfaces and your information resides in several locations. Doesn't sound like a simple world to me, but the fact is that most people will use more than one device to organise and manage their life.

In a .NET world you could have one identity and choose to centralise as much of your world as you want to.

Through XML and advanced software we can make it possible for you to keep your information in several places but be able to access and share it as you see fit regardless of what device you choose to use at different times. The idea that the network is the computer is only clear if you understand what Sun means by that. Their view of the world is that everyone should work on dumb devices hooked up to very big and expensive servers that Sun sells. The reality is that devices will need some native intelligence if they really are going to serve the person using them.

For example, the Sun view of the world totally ignores huge parts of the working world that need to work offline. What do you do if you need to work on an plane?

In the Sun world, you watch the inflight movie. In a .NET world you take your laptop or whatever device you want, you access the information you need, and you do the work when you want to.

You will spend more on the launch of Xbox than on any other product. Why the huge push into this area?

First of all, we see devices such as Xbox as a great way to extend the way people use technology in their homes. These are not little battery operated game devices, they are powerful machines that will take advantage of broadband and internet technologies and give people a great gaming experience. If you haven't already seen a demo of Xbox it will overwhelm you when you do, and this comes from our experience as a platform developer.

We are creating a platform that will improve the quality of graphics and action multiple times more than the best product Nintendo offers. It will absolutely be the best visual experience anyone has ever played with and developers will love it.

The money we spend on its launch is just the price we have to pay to participate in the consumer marketplace. It's a big market with a lot of noise.

Is sufficient attention being given to personal privacy in the information age? Is safeguarding privacy the responsibility of companies such as Microsoft, or governments, or individuals?

This is a good question, and I think the precise answer depends on how people define privacy. Some view it as having a personal "walled garden" where they can limit their exposure to things like ads. Other people see it as the ability to keep someone from observing their actions, sort of an anonymous existence. Others object to the idea that information they have provided may be sold or traded among commercial entities. Anyone who gets junk mail at home can empathise with that.

I think we are getting closer to a solution, and hope that the industry steps up enough on the issue before it requires legislative action.

A core part of our .NET strategy is that people should have much more control over how their information is stored and shared. They should know when someone is sending them a file that gets stored on their machine, and they should have control of the information they leave behind when they visit a website.

We're already doing some of this by giving people the tools to manage the cookies internet sites place on your computer. Depending on your sensitivity, you can set limits, so sometimes you let just a little information out, or much more, but it's up to you.

Overall responsibility has to be shared. The industry needs to give people strong tools and a way to make simple choices very clear. Individuals need to take responsibility to understand and make the choices.

On some levels this technology is just like an automobile. It's pretty hard these days to imagine living without your car. Car companies have the responsibility to make sure my car is safe, but it is my responsibility to understand how to drive and know the rules of the road.

What kind of company will Microsoft be in five years' time?

Microsoft has always been a software company, and we've always been focused on helping people do great things with their lives.

Fundamentally, our employees come to work every day to think about how they can change the world for the better, how they can improve a product so that 100 million people can do something better than they could yesterday.

That really hasn't changed in 25 years and it won't change in the next five. What will change is how we go about achieving our goals.

I can't answer specifically what Microsoft will look like in five years; I can tell you we will live up to our vision of empowering people -- any time, any place and on any device. We've got a lot of hard work to do to make that happen.

What are your priorities outside the company?

The most important thing in my life is my family. My kids just amaze me in the way they learn about the world and how they connect new ideas.

We are spending more of our time, Melinda even more than I, on philanthropy and figuring out the investments our foundation should make in world health and education issues.

We're taking a very long-term view and trying to solve hard issues and that is both challenging and rewarding.

It's been exciting to work with incredible people who have a great depth of knowledge, but who have a hard time getting the resources to solve part of a larger problem.

It's challenging because some of these issues are just so big, but I think we'll make a significant step forward in solving them.

Do you believe that technology will succeed in making the world a better place?

I believe it already has. The fact that we can now communicate across the world or, for that matter, the universe, in a matter of seconds is just incredible.

I think about the advancements we've made in how we share and experience learning and I know that my kids will have a much better education than I did, and I'm not that old.

If you look at the medical community, it is clear that technology is making huge improvements in how we care for people.

If you look at the smaller things, like cell phones and ATM cards, you can see a hundred parts of your life that are more efficient today than they were 10 years ago.

The PC has increased productivity in a huge way, and the internet has increased the pace even more.

But right now I think technology is still way too hard to use and the work we do in the next five years will take us much further than what we've done in the previous 25.

Technology really is in its infancy.

Copyright 2000