Parsing Bill Gates: Is he saying Microsoft wants to be left alone?

By Scott M. Fulton, III, BetaNews

May 7, 2008, 11:17 AM

While touring Asian countries this week, Gates gave reporters a bone to chew on: a suggestion that Microsoft will now pursue an "independent" strategy in the wake of the Yahoo deal's failure. But independent of what, exactly?

There may not be many opportunities left in history to draw extrapolated conclusions on something Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates says about the future of his company, or of anything else related to technology. So a single phrase containing a key word uttered by Gates during a press conference in Tokyo yesterday has once again drawn the wolves into a feeding frenzy.

At issue is whether Gates meant to say that he intends, or would prefer, that Microsoft develop its own online strategy now in-house and independently of anyone else, now that the pairing of his company with Yahoo is off the table, or whether he meant that Microsoft would pursue a course independent of Yahoo. It's always nicer when reporters ask follow-up questions during the press conferences themselves; but if they did that -- and in so doing, actually answer some of these questions -- then we might have less to write about.

Multiple versions of the same Associated Press story, with the same byline, have Gates saying things slightly differently. However, outlets which typically carry AP stories unaltered quote Gates as first having led up to his point by saying both his company and Yahoo had put significant effort into making a deal, but then saying Microsoft and Yahoo have both now chosen to pursue "independent paths," and later adding specifically about Microsoft, "Now at this point Microsoft is focused on its independent strategy."

As to that last citation, many are interpreting that comment to mean that Microsoft will refrain from making any consolation deals, which would probably include with AOL -- a name that has been bandied about as a possible takeover target from Time Warner, ever since Yahoo let it be speculated that it might enter into a pact with AOL to avoid one with Microsoft.

But in the same context as the first Gates citation, quite possibly, he may also have meant "independently of Yahoo." And what reporters may have failed to notice that earlier, during Gates' tour of Asian countries, he stopped over in South Korea, where on Monday he was cited by the Associated Press as having not ruled out near-term deals with others, though leaving it up to CEO Steve Ballmer to make that decision.

"Well, the key decisions on that will be made by Microsoft CEO Steven Ballmer," the Monday report cites Gates as saying (although it's curious that we never typically hear Gates refer to his long-time friend and partner as "Microsoft CEO Steven Ballmer"), "who took a look at Yahoo and decided that on our own he likes the stuff that we're doing...We need to show the innovation and it's a very competitive space...I wouldn't rule out some partnerships but we don't have anything imminent there."

In an interview with BetaNews on Monday, Directions on Microsoft lead analyst Matt Rosoff suggested Microsoft take a hard look at the possibility of spending some of that $45 billion plus it had allocated for Yahoo, on acquisitions that would bring it closer to its goals.

"The options for Microsoft are, 'Yes, we want to be a big online publisher,' in which case, they probably do need to make another acquisition or figure out a way to grow their audience on MSN and Windows Live; or 'No, we don't want to be an online publisher,' in which case, they focus on the aQuantive business," said Rosoff, referring to Microsoft's May 2007 purchase of the Australia-based ad platform provider. Rosoff later suggested that Microsoft consider AOL -- not necessarily as a whole, but perhaps its most critical part instead: "Maybe eyeing something like Platform-A, Advertising.com, that's an option as well."

In another interview that same day, Jarvis Coffin, CEO of Burst Media -- which competes in the same space as aQuantive and Platform-A -- disagreed, saying he feels now is Microsoft's best chance to take its existing wealth of assets and come up with its own solution.

"I think Microsoft has other ad-serving assets, ad network assets, and they ought to be thinking about what they can do that is more relevant to what's taking place in the market today, where the race is still on," Coffin told BetaNews, "and in the whole area of vertical networks, trying to figure out how to build a Microsoft online ad network that is global and competes with the other ad networks that are out there."

Add a Comment (51 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By Lawrence01

posted May 7, 2008 - 3:34 PM

Vista - Worst O/S ever!

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted May 7, 2008 - 3:53 PM

Yeah..

Right on.

Fight the power.

*laughing*

Wanna-be.

Score: 0

By robmanic44

posted May 7, 2008 - 1:35 PM

They need to get Vista behind them ASAP. I'm now running XP Pro on every computer I own. Then they need to do some serious planning. None of this will happen with Steve Ballmer in charge. My cat is available at a reasonable salary, no stock options necessary.

