Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Bill Gates says cell phone will beat iPod

Jetson said:
The fact that the iPod has gotten into Bill's craw is a certain sign of Apple's enormous success. A triumph that, as a longtime Apple customer, I hope continues far into the future. :D
Click to expand...


Me too. A few more big success stories and Bill will have a stroke. Hopefully a non-fatal one, but a stroke non-the-less.
 
Bill is right and Apple suspects he might be too. EVERYONE has a cell phone, and that's why Apple is working hard to have their own version.
 
I think that some aspects of what Gates says about convergence are correct, while he still misses some points.

Right now we use different devices for different tasks because each specialised divice is better and cheaper than a general device. Given sufficiently advanced technology, the technical barriers to convergence will fall, but will the social, psychological, and ergonomic reasons be addressed? As well, given that advanced technology, will the specialised devices then continue to stay ahead inside their own domains?

What are these domains? What tasks to users actually wish to do? Can they be divided into "dimensions" or aspects of domains? Let me try to list some dimensions, to explain:

- Content type
- Text
- Picture
- Audio
- Video
- Storage
- Local
- Networked
- Consumption vs Production
- Background vs Foreground (concentration, interaction)
- Private vs Shared
- Shape (portability, compactness)

Let's give some use cases for technology, and then explore the relevant aspects/dimensions.

- Reading text (PDF, webpage, book)
- Writing documents (word processor, spreadsheet, presentation)
- Texting, emailing, blogging
- Text chatting
- Organising contact information
- Taking pictures
- Looking at pictures
- Listening to music
- Phoning someone
- Watching TV, movies
- Video conferencing
- Playing video games


Reading text
------------
- Content type = Text
- Storage = Local and Networked
- Consumption
- Foreground
- Private
- Shape: Screen as small as a book when mobile, or monitor size when stationary, or projector sized when sharing


Writing documents (word processor, spreadsheet, presentation)
-------------------------------------------------------------
Content type = Text, Picture
- Storage = Local
- Production
- Foreground
- Private
- Shape: Screen monitor sized, full sized keyboard and mouse preferred, but can handle mobile sizes


Texting, emailing, blogging
-------------------------
Content type = Text
Storage = Networked
Consumption and Production
Foreground
Shared
Shape: Need adequate text entry better than cellphone, but can settle for blackberry size. Screen should show 4+ lines of text


Text chatting
-------------
Content type = Text
Storage = Networked
Consumption and Production
Foreground: Intermittant, since typing is slow, people multitask
Shared
Shape: Same entry as texting, but need larger screen to show last several sent and received messages


Organising contact information
-----------------------------
Content type = Text, some Picture
Storage = Local and Networked for backing up, syncing
Consumption and Production
Foreground
Private
Shape: Same entry as texting, but need somewhere inbetween texting and text chatting screen


Taking pictures
---------------
Content type = Picture, Video
Storage: Local, Networked to archive print and share
Production
Foreground
Private and Shared
Shape: Optically the lens can vary in size for zooming. Screen arround 2"x2". Don't want larger. CCD of 4+ mpixels for serious pictures, and less for fun pictures


Looking at pictures
------------------
Content type = Picture, Video
Storage = Local
Consumption
Foreground
Private and Shared
Shape: Private viewing can vary from 2"x2" to 6"x4" to monitor size. Group viewing goes from book size to large television size


Listening to music
-----------------
Content type = Audio
Storage = Local is preferred, Network for radio or streaming or subscription
Consumption
Background
Private and Shared
Shape: For private the smaller the better. The more songs requires organisation, so a screen with 5+ lines. Shared requires larger speakers.


Phoning someone
---------------
Content type = Audio
Storage = Networked
Consumption and Production
Foreground
Shared
Shape: Screen ~5 lines of text. As small as possible, while fingers can still dial easily. Or use voice to dial.


Watching TV, movies
-------------------
Content type = Video
Storage = Local preferred, Network for streaming or subscription
Consumption
Foreground
Private and Shared
Shape: As large as possible is preferred, but travellers like display from 6"x4" to 12"x8"


Video conferencing
------------------
Content type = Video
Storage = Networked
Consumption and Production
Foreground
Shared
Shape: Need screen from 4"x4" upwards


Playing video games
-------------------
Content type = Video
Storage = Local preferred, Network for streaming or subscription
Consumption
Foreground
Private and Shared
Shape: Need screen from 4"x4" upwards


