Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Gates Proclaims Internet to Revolutionize TV in 5 Years

CmdrTaco posted more than 7 years ago | from the for-some-of-us-it-already-has dept.

Television 314

adamlazz writes "With an explosion of online video content on sites like YouTube and Google Video, Bill Gates believes that the Internet will revoloutionize the television within the next 5 years. 'I'm stunned how people aren't seeing that with TV, in five years from now, people will laugh at what we've had,' Gates told business leaders and politicians at the World Economic Forum. "

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Oh, just what I needed... (5, Funny)

Mikachu (972457) | more than 7 years ago | (#17790376)

...the blue screen of death on my TV set.

Re:Oh, just what I needed... (1)

woodchip (611770) | more than 7 years ago | (#17790386)

I will be right back. I got to reboot my TV real quick.

Re:Oh, just what I needed... (4, Insightful)

smallfries (601545) | more than 7 years ago | (#17790392)

That's probably what people said when Gates proclaimed IPTV in 1990, 1995, 2000 and 2007. That's the great thing about predictions, if you make them often enough they must come true...

Re:Oh, just what I needed... (4, Insightful)

moranar (632206) | more than 7 years ago | (#17790794)

That's probably what people said when Gates proclaimed IPTV in 1990, 1995, 2000 and 2007. That's the great thing about predictions, if you make them often enough they must come true...

Y'know, I still don't see flying cars anywhere near. On the other hand, it will be a cold day in Hell before I start paying attention to what Gates has to say about the Internet. His company almost missed it. MSN, hah.

Re:Oh, just what I needed... (5, Funny)

egyptiankarim (765774) | more than 7 years ago | (#17790972)

Bill Gates makes a lot of proclamations, and personally I refuse to take anything he says seriously until I get that $100 dollars he promised to give me for sending out that Email to ten of my friends... :P

Re:Oh, just what I needed... (5, Funny)

littlem (807099) | more than 7 years ago | (#17790778)

640 channels ought to be enough for anyone...

Bill Gates Knows the Future (0, Redundant)

Jab25 (982624) | more than 7 years ago | (#17790872)

"640K ought to be enough for anybody." -- Bill Gates, 1981 Spam will be a thing of the past in two years' time. -- Bill Gates, BBC News (24 January 2004)

TV? Pffft. (4, Funny)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 7 years ago | (#17790382)

Television is just a passing fad... : p

Re:TV? Pffft. (2, Funny)

slashbob22 (918040) | more than 7 years ago | (#17790722)

Radio... Now that's a solid investment!

Re:TV? Pffft. (1)

Divebus (860563) | more than 7 years ago | (#17790754)

Television is just a passing fad...

Shouldn't Microsoft patent it while it's still useful?

We need an obvious tag (5, Insightful)

Bullfish (858648) | more than 7 years ago | (#17790388)

In other predictions... people will still be downloading music and movies... the RIAA will still be crying... most TV shows will still be craps and the most secure version of windows yet will be just around the corner

Re:We need an obvious tag (5, Insightful)

garcia (6573) | more than 7 years ago | (#17790440)

most TV shows will still be craps

I don't know if you can access CurrentTV, but if you can make sure you sit down and watch a couple of pods. This is what he's talking about when he mentions that it's going to revolutionize TV. Viewer submitted content (that they're paying for) that appears on TV is amazing to watch.

You get a first hand account of newly reported news items but without the lame over-processed and practiced "Live Eyewitness News Reporter" feel. Some of the shit on CurrentTV blows my mind and some of it is viewer submitted advertising for products that you would have probably never heard about on the mainstream media.

Now, with archived content available online, we will finally get to see the Tubes be used for part of their potential.

Re:We need an obvious tag THE END OF SPAM!!!11 (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17790512)

it's 'lame-predictions-by-our-glorious-MS-leader'. One of my favourites include:

A spam-free world by 2006? That's what Microsoft Corp. chairman Bill Gates is promising.

"Two years from now, spam will be solved"

e.g. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/24/tech/mai n595595.shtml [cbsnews.com]

As a matter of fact, the amount of spam is now bigger than ever before. And there's no seeming end to the trend. However, as Blue Security's Blue Frog clearly displayed, the solution is there and a super powerful company like MS could stop spam if it really was interested. Talk is cheap. The world's richest man can afford it nicely...

Re:We need an obvious tag (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17790534)

Underlings to Bill: Apple just introduced Apple TV. Google bought You-Tube for your son's weekly allowance a bit ago while you were on vacation in the Sea of Tranquility.

Bill to Underlings: Ah-ha! The Internet will revolutionize TV in 5 years.

but how will this be possible? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17790394)

We all know that without QOS, IPTV is completely impossible. Net neutrality is ruining the net! (youtube does not exist).

Not unlikely at all actually (1)

farker haiku (883529) | more than 7 years ago | (#17790398)

I was shocked and amazed to see this video showing how to get in on the googleTV [youtube.com] Beta, but after I did (regardless of how much bullshit the video is full of), I realized just how big a part Google and Microsoft could play in the next few years. It's going to be an interesting time for TV.

Re:Not unlikely at all actually (1)

limecat4eva (1055464) | more than 7 years ago | (#17790674)

Wow, that's sweet! Worked for me after about a dozen tries. Thanks!