Score: 0

By God Dammit

posted May 7, 2008 - 2:54 PM

Microsoft needs to get the most stable version of Windows behind them? Windows Vista SP 1 can do everything that Windows XP can do better.

Score: 0

By uberfly

posted May 8, 2008 - 5:07 AM

Right. Just like ME was so superior to 98SE. Get over it. The love of your life is fat and smells bad.

Score: 0

By lazarus98

posted May 7, 2008 - 3:10 PM

Your obviously not a Network Administrator and have not seen the horrors that Vista brings to a network setup.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted May 7, 2008 - 3:52 PM

*laughs*

Give it to us straight, JimBob. What horrors would those be?

Score: 0

By Tenoq

posted May 7, 2008 - 9:33 PM

Networking with printers on XP. Especially if UAC is disabled.

Hacking the registry is also a right PITA.

'Repair install?' - gone.

There's plenty of annoyances with Vista, beyond the fact it's a lot slower generally for techs to work with.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted May 8, 2008 - 8:34 AM

Networking with printers on XP. Especially if UAC is disabled.

? No idea. Not sure what you're talking about here...connecting to a printer shared from an XP system?

Hacking the registry is also a right PITA.

Regedit? Always been a PITA, or are you referring to something else? ...and shouldn't it be?

Repair install?' - gone.

Yeah. That does suck.

I wouldn't really call any of these "horrors" though as the OP did. Annoyances, as you termed it, to be sure, but those fade with time and familiarity. ;)

Score: 0

By God Dammit

posted May 8, 2008 - 2:13 AM

If you want to repair an existing installation all you have to do is boot from the Vista DVD and select the Repair option below the Install option. Yes, the text for the Repair option is much smaller than the text for the Install option but it's not that hard to find. As for hacking the registry, this should be made harder. A lot of people going into the registry don't know what they're doing and end up totally hosing their Windows installation.

Score: 0

By Hollywood__

edited May 7, 2008 - 2:59 PM

Rob, you need to accept Vista is not going away and the next O/S will be Vista called something else.

Let XP go man.

__________________________________

You Stepford Wives hate Vista and you don't even know why. Mindless robots who need to be told what to think. I really love challenging people in person who hate Vista.

My question is always "tell me specifically what you hate about it"

Answer is always "My neighbor says" or "My brother says" or "The guy at Best Buy told me", not one nitwit can ever tell me something specific they dont like .... ever.

(This only applies to factory installed versions on computers designed to run Vista, if you upgraded an XP machine to Vista, you're ****ed)

Score: 0

By robmanic44

posted May 8, 2008 - 8:52 AM

I guess that's why Dell is allowing it's corporate users to install XP.

I recently restored my HP to Vista 64bit and it's a very high end PC. I'm going to let my cat use it for a while. I'll then flatten it and install XP. I wouldn't be doing all that work if Vista was even close to being as good as you're saying.

Score: 0

By lazarus98

posted May 7, 2008 - 3:13 PM

Yes, Vista is more secure...

Specifics... It's a slug and things are in places that make no real sense to power users.
You don't need or want Eye Candy in a network setup. I know it's easy enough to get rid of all of it. But it uses way to much resources to do the same things that XP does.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

edited May 7, 2008 - 3:51 PM

Specifics... It's a slug and things are in places that make no real sense to power users.

*laughs*

It's blazingly fast on my 4400+ with 4GB of RAM and an Ati 2900. What crap did you put it on?

Power users? I love that argument.

What do you think the ratio is between power users and non-power users when it comes to MSFT Operating systems?

One might hazard to guess that the scales tip ever-so-slightly in favor of the non-power users, who actually might not need to deal with nearly 2/3rds of the functionality us "power users" use on a daily basis.

For which group you think MSFT is designing their UI for?

I'll give you a hint: It's *not* the power users.

No-one codes for the power user. No one smart, anyway. Every power user has their own way of doing things, their own eclectic set of utilities and ways around the OS.

You don't need or want Eye Candy in a network setup.

Agreed. This is why they've damn near removed everything useful to a power user and left only the bare minimum. They can see it is connected to the network and the internet. That is all they need.