So, what has possibility of converging, based on form factor?
- Small screen of a few lines of text, up to 2"x2"
- Having a keyboard
- Texting, emailing, blogging [screen 4+lines, mini kb]
- Organising contact information [screen 6+lines, mini kb]
- Phoning someone [screen 5 lines, numerical keypad]
- Not keyboard, but some buttons
- Taking pictures [screen 2"x2"]
- Looking at pictures [screen 2"x2" to 6"x4"]
- Listening to music [screen 5+lines, song selection buttons]
- Video conferencing [screen 4"x4"+]
- Playing video games [screen 4"x4"+, joystick buttons]
- Book sized screen (assume it folds down when in pocket)
- Having a keyboard
- Reading text (PDF, webpage, book) [book->projector]
- Writing documents [monitor, full kb / notebook size]
- Texting, emailing, blogging [screen 4+lines, mini kb]
- Text chatting [screen 10+lines, mini kb]
- Organising contact information [screen 6+lines, mini kb]
- Not keyboard, but some buttons
- Reading text (PDF, webpage, book) [book->projector]
- Looking at pictures [screen 2"x2" to 6"x4"]
- Watching TV, movies [6"x4" to 12"x8" to larger]
- Video conferencing [screen 4"x4"+]
- Playing video games [screen 4"x4"+, joystick buttons]

Predictions (some are obvious, already happenning)
- Ok, so look for phones to converge with PDAs (contact info, small text gfx), and move more into blackberry-ish texting/emailing

- Small (flash) music players that involve no user interaction will remain single purpose, to keep costs down
- Large capacity music players need a screen large enough for organising the music, which can be large enough for previewing pictures and playing video games. The different hand control requirements might limit this.
- I think that camera CCDs will be integrated right into music player/recorders, since they both require large storage, and have similar screen, input requirements
- Video will only take off if there are video inputs and outputs, to act as a PVR

>>> So, no Mr Gates, music players won't converge with cell phones. Phone+PDA communication device and iPod+Camera audio and picture device

- How will book sized text entry (and viewing) devices work? Why have one when you could use your notebook or phone? I think they'll be niche
- It would be convergence of Tablet+PDA, which are both dead or dying

- Book sized viewers, on the other hand, may succeed.
- Might replace books, especially if can fold or roll to pocket size
- Sony PSP ?
- Future of tablets? Tablets fail because suck for text entry. So forget data entry, and make a cheap data viewer
- Why won't these converge with phones, iPods? Phones and iPods want to be as small as possible. This wants to have as large a screen as possible, while still being portable.
- Unless video phoning takes off, then people will want a large screen when chatting, and then it could all collapse into one.


Ok, so I don't want to have three devices on me, my Phone+PDA, iPod+Camera, and eBook+PSP. How will this work?
Well, when all folded up, all three would fit in one large pocket anyway.
Plus, with bluetooth, you can keep them in a bag, and only hold one at a time.

So, why isn't this happenning yet?
- Cell phone standards change rapidly, whereas audio, video and text consumption does not. So no one would want to couple phones to anything yet.
- Networks are not fast enough to send video, so video phones aren't here yet
- Camera phone CCDs are not at 4 or 5 mega pixel yet
- We don't have flexible or foldable screens
- Costs are too high for some of the specialised devices, let alone converged devices. We have to wait for more market penetration of the specialised devices before even bothering at convergence.
- Cell phones still use those damn numerical keypads. They haven't clued in to use the ones with one letter per key. This requires a folding phone
- Storage desities aren't large enough to have a full movie on a small enough disk or chip. Maybe blue lasers will solve this. HD movies will push this further away.
 
Philsy said:
Yes they are! :confused:
Click to expand...

I don't mean fast enough to do 15fps of grainy skippy video. I meant 30fps of better than 320x200 resolution, properly synchronized with the audio.

And the resolution and screen size would have to be large enough that you can read people's facial expressions and emotions, so 320x200 is probably not enough.

Forget the networks, all of the phone cameras and PDA cameras, when in video mode, don't even do 30fps.
 
I am sure that the iPod will adapt when the technology allows it to Mr Gates.

The iPhone has a nice ring to it.

But with things they way they are right now, that would be one big piece of equipment to haul around. Larger and more ungainly that a Sidekick is now.

I wouldn't want it to be much bigger than my iPod Mini, as it is with the case on. And I like the clamshell design, which would be difficult.

It's hard to imagine that it is possible anytime soon, there is no way that they capacity could be replicated on a phone. Still, a phone with a Gig of flash memory is a nice idea. Just to have something available when you want it.
 
Bill is right.

My cellphone has a built-in MP3 player, and there's absolutely no reason for me to carry around another piece of equipment. Especially when it's as heavy as the iPod.