In 5 years we will be still laughing at (1)

WillRobinson (159226) | more than 7 years ago | (#17790404)

Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer. (me ducks chair).

Re:In 5 years we will be still laughing at (1)

Divebus (860563) | more than 7 years ago | (#17790772)

In 5 years we will be still laughing at ...Microsoft for only being a bit player in the progression but still trying to patent everything.

The Museum of Bill Gates Proclamations (4, Insightful)

RonBurk (543988) | more than 7 years ago | (#17790406)

Has anybody ever collected all Bill's foresights since he became wealthy enough to be presumed prescient? I'm sure they would be entertaining reading when put all together sequentially.

My prediction is: Bill will tell us that the next version of Windows after Vista is going to be really secure this time.

Re:The Museum of Bill Gates Proclamations (1)

hachete (473378) | more than 7 years ago | (#17790728)

He wrote a book called The Road Ahead [amazon.co.uk] . I have no idea of it's content, or it's success predicting the future. I leave that as an exercise for whoever wants to fork over the dosh.

Re:The Museum of Bill Gates Proclamations (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17790884)

The first edition of "The Road Ahead" made no mention at all of the internet. This was 'corrected' in the reprints.

Re:The Museum of Bill Gates Proclamations (3, Informative)

the_womble (580291) | more than 7 years ago | (#17791004)

The Road Ahead is unreadably boring. I found it on a friend's bookshelf and a few minutes was enough to see that it was all old hat and obvious.

Other than that, the only Bill G prediction I can remember that the internet was a fad or words to that effect. I can not find a reference for it. What I did find while looking was this http://www.danielsen.com/jokes/BillGatesquotes.txt [danielsen.com]

I'm still waiting... (1)

TrekkieGod (627867) | more than 7 years ago | (#17790920)

I'm still waiting for the end of spam [slashdot.org] and passwords [slashdot.org] .

Spam (2, Insightful)

jonpublic (676412) | more than 7 years ago | (#17790422)

When did Gates predict that we were going to beat spam?

As a Comcast customer outta Redmond... (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17790426)

I've had Microsoft's attempt at whatever they think they're doing for a couple years now. Not only does it fault more, and perform less responsively that what Comcast deployed to their cable boxes before. It has significantly fewer features. Sure it looks prettier, and it has a crappy capability to deliver poorly rendered news blurbs, but it's slow, craps out more, does less. I'm sure that people in the future will laugh at the kind of TV Microsoft delivers to me (in fact I've considered recording hours of it crapping out and malfunctioning then sending it to satellite providers). But me, I'm not laughing. Fucking 120ft trees immediately south of me.

Yes but M$FT won't bring it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17790432)

We have known this for a while now.

Ok, how does M$FT expect to be in on this? Is there a version of windows for HDTV manufacturers to integrate? Also, we have a mess when it comes to content DRM. Zune, Itunes, and PlaysforSureExceptOnZune.

Now is M$FT supposed to contribute a rock solid smooth & responsiver for buying tv shows online ..I doubt it. Also the remote controls are crap right now .. no click touchpad and sucks for scrolling thru content.

If it does (1)

Space cowboy (13680) | more than 7 years ago | (#17790434)

... I reckon it's more likely to be Apple-TV rather than Xbox+extender, or 'media-PC'. MS do a wonderful job in the world of business, but they haven't got a clue when it comes to consumers (witness the 'zune' fiasco).

Repeat after me: "complexity is the enemy". MS just don't seem to be able to help themselves - they include every possible switch to toggle in their UI's. The consumer wants to turn it on, hit the channel, and watch TV. Reliably. Without expert (IT) help. Anything more than that is a problem you have to work really hard at solving (and you *need* to do more than that to make it a useful DVR, for example). This sort of industrial design just isn't their forté...


Genius (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17790438)

Bill is leading the charge again. Where does his vision come from? It's like he can see things that nobody else can. It's lucky thing that google and youtube have him to thank - again.

Odd.... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17790442)

Those of us who use bittorrent are laughing at TV right now.

What prediction? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17790444)

This would have been a prediction ten years ago, perhaps. At this point, it's merely pointing out a market trend that even a blind man could see. These knuckle-dragging tech "journalists" need to stop treating the man like Miss fucking Cleo.

they will say (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17790446)

Good old time when we had much less commercials and targeted advertisement.
Not to mention the tiny amounts of spam.

"640K ought to be enough for anybody." (1, Interesting)

kramer (19951) | more than 7 years ago | (#17790450)

"640K ought to be enough for anybody."

Excuse me if I don't put too much stock in Gates' predictions.

Re:"640K ought to be enough for anybody." (4, Informative)

despisethesun (880261) | more than 7 years ago | (#17790626)

Except there's no evidence that he ever said that.

