Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Interview with Bill Gates (1995)

cantrip.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–28 of 28 posts

Re: Interview with Bill Gates (1995)

#21

Post by 10ren »

Tichy wrote: post #7

He has a point though. I think if they said "you have to buy the next version to get the bug fixes", customers would be quite upset. Some companies do that, but really, these days I would expect to get bug fixes for free.

Even if the interview is fake, it's an interesting juxtaposition of business and technical perspectives: "Gates" is saying "people won't pay for bugfixes; but the interviewer is hearing it as "people don't want bugfixes".

I think bugfixes clearly have value, but it's a little unclear where exactly they are monetized. Consider: under what circumstances would existing bugs stop you from buying the present version?

- a 100% compatible and 100% feature-comparable alternative product... which additionally has fewer bugs.

- if you know about the bug before buying it. Perhaps this is the crucial factor: you only discover the specific bugs that are a problem for you some time after purchasing it, so they are not well-placed to be purchase-factor.

Re: Interview with Bill Gates (1995)

#22

Post by wyday »

arrrg wrote: post #20
wyday wrote: post #3

Is this actually real? I couldn't find anything on the Focus Magazine website.

It’s real. Here’s the article in Focus’s archive (German): http://www.focus.de/wissen/wissenschaft/forschung-und-techni... (quite easy to find, actually) Interview and transcript are not exactly the same. The transcript sounds more like, well, a transcript, the published interview is a lot smoother. Since all printed interviews are highly artificial products this is certainly to be expected. The transcript really see…

So Bill's comments are a translation of a translation? (English -> German -> English)

Perhaps that's why they sound so unrealistic.

Re: Interview with Bill Gates (1995)

#23

Post by arrrg »

wyday wrote: post #22
arrrg wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s real. Here’s the article in Focus’s archive (German): http://www.focus.de/wissen/wissenschaft/forschung-und-techni... (quite easy to find, actually) Interview and transcript are not exactly the same. The transcript sounds more like, well, a transcript, the published interview is a lot smoother. Since all printed interviews are highly artificial products this is certainly to be expected. The transcript really see…

So Bill's comments are a translation of a translation? (English -> German -> English) Perhaps that's why they sound so unrealistic.

I don’t think so. The linked transcript seems to be the real deal, the raw transcript of (a part of) the interview that was later translated for the magazine.

The transcript sounds pretty natural (then again, I’m not a native English speaker) even if it might not fit the usual style of Gates. The German interview sounds a little strange (you immediately notice that it was translated). I don’t think it was translated by a very skilled translator. I guess the English version would sound quite a bit more strange if you translated the German interview again.

Re: Interview with Bill Gates (1995)

#24

Post by pietro »

thwarted wrote: post #16
halo wrote: post #11

There's some sensationalism in the editorialising around this piece, but I find it hard to argue with the core of what Gates is saying. You're not going to be able to sell a piece of software based on the idea that it has less bugs. People expect software to be bug-free. When people buy a new version of a product, people expect new features. I mean, history has proven him completely correct - today, vendors provide f…

I think it's worth making a distinction between "buying" a new version and "obtaining" a new version (where "buying" includes software that is charged for, even if you pirate it and don't pay for it). That is, the difference is between proprietary software and open source software. When I pay money for software, I expect new features. When I go to download open source software, 9 times out of 10 I want the specific b…

The "versions" you're comparing aren't the same thing.  Windows has a new version in the open source sense every month, and it's distributed automatically.    

Re: Interview with Bill Gates (1995)

#25

Post by bayareaguy »

ahoyhere wrote: post #19
bayareaguy wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure he wouldn't talk that way in a controlled presentation, but I believe it's likely that he could have answered that way in an interview back in 1995 in part because of his nature and the reasoning behind the statements.

He'd been in business for an awfully long time already in 1995. Where's the evidence to suggest he was so ridiculously unpolished after all those years? Nobody says "No! No! No!" to an interviewer over and over again.

Oh please. A google search of "bill gates arrogance" returns over 200,000 hits. People like Bob Cringley and James Wallace have made small fortunes selling books about Gates's foibles, frustrations and outbursts.

Re: Interview with Bill Gates (1995)

#26

Post by hc »

ahoyhere wrote: post #19
bayareaguy wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure he wouldn't talk that way in a controlled presentation, but I believe it's likely that he could have answered that way in an interview back in 1995 in part because of his nature and the reasoning behind the statements.

He'd been in business for an awfully long time already in 1995. Where's the evidence to suggest he was so ridiculously unpolished after all those years? Nobody says "No! No! No!" to an interviewer over and over again.

"evidence to suggest he was so ridiculously unpolished after all those years" see his testimony in US v Microsoft in 1998... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/business/longterm/micro...

Re: Interview with Bill Gates (1995)

#27

Post by pasbesoin »

tomek wrote: post #15

Gates is a such a prick.

My take (just from the provided page and not from further context) is that Gates was saying MS does not do a new version of software on the basis of / for the sole or primary purpose of fixing bugs. This does not mean they do not fix bugs in a new version. It means fixing bugs is NOT the motivation for doing a new version. Bug fixes do not provide sufficient motivation for users to purchase the new version.

EDIT: I did not mean for my comment to be a child to this parent. Clicked wrong when beginning it.

Re: Interview with Bill Gates (1995)

#28

Post by marcofloriano »

Bill Gates just owned the guy ! Amazing ... the interviewer tried to push the guy but he knows exactly what to do.

From my view, Mr Bill and Microsoft cant stop evolving because of the bugs. They are right on focusing in new features rather than on bugs. The problem is building to complex software. That´s the mistake, on my opinion. Sometimes i use office 2000 to write some document and i don´t feel any difference from the 2007 ... well ... both do the job. So why i need the 2007 ? Because it´s have more features ... just this. So the interviewer should go for that, in my opinion, "Mr Bill, why you guys don´t build more simple and less complex software ?" So Bill would probably answer what EVERYBODY KNOWS BUT STILL WANT TO LISTEN TO FROM HIM TO CRUSH THE GUY ... "Well, because simple software don´t give so much money"

Post reply on HN