And with 1+ GB SDcards, storage isn't much of an issue anymore either.
 
quik said:
There is a lot less Mac bashing on PC sites than PC bashing.

It seems like it's fun here to joke with Windows.

Don't you ever used something other than Windows 95? I have Mac OSX 10.4 and Windows XP and I have zero problems on both.
Click to expand...
You're expierences aren't very realistic it seems; I have both and they both have issues, XP more so.
 
What a bunch of losers with their panties in a twist

Bill is "losing sleep" over Apple? Apple's 20 gb Ipod is the best technology EVER? Everyone else is a pale imitation of Apple's cutting edge design? The Ipod will be around forverer?

Get over it. Many people here obviously hate Bill because he runs the biggest company in the world and is the richest man in the world. Because he aggressively markets MS they call him evil (despite the Gates foundation and his amazing charity work). He adapts his products, takes bits and pieces from here and there, and gives consumers what they want. If he was incompetent, or the software/hardware was as bad as some people here make out, then believe me the market would correct itself FAST.

Ipod's were really cool a couple of years ago. Now they're less so. My second gen one died and I couldn't replace the battery without sending it in. Other manufacturers have started overtaking apple on every front, from price to features to quality. Apple has a name (like Sony has "walkman") but you need a product that is amazing to back it up.

If a product is a convergence of previous technologies (phone, pda, mp3) then of course people will buy it over a dedicated tool. It's like a swiss army knife getting more features as opposed to Apple's single wimpy blade.

Stop whining about how anything from MS must suck just because they made it, and everything from Apple must rule just because they made it (Newton anyone?). Look at the tools and the tech, Apple is not winning.
 
sphagnum pi said:
If a product is a convergence of previous technologies (phone, pda, mp3) then of course people will buy it over a dedicated tool. It's like a swiss army knife getting more features as opposed to Apple's single wimpy blade.
Click to expand...
point noted, i think most users would like a tool that works really well for single specified tasks, rather than one that does a half-baked job of many. case in point, can you say camera-phone?
 
sphagnum pi said:
Get over it. Many people here obviously hate Bill because he runs the biggest company in the world and is the richest man in the world. Because he aggressively markets MS they call him evil (despite the Gates foundation and his amazing charity work).
Click to expand...
Yes, gates is such a philanthropist... he's the one who overcharges for crap software and calls open source developers "communists," as if thats something to be ashamed of...
 
MP3, or iTunes phone for me?

No thanks!

I am sure a few other people like me, don't want to carry something sending as much RF as a Cell phone on our body whenever we want to listen to music and be mobile.

I am not paranoid about cellular RF, but the more time I can have away from a phone the better. I like to put my Ipod headphones in to get away, and get "into the music". I don't want my song interrupted by a phone ringer.
 
Fukui said:
Yes, gates is such a philanthropist... he's the one who overcharges for crap software and calls open source developers "communists," as if thats something to be ashamed of...
Click to expand...

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. Gates is a huge philanthropist, in fact he is one of the largest givers in the world. He has donated over 50% of his net worth (that's tens of BILLIONS of dollars) to charity, and his wife's full-time job is managing the Gates Charity which they operate. How many people can say they've donated half of what their worth to charity? More people should cut Gates some slack, he is putting his money to excellent use and helping out millions of people, mostly children, and is contributing heavily to research.
 
~Shard~ said:
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. Gates is a huge philanthropist, in fact he is one of the largest givers in the world. He has donated over 50% of his net worth (that's tens of BILLIONS of dollars) to charity, and his wife's full-time job is managing the Gates Charity which they operate. How many people can say they've donated half of what their worth to charity? More people should cut Gates some slack, he is putting his money to excellent use and helping out millions of people, mostly children, and is contributing heavily to research.
Click to expand...
He gives most of his money to his own charity organization. It is known he has used it as leverage before when things don't go his way. (Indian Govt' dumping windows) I'm not saying its unappreciated that he gives money away he got from illegal activities, but, I wonder why it is whenever there is an interview the first thing they mention is his "philanthropic" activities... just read his XBOX covers story, like its supposed to make me like his products more? Same on the BBC story etc.

REAL philanthropists are not people that just throw thier money at stuff, they actually DO SOMETHING with thier own hands. For example, Mother Teresa I would consider someone who "loves mankind" - the definition of philanthropist. People that A) cheat others and betray them causing them to loose all thier money or recourse, B)calls people that do work and contribute to the betterment of something for free a "communist" and C)needs recognition for his work to be mentioned all the time is no philanthropist in my definition.