Re:"640K ought to be enough for anybody." (3, Insightful)

LordEd (840443) | more than 7 years ago | (#17790664)

This is Slashdot. When did we start caring about proof when it involves bashing Microsoft?

this from the guy who doesn't own one? (5, Insightful)

Speare (84249) | more than 7 years ago | (#17790458)

Okay, so Gates hired dozens if not hundreds of developers in the 80s and early 90s who were very familiar with the value of the Internet, yet they missed the bandwagon in incorporating TCP/IP features and protocols until it was already commonplace in the market? And all the while, Gates was smugly declaring that he didn't own a television set and had completely disconnected from the Joe Sixpack culture of sponging in front of a boob tube like the rest of America. Yet, somehow he feels he's adequately informed to see the way that the television culture will shift to an Internet culture in a given timeframe? The only reason that this sounds at all plausible is because Apple and Sony and TiVo and Google and other companies already have been working in that direction. Welcome to the 2000s, Bill.

Huh? I'm already off TV (2, Insightful)

shine-shine (529700) | more than 7 years ago | (#17790462)

As a non-US resident, all the good US and UK shows get here with a delay of at least a year. And then there're all the crappy advertisement breaks.

Screw that, I'm downloading all the TV shows I watch. I get it not 24 hours after it's shown in the US/UK, easily spoiler-free (which is important when it comes to high-profile shows), ads free, and with the added benefit of watching it whenever I choose (no TIVO here) and without issues of missing an episode.

I've gotten to the point of not watching TV for nearly 5 years now. I have no idea what's on, and I don't care. I get everything I want. Cable is around $50 here. If I could pay that to do what I do--completely legally--I'd sign up in a blink of an eye.

I can definitely see what Gates is talking about; but I'm afraid the the legality of this will never catch up, as world-wide distribution is still not feasible from an advertising point of view.

Re:Huh? I'm already off TV (1)

goarilla (908067) | more than 7 years ago | (#17790530)

Oh praise the lord, tell it brother!

Re:Huh? I'm already off TV (1)

moranar (632206) | more than 7 years ago | (#17790834)

I have a similar feeling: I have no TV thanks to the Internet. I use the money I "save" (TV tax is about 100 euros a year here) to buy books, DVDs and videogames. I get my news online, I don't need shows.

Re:Huh? I'm already off TV (1)

superpulpsicle (533373) | more than 7 years ago | (#17791000)

I used to have some platinum cable package with all the channels. The past few years I have been cutting down channels, now I am down to regular basic cable. And even that, I am thinking about canceling. I find myself infront of the TV only because of my nice couch and maybe discovery/history channel.

WTF is wrong with TV stations nowadays, is like every show is written by the same person with the same thought process. I am like living on Youtube literally.

Re:Huh? I'm already off TV (1)

DogDude (805747) | more than 7 years ago | (#17790964)

That's my story as well. The only difference is that I'm in the US, where somebody that doesn't have a TV on in front of them during every waking hour is considered a bit crazy. I can't imagine paying to watch advertisements with some crappy programs squeezed in between the ads. That sounds crazy to me.

Re:Huh? I'm already off TV (1)

Knuckles (8964) | more than 7 years ago | (#17791018)

Not only do we get it at least a year after it's aired in US, we (i) get a version with crappy German overdubs, and (ii) we have an at least 50% chance of the show being canceled mid-season because of crappy programming by the station or idiot fellow countrymen who would rather watch a re-run of Big Brother. Excuse me if I don't use your TV "service".

No chance (1, Insightful)

drsquare (530038) | more than 7 years ago | (#17790464)

There isn't enough bandwidth. If it did become big, ISPs would have a heart attack and choke it all like they do with bittorrent.

Re:No chance (1)

Charcharodon (611187) | more than 7 years ago | (#17790506)

uh, that's like what people are already doing with bittorrent now. Bittorrent might as well be called tv/movie torrent. :)

Of course lot's of bandwidth could be freed up from cable WANS if they just simply let you subscribe to only the channels you wanted vs the 100 channel nuthin on packages.

Re:No chance (3, Interesting)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 7 years ago | (#17790620)

Except that only a small percentage of people even know what bittorrent is. Imagine if EVERYBODY used it.

At the same time, my ISP is rolling out an IP television system. That makes me take any bandwidth whining with a large grain of salt.

Re:No chance (4, Insightful)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 7 years ago | (#17790714)

Why does this always get modded insightful? Some countries have 100megabit internet as the standard. The US is still stuck around 7-10mbit for the majority of us. 7-10mbit is PLENTY to watch TV on. Are you saying that business will be unable to cope with giving the customer what they want to pay for?

In processing power terms, that's like saying 'Nobody will be able to play these 'nextgen' video games because the processing power isn't there.' (Yes, people said that. We have gone FAR beyond that point now.)

In data storage terms, that's like saying games will never look real because you'd have to distribute too much information. (Yes, people said that. CDs came in and kicked this idiocy to the curb. Then DVDs. Then HD-DVD/BluRays.)

The market will be there to provide what we want as soon as we have a use for it. You can count on it.

Re:No chance (1)

Earered (856958) | more than 7 years ago | (#17790730)

/me wondering how comes I can watch TV without cable/satellite/Hertz waves
Ah, yes I live in Europe and I have TV through IP, and a hard-drive recorder from my ISP...

Re:No chance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17790874)

Does anyone actually use bit torrent?

Star Trek: an accurate prediction? (3, Interesting)

ettlz (639203) | more than 7 years ago | (#17790466)

In one Star Trek: The Next Generation episode, Data states that television, as the form of popular entertainment as we know it, did not last much beyond 2040... could this turn out to be remarkably accurate?

