³ÉÈËÂÛ̳

Microsoft's fundamental problem is that it has, for all intent and purposes, a monopoly - on operating systems, and to a certain extent, on office productivity suites. Neither monopoly is a natural one, any more than a single motor vehicle manufacturer ought to have a patent-protected monopoly on supplying automatic transmissions. And very large monopolies (or duopolies, or even oligopolies) typically do not innovate, because they wind up as complacent collectors of a sort of use tax, rather than income-earners of an authentic, market-determined price for their goods or services.

I noticed that Bill Gates's "computer of the future" emphasized touch, but not speech, the later being a more regular, natural form of human interaction. In fact, touch screens are old hat and Bill Gates must know this.

In the very near future, two-way verbal interactions with our home pcs will replace the keyboard and the mouse for a startling number of now-mechancally repetitive tasks.

Other predictions (1) The Microsoft monopoly will be broken, and there will be a flood of innovation as this irritating, monstrous, intrusive corporate presence goes the way of, Rockefeller's Standard Oil, and America's AT&T, into the oblivion of all the other American corporate monopolies. (2)Software - especially operating system software - will either simplify drastically, or will be replaced by highly innovative, modifiable "firmware" burned the circuitry into even more complex devices. Using a personal computer will become only slightly more complicated than using a large home stereo system. Microsoft has a stake in the opposite direction: its vested interest is in making computing at work or at home more and more complexified - and therefore, more and more tedious and time-consuming. The computer, large or small, has yet to come up with its authentic, simplifying genius on the scale of the great engineering and scientific geniuses like Watt or Newton - but it will in the next few decades.

I noticed that Bill Gates's "computer of the future" emphasized touch, but not speech, the later being a more regular, natural, immediately effective form of human interaction. In fact, touch screens are old hat and Bill Gates must know this. In the very near future, two-way verbal interactions with our home pcs will replace the keyboard and the mouse for a startling number of now-mechancally repetitive tasks.

Microsoft's fundamental problem is that it is, for all intents and purposes, a monopoly - in relation to operating systems, and to a certain extent, to office productivity suites. These are the two "legs" it stands upon, and that is not enough support for a global corporation of its size. Monopolies, by their very nature, eliminate choices and stifle the kind of innovation Bill Gates purports to find such in such exciting prospect for the future of computing.

Google is similarly "challenged" - but its situation is even worse than Microsoft's - it is a media company that collects advertising revenue. It stands upon one support.

Neither Microsoft's nor Google's monopolies should be accepted as so-called "natural monopolies," any more than a single motor vehicle parts manufacturer ought to have a patent-protected monopoly on supplying automatic transmissions or on the manufacture of other car and truck parts.

Also, very large and therefore powerful monopolies (or duopolies, and even oligopolies of five or fewer global firms ) typically do not innovate much, if at all (the great car manufacturers and oil companies aren't known for true novelty in their own fields, for example) , because they wind up as complacent collectors of a sort of "use tax," rather than income-earners of an authentic, market-determined price for their goods or services. Also, an inert corporate bureaucracy typically arises in such firms with a philosophy of "if it works, don't fix it" (that is to say, "never innovate on the fundamentals").

Moreover, technological innovations which appear to come from monopolistic enterprises usually come from disciplines, or from other enterprises or institutions, external to them. This unsurprising and uninspiring video performance by Bill Gates only underscores those points.

Other predictions (1) Microsoft's monopoly will be broken, and, as a direct outcome, there will be a flood of innovation as this extortionate, outsized, intrusive corporate presence goes the way of Rockefeller's 19th century Standard Oil, and the 20th century American telecoms giant AT&T, into the boneyard of oblivion inhabited by other American corporate monopolies. (2 ) Software - especially operating system software - will either simplify drastically, or will be replaced by easily modifiable "firmware" burned into the circuitry into even more complex devices.

Using a personal computer will become, within less than a generation, only slightly more complicated than using a large home stereo system. Microsoft has a stake in the opposite direction: Its vested interest is in making computing at work or at home more and more complexified - and therefore, more and more tedious and time-consuming. That is because it must continue to try make the unwilling consumers of its main products more and more dependent upon those products- and upon Microsoft. Increasing consumer dependency is, in a closed market, the monopolist's main gambit for survival. And so it follows that the only "way forward" for Microsoft is definitely not the simplification of computing tasks, at home or at work. The computer as we've known it, large or small, has yet to come up with a single, authentic, simplifying genius on the scale of the great engineering and scientific geniuses like Edison or Newton - but it very likely will come up with several in the next few decades. And such innovators have never come from corporate monopolies.

I noticed that Bill Gates's "computer of the future" emphasized touch, but not speech, the later being a more regular, natural, immediately effective form of human interaction. In fact, touch screens are old hat and Bill Gates must know this. In the very near future, two-way verbal interactions with our home pcs will replace the keyboard and the mouse for a startling number of now-mechancally repetitive tasks.

Microsoft's fundamental problem is that it is, for all intents and purposes, a monopoly - in relation to operating systems, and to a certain extent, to office productivity suites. These are the two "legs" it stands upon, and that is not enough support for a global corporation of its size. Monopolies, by their very nature, eliminate choices and stifle the kind of innovation Bill Gates purports to find such in such exciting prospect for the future of computing.

Google is similarly "challenged" - but its situation is even worse than Microsoft's - it is a media company that collects advertising revenue. It stands upon one support.

Neither Microsoft's nor Google's monopolies should be accepted as so-called "natural monopolies," any more than a single motor vehicle parts manufacturer ought to have a patent-protected monopoly on supplying automatic transmissions or on the manufacture of other car and truck parts.

Also, very large and therefore powerful monopolies (or duopolies, and even oligopolies of five or fewer global firms ) typically do not innovate much, if at all (the great car manufacturers and oil companies aren't known for true novelty in their own fields, for example) , because they wind up as complacent collectors of a sort of "use tax," rather than income-earners of an authentic, market-determined price for their goods or services. Also, an inert corporate bureaucracy typically arises in such firms with a philosophy of "if it works, don't fix it" (that is to say, "never innovate on the fundamentals").

Moreover, technological innovations which appear to come from monopolistic enterprises usually come from disciplines, or from other enterprises or institutions, external to them. This unsurprising and uninspiring video performance by Bill Gates only underscores those points.

Other predictions (1) Microsoft's monopoly will be broken, and, as a direct outcome, there will be a flood of innovation as this extortionate, outsized, intrusive corporate presence goes the way of Rockefeller's 19th century Standard Oil, and the 20th century American telecoms giant AT&T, into the boneyard of oblivion inhabited by other American corporate monopolies. (2 ) Software - especially operating system software - will either simplify drastically, or will be replaced by easily modifiable "firmware" burned into the circuitry into even more complex devices.

Using a personal computer will become, within less than a generation, only slightly more complicated than using a large home stereo system. Microsoft has a stake in the opposite direction: Its vested interest is in making computing at work or at home more and more complexified - and therefore, more and more tedious and time-consuming. That is because it must continue to try make the unwilling consumers of its main products more and more dependent upon those products- and upon Microsoft. Increasing consumer dependency is, in a closed market, the monopolist's main gambit for survival. And so it follows that the only "way forward" for Microsoft is definitely not the simplification of computing tasks, at home or at work. The computer as we've known it, large or small, has yet to come up with a single, authentic, simplifying genius on the scale of the great engineering and scientific geniuses like Edison or Newton - but it very likely will come up with several in the next few decades. And such innovators have never come from corporate monopolies.