He is a great charity giver, yes, but lets not forget he's also a true monopolist business man who, like steve jobs, has an ego the size of Jupiter. So while I'm sure his donation is appreciated, he could trully do more with his time than ready the next XBOX or Office 12 which, honestly donate about zero to the whole of mankind.

If he drops everything and goes to India and works to help the people there, even if he doesn't bring one penny with him, then I would say he's a philanthropist. Maybe he will when he retires. He has a powerful drive that if put towards something trully philanthropic, could accomplish a lot to say the least.
 
Fukui said:
He gives most of his money to his own charity organization. It is known he has used it as leverage before when things don't go his way. (Indian Govt' dumping windows) I'm not saying its unappreciated that he gives money away he got from illegal activities, but, I wonder why it is whenever there is an interview the first thing they mention is his "philanthropic" activities... just read his XBOX covers story, like its supposed to make me like his products more? Same on the BBC story etc.

REAL philanthropists are not people that just throw thier money at stuff, they actually DO SOMETHING with thier own hands. For example, Mother Teresa I would consider someone who "loves mankind" - the definition of philanthropist. People that A) cheat others and betray them causing them to loose all thier money or recourse, B)calls people that do work and contribute to the betterment of something for free a "communist" and C)needs recognition for his work to be mentioned all the time is no philanthropist in my definition.

He is a great charity giver, yes, but lets not forget he's also a true monopolist business man who, like steve jobs, has an ego the size of Jupiter. So while I'm sure his donation is appreciated, he could trully do more with his time than ready the next XBOX or Office 12 which, honestly donate about zero to the whole of mankind.

If he drops everything and goes to India and works to help the people there, even if he doesn't bring one penny with him, then I would say he's a philanthropist. Maybe he will when he retires. He has a powerful drive that if put towards something trully philanthropic, could accomplish a lot to say the least.
Click to expand...



Err, no. If I can make $100/hr doing my work, and give away $50 to charity, which pays for 2 to 5 people to do an hour's work, then that's simply smarter than me doing the work myself.

I think that Bill Gates is a dick, but I'm not going to knock his charity just because of that.

Here's a question though, did he give anything to charity before he married? Is this all just because of his wife?
 
Chill out, don't spaz, there's room for two opinions!

Fukui said:
He gives most of his money to his own charity organization. It is known he has used it as leverage before when things don't go his way. (Indian Govt' dumping windows) I'm not saying its unappreciated that he gives money away he got from illegal activities, but, I wonder why it is whenever there is an interview the first thing they mention is his "philanthropic" activities... just read his XBOX covers story, like its supposed to make me like his products more? Same on the BBC story etc.

REAL philanthropists are not people that just throw thier money at stuff, they actually DO SOMETHING with thier own hands. For example, Mother Teresa I would consider someone who "loves mankind" - the definition of philanthropist. People that A) cheat others and betray them causing them to loose all thier money or recourse, B)calls people that do work and contribute to the betterment of something for free a "communist" and C)needs recognition for his work to be mentioned all the time is no philanthropist in my definition.

He is a great charity giver, yes, but lets not forget he's also a true monopolist business man who, like steve jobs, has an ego the size of Jupiter. So while I'm sure his donation is appreciated, he could trully do more with his time than ready the next XBOX or Office 12 which, honestly donate about zero to the whole of mankind.

If he drops everything and goes to India and works to help the people there, even if he doesn't bring one penny with him, then I would say he's a philanthropist. Maybe he will when he retires. He has a powerful drive that if put towards something trully philanthropic, could accomplish a lot to say the least.
Click to expand...

I don't think Bill cheats others and betrays them and causes them to lose all their money, you're sounding paranoid. Everyone knows it's the UFO's who do the cheating.

The means matter, yes, but the end is surely paramount? If Bill can make a buck or two by selling software that annoys you, but ends up giving hundreds of millions of dollars to charity organizations in third world (and even communist!) countries then you've got to admit he's a philanthropist.
 
Fukui said:
REAL philanthropists are not people that just throw thier money at stuff, they actually DO SOMETHING with thier own hands.

<...>

If he drops everything and goes to India and works to help the people there, even if he doesn't bring one penny with him, then I would say he's a philanthropist. Maybe he will when he retires. He has a powerful drive that if put towards something trully philanthropic, could accomplish a lot to say the least.
Click to expand...

I understand what you're saying, however you make it sound as though a philanthropist isn't allowed to donate money to a worthy cause to better humanity. Is this fair? He can only engage in manual labor? Sounds like a pretty narrow, flawed view of philanthropy to me. Would it be better if he horded all his billions of dollars and not donate a cent to any worthy cause like Warren Buffet? Donating Tens of billions of dollars isn't good enough? :confused:

Bill Gates contributes in the best, more effective way he can - with his money - he is one of the richest men on Earth, what better way for him to contribute? And not only a pawltry amount, but over half of his entire net worth.