Re:Star Trek: an accurate prediction? (1)

heptapod (243146) | more than 7 years ago | (#17790896)

Well that's about the time the northern hemisphere was ravaged by World War III. People were too busy trying to find some neosporin and bactine rather than watch Seinfeld reruns.

Great news? (1)

Toram (1041694) | more than 7 years ago | (#17790468)

I don't really see why he is "stunned". If anything it must be because he has just found out. Set-top boxes have been around for years supplying information over the wire that accompanies the programming with info about the show and the actors. Broadband suppliers are pushing internet, phone, tv and movies over the same fiber line. The convergence is already happening. That Windows media Center wants to take a big piece of this action is no surprise, but spare me the sensation.

Re:Great news? (1)

Original Replica (908688) | more than 7 years ago | (#17790678)

But, Video on Demand and YouTube, are on different boxes. Bill is saying that in the future they could be on the same box!!! Will the wonders never cease ?

He's right (4, Interesting)

eyeball (17206) | more than 7 years ago | (#17790480)

Here's exactly how he'll do it: He'll piss off enough people with Windows that they will be driven to Apple, where they will be watching TV shows purchased on iTunes on their iPod, iPhone, computer, or iTV. People will laugh at more than just "what we had..."

TV Internet in 5 years? (1)

12357bd (686909) | more than 7 years ago | (#17790482)

SPAMTV! (adds, adds, adds, adds at infinitum)

Ooops... sorry that's already done. :(

Re:TV Internet in 5 years? (1)

RoutedToNull (1040292) | more than 7 years ago | (#17790598)

"ads", you dolt.

Re:TV Internet in 5 years? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17790752)

(adds, adds, adds, adds at infinitum)

Do you mean like this?

add eax, ebx
jmp loop

Future Shock (2, Funny)

AlHunt (982887) | more than 7 years ago | (#17790484)

'I'm stunned how people aren't seeing that with TV, in five years from now, people will laugh at what we've had,' Gates told business leaders and politicians at the World Economic Forum. "
Coupe that with this quote:

There never was a chip, it is said, that Bill Gates couldn't slow down with a new batch of features.
* James Coates, The Chicago Tribune
And the future of TV as we know it is bleak indeed.
Your TV will have to be manufactured by Cray.

Consider the following (1)

JoshJ (1009085) | more than 7 years ago | (#17790492)

A lot of people have paid a lot of money for bigscreen TVs. Do you really think they're going to give them up on a whim because Gates says so? There's a ridiculous amount of money in the TV industry right now- you can't block ads on live TV. People wouldn't be happy if their 50" widescreen plasma OMGHDTVOMGDLPOMG is rendered useless.
TV is here to stay. I'm fine with that. It gives me something to plug my Wii into.

Re:Consider the following (1)

th1nk (575552) | more than 7 years ago | (#17790602)

Regardless of the delivery method, we will still need a display. Why would people have to give up their bigscreen TVs?

Re:Consider the following (1)

JoshJ (1009085) | more than 7 years ago | (#17790642)

Then it's still TV. You're just getting rid of cable (or satellite, or wahtever).
Replacing coax cable with cat-5 and "downloading" movies is no different than what Comcast has with its OnDemand service. So if you're talking about the delivery method, there's nothing new here- a switch to using the internet as a whole instead of "just comcast/knology/whatever" is not a "big deal" technologically- it's an obvious step away from the monopolization of TV, and doesn't really use any new technology.

Re:Consider the following (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17790816)

> Then it's still TV. You're just getting rid of cable (or satellite, or wahtever).

That's exactly the kind of convergence Gates is talking about. If you RTFA, it's clear he's talking about the Internet revolutionizing *distribution*, not suggesting that we watch all video on our computer monitors, fool.

Re:Consider the following (1)

Charcharodon (611187) | more than 7 years ago | (#17790746)

The trick to avoiding the whole "HD obsolences" is to make sure you buy into the "other other" HD...720p or skip TV's altogether and go buy that 24"+ sized LCD computer monitor you've always wanted.

720p HD (1366x768) plays well with both the past and the future and it's more or less the lower limit of screen resolution required to use it with a computer hooked up to it without going through the joys of having to play around to make the text of webpages and programs readable. Sure 1080 looks nice, right up until you have to pay the equivalent of a healthy downpayment for a new car. That got me looking elsewhere and 720p seemed like a nice fit since it's most likely going to take 5-10 years before 1080p HD becomes the "common" standard.

By the way the Wii looks pretty damn nice on it too, just got to keep the friends from sailing a remote through it, we've already had one lamp KIA'd during an enthusiastic round of drunk tennis.

Want to see what those crazy Video developers are up to even make 1080p look like poop? Do a search for "Display Resolution" on Wikipedia.

1080p Bah that's rubbish, I want my 4800p resolution monitor. Just imagin the detail you'd get out of video formated for that! Of course you'd only be able to save about 15 minutes of video on a terrabyte sized piece of media, so Lord of the Rings Complete Director's cut trillogy might not be out any time soon.

Re:Consider the following (1)

Runefox (905204) | more than 7 years ago | (#17790902)

The problem with 1080p in video games is that unless the textures are equally stupidly-proportioned, the game's going to look like mud, and the reality is, surprise, surprise, exactly that. Granted, they've been getting around this quite nicely through various post-processing methods and pixel shaders [vgcats.com] that tend to mask the crappy quality of those textures and models, but still, it's a cop-out.

720p is about as high as a standard 17" computer monitor will go, and to be honest with you, with some anti-aliasing and a decent graphics accelerator, that looks A-OK, and most "High" textures on those games are designed for that in mind. But hell, anything's better than 480i.

Re:Consider the following (1)

SnowDog74 (745848) | more than 7 years ago | (#17790982)

If people read your post they might understand that Apple wasn't being stupid when they designed AppleTV with 720p resolution. They wanted a product that wasn't going to be astronomically expensive, and they wanted to get it out the door at a time when 720p downloads were feasible whereas 1080p downloads were not only hellishly impractical but also cutting out the vast majority of HDTV owners.

There are two reasons for this, and both are tied to the idiosyncrasies of computer-based multimedia formats:

1. File support - It's easier to support a progressive format than an interlaced format in terms of the interoperability between inherently progressive video hardware in computers, and progressive video hardware in HDTVs. Interlaced (lower-field first) encoding is possible but really only useful to video editors producing content for SD DVD or SD TV, who usually have adequate hardware to output the interlaced video to an NTSC display. Also, your file is either going to be interlaced or progressive, not both... and either 480p, 720p, 1080p... not all three or even two of the three. Choosing the wrong resolution to run with means alienating a potentially huge set of customers.

2. Usability - this leaves you with three options, 480p, 720p and 1080p. 480p offers no competitive advantage in a time when HDTV sales are surging. 1080p is too large a file for reasonable download times, uninterrupted playback (hardware limitations), storage requirements and the fact that the vast majority of consumers do not have 1080p sets. 720p is a great compromise.

  I'm sure that 1080p will be something Apple may support in the future but to do so now would have meant launching a brand-new product concept at a price too difficult to digest, with questionable performance at the given resolution and being usable only by the narrowest group of TV owners. Neither is that wise from the standpoint of recouping fixed costs of initial R&D and product marketing, but it's not part of Apple's successful formula.

They always put feeler products out there to get the initial reaction from the market before they introduce their larger strategy... If this one fails, they won't lose as much as they would have if they spent several years more R&D and packed even more tech into it to make it horrendously expensive and appealing only to the narrowest demographic. Here, if they lose, they lose less. But if they win, it'll open the door to what could be the "killer app" for Apple for the next ten years... with as many product iterations or more than the myriad iPods that have been introduced since the first generation model.

Woowowoooo! What a great prediction!! ;-) (1)

uomolinux (838417) | more than 7 years ago | (#17790494)

I think it slowly going on since we can publish video on the web, not long before we see more peoples watching their computer screen instead of television, witch is my case now.

the only thing funny... (1)

Nitroadict (1005509) | more than 7 years ago | (#17790524)

...is how much Bill sounds like Tim Robbins who was trying to be Bill & Steve in Antitrust.

I also second the 2040 remark, wouldn't be surprised if it turned out like that.

Oh, great sage and seer (1, Insightful)

rbrander (73222) | more than 7 years ago | (#17790538)

Wow. I bet if Bill Gates were to stand on a railroad track and watch a train approaching in the distance for several minutes, he could also conclude that in several minutes more, the train would pass by.

Any high-school kid could also have 'predicted' this, but I suppose they don't get invites to Davos.

Why anybody would want the man's predictions after the embarrassment of "The Road Ahead", I don't know. I think it's the only book to predict the next 30 years of IT history ever to have to be re-released just a year later with major corrections...the second edition mentioned the Internet more than twice.

It already has (1)

Rix (54095) | more than 7 years ago | (#17790542)

If it's available to the networks, it's available to me on the internet, for free. I'd call that a revolution.

What that "TV" thing anyway?? (1)

ThePhilips (752041) | more than 7 years ago | (#17790550)

Gates Proclaims Internet to Revolutionize TV in 5 Years

What that "TV" thing he is talking about? Is that thing where you can't select what you watch and is also contaminated by unstoppable stream of commercials??

P.S. Frankly, I have bought my first TV three month ago (LCD one), but it would be too optimistic to say that I watch it even once per week. Even state-supported channels here in Germany are infested with ads/etc. And finding something decent to watch on TV now is as complicated as it was decade ago - when I still lived with my parents. Bookshelf, PC with games and internet - replaced the antique in my life completely long time ago.

He only just gets it? (1)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 7 years ago | (#17790552)

This is why you don't see a company like Microsoft doing much that is ground breaking. If you look at Apple's strategy, you get the feeling that they already understood this some time back. The existence and popularity of sites such as YouTube confirms this direction.

No suprise (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17790562)

Microsoft, Disney, etc. have been trying to turn the internet into Cable TV for years.

TV will prevail (5, Insightful)

OberonX (115355) | more than 7 years ago | (#17790584)

I believe TV, albeit in a different form, will continue to exist for a long time. What a lot people dont seem to realize is that the lack of interaction and choice with TV can be an advantage. The passivity of the watching experience is actually its best selling point, the ability to arrive home tired from work(and likely to have been in front of a computer) and just sit down and watch mindless junk for a couple of hours. TVs role will diminish but I would be doubtful if pre-programmed channels(even if over the internet) will ever disappear.