I appreciate your points regarding how he acquired that money, what type of business men he and Jobs are (they're more alike than most Apple fans would like to admit...) and his overall tactics, but at the end of the day, I can still appreciate the man for doing what he has done through his charity work, all things aside. And in this aspect, I respect the man, plain and simple. :cool:
 
sphagnum pi said:
I don't think Bill cheats others and betrays them and causes them to lose all their money, you're sounding paranoid. Everyone knows it's the UFO's who do the cheating.
Click to expand...
Its no paranoya its called anti-trust, and other small business that have been "screwed" by Microsofts business tactics. If you take money away from others, and cause problems, then you give money back you took in the first place and call it charity, I don't think thats so altruistic.

Don't get me wrong, I did say I appreciate his donations.
In fact, if you read farther before in the thread I did agree with his statement that cell phones would eventually supplant a single iPod type player... so I'm not blinded by some hate or something.

I'm just stating that he really doesn't deserve to be called a "philanthropist".
Its like how MS is comming out with anti-virus software instead of fixing the main flaws in the OS that allow virii to propogate; they get to make double the money now.

A real philanthropist is someone like Cheng Yen, Mother Teresa or Dali Lama. In other words, bill gates just like most every other big business man has done harm to people and acts selfishly, thats not how a true philanthropist acts IMO. Why does anyone need a 20 million dollar house? Why give just 50% of ones money? Most of that 50% is actually just sitting in a bank acount at the Bill and Mellinda Foundation as an endowment.

Maybe its just me, but if I'm him I would forget comparatively stupid stuff like the XBOX and Office software and move on to work that could solve the biggest problems facing our society. Imagine if he put his smarts toward solving energy problems, pollution, hunger etc, he's definitely smart enough and persevering enough to make major breakthroughs.

The means matter, yes, but the end is surely paramount? If Bill can make a buck or two by selling software that annoys you, but ends up giving hundreds of millions of dollars to charity organizations in third world (and even communist!) countries then you've got to admit he's a philanthropist.
Click to expand...
Is it entierly possible that he could give his software for free to any country, and make it open source? He could still charge businesses and make tons of money. Instead MS releases crippled versions of windows to these countries because they won't pay the same price 1st world countries will.

And ends cannot justify the means. Americans enjoy a great amount of freedom, but how many innocent suffered along the way (?), a lot to say the least, its something we all have to acknowledge. So that metaphor doesn't stand IMO.

We can say the ends are paramount because we aren't the ones who suffered, those that did, would hardly agree.
 
~Shard~ said:
I understand what you're saying, however you make it sound as though a philanthropist isn't allowed to donate money to a worthy cause to better humanity. Is this fair? He can only engage in manual labor?
Click to expand...
No, thats not of course what I mean. By hands I mean takes the matter into his own hands. One can send off money and let others take care of it, or one can be more involved and take care it themeselves. I don't hate him or anything its just people that really sacrifice hardly are noticed, and those that throw lots of money around get labeled philanthropists; he wouldn't even be donating money if it wasn't for Warren Buffet convincing him thats what people who have money "need to do."
 
Fukui said:
No, thats not of course what I mean. By hands I mean takes the matter into his own hands. One can send off money and let others take care of it, or one can be more involved and take care it themeselves. I don't hate him or anything its just people that really sacrifice hardly are noticed, and those that throw lots of money around get labeled philanthropists; he wouldn't even be donating money if it wasn't for Warren Buffet convincing him thats what people who have money "need to do."
Click to expand...

Fair enough, I understand your point.

However, I was unaware that Warren Buffet convinced him that people with money need to donate it. If this is the case, then Warren Buffet is the bigest frickin' hypocrite known to man, as he has donated about 1% of his entire fortune to charity.
 
~Shard~ said:
Fair enough, I understand your point.

However, I was unaware that Warren Buffet convinced him that people with money need to donate it. If this is the case, then Warren Buffet is the bigest frickin' hypocrite known to man, as he has donated about 1% of his entire fortune to charity.
Click to expand...
Well, I beleive it was Warren AFAIK. It was one of his close acquaintances which one was Buffet.

I don't know, maybe I have a too expectation...
Personally I don't know what I would do with more than a mill, let alone 1000 times that.

Lets just hope he does more when he retires.
Same for Buffet... even if he is a hypocrite.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back