Why Listen to a Has-Been? (3, Insightful)

BoRegardless (721219) | more than 7 years ago | (#17790632)

Gates lucked into an OS deal where he wheedled and dealed and even tried to shut out a partner.

Then he tucked together pieces he plucked to form Office, where creative MS programmers put it all together.

But then listen to all the BS that came out of BG since and between Cairo, ME & CE, etc & the constant use of similar adjectives used to describe the next MS product or version, and what floats high on the surface of the water?

"S--t", thats what.

Why does ANYONE take this guy seriously? At this point all he is, is a rich philanthropist!


Re:Why Listen to a Has-Been? (1)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 7 years ago | (#17790732)

Because he's the richest philanthropist in the world and there seems to be no sign of this changing for the worse. Luck or not, he took a nothing company to biggest-in-the-world and has kept it there. It would take a HELL of a lot of luck to do that by luck alone. The man's not an idiot, no matter what you might think.

Re:Why Listen to a Has-Been? (3, Insightful)

BoRegardless (721219) | more than 7 years ago | (#17790932)

I never said he is an idiot. I also think BG & SB have kept MS on top by the sweat of a lot of programmers & not BG & SB's hard work (unless you call bullying work).

Bill Gates does NOT have a track record of coming up with innovative, cutting edge, next gen products. In fact, he doesn't have a good track record coming up with better products others already have done, & shall we go through them?

1. Zune...rhymes with doom, and it is not a game
2. IE...still going downhill after giving us malware-virus heaven
3. CE...mobile world does not know it exists
4. Cairo-Longhorn...time moves on, with less features
5. Media Center PCs...oohh a geek's delight
6. MS's Search...Uhhh Bill is too busy to use Google, and his secretary finds what he needs on his hard drive

Bill Gates and "The Chair" Ballmer are strictly into techniques designed to lock their OS & Office monopoly down tighter.

I seriously doubt Bill gates is even interested in TV personally...and that is probably an indication of how little Microsoft will do in that arena.

The only thing that will stand a chance of allowing shareholder value growth is breaking Microsoft up into pieces and letting all the brainpower in each division go wild in search of new products, because Bill & Steve are not going to do it.

corepirate nazi stock markup FraUDs obsolete? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17790640)

as in payper liesense hypenosys stock markup FraUD felons are on their way out? what a revolutionary concept.

from previous post: many demand corepirate nazi execrable stop abusing US

we the peepoles?

how is it allowed? just like corn passing through a bird's butt eye gas.

all they (the felonious nazi execrable) want is... everything. at what cost to US?

for many of US, the only way out is up.

don't forget, for each of the creators' innocents harmed (in any way) there is a debt that must/will be repaid by you/US as the perpetrators/minions of unprecedented evile will not be available after the big flash occurs.

'vote' with (what's left in) yOUR wallet. help bring an end to unprecedented evile's manifestation through yOUR owned felonious corepirate nazi life0cidal glowbull warmongering execrable.

some of US should consider ourselves very fortunate to be among those scheduled to survive after the big flash/implementation of the creators' wwwildly popular planet/population rescue initiative/mandate.

it's right in the manual, 'world without end', etc....

as we all ?know?, change is inevitable, & denying/ignoring gravity, logic, morality, etc..., is only possible, on a temporary basis.

concern about the course of events that will occur should the corepirate nazi life0cidal execrable fail to be intervened upon is in order.

'do not be dismayed' (also from the manual). however, it's ok/recommended, to not attempt to live under/accept, fauxking nazi felon greed/fear/ego based pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking hypenosys.

consult with/trust in yOUR creators. providing more than enough of everything for everyone (without any distracting/spiritdead personal gain motives), whilst badtolling unprecedented evile, using an unlimited supply of newclear power, since/until forever. see you there?

duh, already discussed in HDDVD vs net enabled DVR (1)

Locutus (9039) | more than 7 years ago | (#17790646)

Here Gates goes again, talking to clueless business persons as if he's got a crystal ball or something. There has already been a good amount of debate on if HD DVDs will really take off or if downloaded content will make the new DVD format far less 'interesting' than its predesessor, STD DVD. The debate tends to be short lived since the conclusion is obvious. But, the timeframe might be up for debate.

So there's really nothing here except THE modern-day snake oil salesman is at it again. IMO


That depends (1)

symbolic (11752) | more than 7 years ago | (#17790670)

If it turns into something thet's merely a different delivery method, with the same small number of people that currently control 90% of the content, it's not a revolution - it's merely a medium shift. Youtube got *started* on a revolutionary path, but now that it's getting deeper into bed with commercial interests, and even offering to pay members for their content, it will eventually become the same thing all over again - just a different method of delivery.

MS New product (1)

Skiron (735617) | more than 7 years ago | (#17790688)

OURtube. We own it.

Sigh (1)

thanksforthecrabs (1037698) | more than 7 years ago | (#17790712)

This is SO Friday. Isn't Web 2.0 suppose to be faster?

I guess Gates... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17790738)

I guess Gates finally caught on to that whole YouTube thing? Someone showed him MythTV? Glad he finally woke up!

Oh... so NOW he believes (1)

thesnarky1 (846799) | more than 7 years ago | (#17790760)

This from the man that called the Internet a passing fad? Glad he's finally jumped on the band wagon after 15 years. Oh, even better he's leading that band wagon.... we're doomed.

Windows XP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17790762)

'I'm stunned how people aren't seeing that with TV, in five years from now, people will laugh at what we've had'

I'm already laughing at what he had five years ago!

I'm Ready for IPTV (2, Interesting)

Paulrothrock (685079) | more than 7 years ago | (#17790768)

I already do the 'IPTV' thing with a couple BBC programs. And the only reason I'm not paying for them is because they're not available on iTunes in the US, and my wife is completely addicted to Torchwood and Dr. Who. My Powerbook and iPod dock both support S-Video out, so hooking them up to my TV is trivial. An AppleTV (and a faster Mac for converting from DiVX to MPEG) would make it even easier.

The only problem I've run into, and this is recently, is that BitTorrent consumes a lot of upstream bandwidth so people I call with Vonage sometimes get choppy audio on their end. I worked around this by doing some QoS filtering in my router and writing a couple shell scripts to turn Torrents on and off on my Mac Mini home server. A better broadband connection, with >1Mbps upstream, would allow me to use BitTorrent all the time.

Really, the only reason I even have cable is because it costs just as much to get cable broadband with cable TV as it does without. If I could get fiber or DSL at similar speeds with no server restrictions (as in, port 22, 5600 and an http port open) I would probably drop cable altogether and get all my media and phone service over the internet.

I think monthly fees are ludicrous, and refuse to pay them if there's an alternative. I'd rather use the iTunes model: Pay $2 for an episode or get a season pass for a discount of, say, $30 for a 26 episode season. That way I can check out new shows for cheap and get the shows I like for less. And, even better, without commercials. And my money could go directly to the group producing the show, not through a network of middlemen all taking their cut. If a show's cheap enough to produce, as few as 10,000 people, scattered across the globe, could keep episodes being aired.

B.G.O. (1)

SnowDog74 (745848) | more than 7 years ago | (#17790776)

Thank you, Bill, for that Blinding Glimpse of the Obvious., Or, to quote the illustrious philosopher Ren Høek, "Stimpy, I'm completely astounded by your wealth of ignorance."

It's amazing that this guy is the richest man on Earth. Here he is, offering punditry that is, really, at the very least five years behind Apple in terms of his thought patterns on technology. As early as 1996, the writing was on the wall when Progressive Networks (now RealNetworks, Inc.) and Apple were developing multimedia streaming and THAT should have been the first signal that IP networks were capable, in principle, of carrying full television programming in the near future.

Unfortunately, nobody listened... Well, almost nobody. While Gates is touting this technology as something five years down the road, it's interesting to note how this article comes just one week before Apple's AppleTV, which was announced months ago. Apple had to be researching this for at least the past three years and developing working prototypes as early as five years ago or as recent as two years ago. Sure, Microsoft has their hands in this game... but they're taking a different approach to the model. Their idea of a leap ahead is to mimic the fee-based cable subscription model. Apple has gone in the other direction, toward an a-la carte ownership-based model. This is important because, while it doesn't encompass all the options a customer wants (maybe they want to rent some, and buy others), it does differentiate their product more drastically from cable than does Microsoft's concept... and it demonstrates, more importantly, the kind of forward thinking that Apple is known for... Re-arranging and re-defining the way we use existing technologies. There's nothing fundamentally different about a fee-based model over the internet versus over cable. But there is something radically different about a-la carte programming in a way that underscores a dynamic service that IP can facilitate easily which cable companies can not or will not.

This is why Microsoft continues to lose the battle for brand dominance in multimedia to Apple... and why Apple, not Microsoft, will be the key player in determining the future of how we buy, access, receive and experience our home entertainment. But rest assured, AppleTV and the upcoming iPhone are only tactical products in a much larger strategic vision at Apple. As I've said in other posts, while Microsoft is barely catching up with Vista and XBOX Live and (only in brand diversification if not in sales) Zune, Apple is already focused on the next five years during which they will set out to completely redefine the user interface they popularized 22 years ago.

The computer was once argued by Apple to be the "digital hub" in their appliance-based strategy but they have since moved on to a bigger picture in which the computer is only a host or nodde in the NETWORK, which is becoming the backbone of home entertainment and productivity. iPhone, AppleTV are just devices that tap into these networks for their distributed computing power... Microsoft has several disadvantages here.

First, Microsoft's philosophy confuses the ability to do complex tasks with the appearance of complexity. As a jazz percussionist once told me, an average drummer takes something simple and makes it look complex. A great drummer takes something seemingly impossible and makes it look effortless. Microsoft's other hindrance is that they have little control over the myriad hardware systems on which their software resides. They have very little experience at developing completely integrated products and services. Last, Microsoft seems to begin all their ventures with the question, "How can we make customers like what we have to offer?" Look at it... They spend eons developing some "major" software upgrade, which is little more than rearranging the parts to make it look different, not necessarily better, and then they figure out how they're going to market it. In other words, Microsoft finds ways to convince others they are needed... but the products do not sell themselves on their own merits, nor were they developed by gaining an understanding of what the customer could really benefit from.

It's as if at some level Bill Gates is using Microsoft, and perhaps I too am stating the obvious here, as his R&D playground to introduce products or features to market what he thinks people would or should want... without being driven to understand why they might want or need such a thing, if at all.

What would you want to watch today? (5, Funny)

dgr73 (1055610) | more than 7 years ago | (#17790780)

"and the Oscar for best picture goes to.." *BZZZTTTTT* -Your TV is not up to date. Would you like to update now? NO! -Would you like to be reminded to update later? Yes yes.. -Your Antivirus is not turned on, would you like to switch on your ant.. NO! GOD! -You have unwatched channels in your TV, click here to have unwatched channels removed from your channel listing OH FOR CHRISSAKE! *Enter crappy looking paperclip* -Hi, i'm TVBuddy! I see you've stopped viewing your program to do maintenance, so I took the liberty of saving the place for you. To continue viewing where you left off, press CTRL+WIN+TV+7+D, to just view in realtime press TV, to go off on a wild goose chase, click HELP. Finally some good news, yes! CTRL+WIN..... -TVKRNL.DLL has experienced a Fatal error, please contact your IT support with error details found in tvcrash.dmp *Windows box flies out of the window*

Re:What would you want to watch today? (1)

dgr73 (1055610) | more than 7 years ago | (#17790890)

*BLINK*HTML formatted?*/blink* I thought this was a geek site, with good ole plaintext.

Well, duh... (2, Insightful)

QuietLagoon (813062) | more than 7 years ago | (#17790786)

I guess Gates has been so wrong in his previous predictions that now he is swinging for that easy high-lob pitch, hoping to be right for once.

The Internet is going to revolutionize everything in five years. Again. Every five years. And again.

What's the story here? That Gates has little more to do than repeat the obvious?

Incorrect (1)

dgr73 (1055610) | more than 7 years ago | (#17790938)

Gates is rich, he can repeat the obvious and seem like a god.

However, if you repeat the obvious, only no-life geeks on an obscure website will listen.

He is right... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17790804)

...but, as always with his predictions, it will not be better for the consumer... it will be better for the media companies. Beware... we will end paying 10x of what we pay now for the same pile shit... but without the ability to record and skip past commercials. That is the future media companies will like to see... and that is the future Bill Gates is talking about, it is of course wrapped in some nice words ("pay only fot what you see", "watch when you want", "see it in HD" etc. etc.).
This is the same song they sang when they changed to digital broadcast from satellites... and now when the weather is bad you can't see anything instead of having a little distortion on the screen... and you don't have more and better channels and you don't pay less... They do however pay less for the satellite links, because they pay pr. used transponder and they send usually 6 tv channels on one transponder instead of one... net saving 60%.

So what's new? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17790822)

If he said "Internet will revolutionize TV in 10 years" 5 years ago, that would have been something. Today's statement is nothing new, everyone and their mom knows that the net is about to revolutionize TV.

Oh, *that* Gates ! (1)

Amphiaurus (984533) | more than 7 years ago | (#17790844)

Silly me...

hdtv? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17790848)

5 years?
Did he considered lots of comuntry aren't covered 100% even by adsl link?
speaking of Italy, there are lots of country without adsl, just with 56k... don't think that is enough.

and beside that, HDTV is coming out in these days. how much bandwith does a full 1080p(1920×1080) require?
'cause I don't think people like to see tv on a 800x600 window, when they'll have a full 1080p in tv.

and again, how much bandwith would a tv-internet-server with lots of client (let's say like a medium tv-channel) require?
anyone has data?

Get rich, waste other people's time. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17790882)

We're talking about the guy responsible for a company selling software at four times over its cost and at least ten times over its value, nevermind all the associated lying and monopolizing — the first anti-trust case I've seen to fail because it had too much of a monopoly.

Altough this is to be expected of slashdot and its readership, it still poses an interesting question: Why does slashdot and the world give its attention to the inane blatherings —cue: the book— of the chief thief of micros~1? Having seen his previous works, I don't care whether he might be right. Do you?

Even if we compulsively must give our hard-earned cash to them, why do we still care to listen? Don't we have better things to do? Things like, oh, I don't know. Protest drm. Find ways to make the alternatives acceptable to the great unwashed. Educate the poor souls stuck with supposedly droolproof software so they drool less and can do more with less padded and far better solutions. Make them see the path to improvement and teach them to want to walk that path.

I think that we, the self-declared technosavvy people —whether that be true or not— must do more to make technology useful to everybody and that starts with not listening to other self-declared technosavvy people. The chief thief fits that description and is more one of us than we like to admit. We must do better. We can't do that if we care about what he says because he's not there to advance our case, but only his own. Get on with it already.

didn't he also predict... (1)

cjdkoh (991723) | more than 7 years ago | (#17790950)

...an end to spam?

Short bus. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17790968)

Whoa there Bill!
Now that the trails been blazed, the highway built, and the road well worn, you've noticed the last short bus headed to the beach. Better jump on if you want to find a spot of sand that's free of dog poop, cigarette butts, or aging flatulant nudists and their unruly Wii slinging grandchildren.

Also in Bill Gates's Statement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17791016)

"640 channels ought to be enough for anybody."
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?