I know it's easy enough to get rid of all of it.

True 'dat.

But it uses way to much resources to do the same things that XP does.

Heh... The GUI is using less resources, my friend. If Aero is enabled, in fact, *all* of the GUI horsepower comes from the GPU instead of the CPU. This is reason numero uno why integrated graphics aren't cutting it and a discreet GPU is all but required to run Aero decently, and the integrated graphics is reason numero uno why people think vista is so slow...

Score: 0

By Tenoq

posted May 7, 2008 - 9:35 PM

It's slower on my overclocked E66 with a 9800GTX. It's not slow per-se, but it's slower than XP, and offers no real advantages other than DX10. For all the annoyances - it's simply not worth the trouble.

Personally, I doubt that will always be the case. Microsoft can fix it, and they will eventually. I was just hoping it would be fixed with SP1... and it wasn't. To be fair though, they did do a fair bit with SP1, it's just not all there yet.

Score: 0

By lazarus98

posted May 7, 2008 - 4:12 PM

PC_Tool

I have put it on over 50 different computers in many different setups. Laugh all you like but on the whole its pretty slow overall. Most corporate setups are not going to give it a 4400+ with 4GB of RAM.

I have it on a setup like that also at home and yes it's fast there but thats not everyones computer.

This comes from a person who actually does like MS products on the whole and has work with them on more than a few occasions. My whole work environment is built around it and I plan on keeping it that way...

But that does not mean I have to like Vista just because MS put it out.

You are of course correct as to who they are designing it for, but then again, how many of the regular users can afford the equipment to run it well?

As for the GUI using less.. Also correct. But thats not the whole of the OS that does use more for other things.

Score: 0

By iLLz

posted May 7, 2008 - 6:11 PM

The problem is most corporate entities buy PCs/Laptops in bulk from say HP, Dell, etc. These computers have minimal specs and won't run Vista comfortably. Where I work, which is for a PC Replacement Project, we had our vendor add RAM to the tune of making every PC minimally have 2 GB of RAM. That helps tremendously and Vista now runs on the same computers flawlessly. It all boils down to RAM as Vista uses Superfetch to cache the most frequently used apps/data into RAM.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted May 7, 2008 - 6:14 PM

...and also why many folks think Vista is a RAM Hog...

Heh... it pays off. They just don't see it right away as the cache takes time to become effective and their ADD addled brains can't handle that.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

edited May 7, 2008 - 6:12 PM

Look:

I never said it was for everyone, I just argued the points your were trying to make.

Slug: Not on decent affordable hardware. (4400+ is only 2.3Ghz, FFS and 4GB of RAM costs under $140)

Eyecandy/GUI issues: Poweruser preference. Youknow how to change it. MSFT didn't build the GUI for you, but for your users.

Resources: GUI takes *less* on a system with a discrete video card. On a dual-core CPU with 4GB running Vista SP1 x64 you will get *faster* performance than you will with Windows XP (32 or 64). It scales better the more resources you give it. Go beyond the dual-core/4GB and the gap widens. So yes, in a way it *does* use more resources. It craves them...and puts them to use. The more you give it, the more it will outperform XP on an exact duplicate build. Don't trust me? You've got the hardware according to your posts. Build it. Test it. Keep Vista on there for more than 1 day. It will begin to outperform XP in less, but it really shines once it's had time to get the cache built)

Speaking of cache...

...just because it's using RAM while "idle" doesn't mean it isn't using it effectively. Rather, it means XP didn't. Anything over 2GB on XP was wasted. In Vista....it ain't. :)

Score: 0

By pitdingo2

edited May 7, 2008 - 12:38 PM

ZRidling, I would not just write off M$. They still have a very profitable office monopoly regardless of the M$-OOXML debacle (where is the specification? according to rules it should have been out over a month ago, but hey, rules are only there to be broken)

M$ has the XBox assault on the living room. This allows them to extend their proprietary formats and protocols more deeply into your content. Also, this is where they are slowing getting people used to the subscription model. Watch for SilverTurd applications to start running on the XBox and no standard HTML, CSS, JavaScript, etc... Funny how Nintendo and Sony allow a web browser.

M$ has SilverLight (AKA SilverTurd) as a way of extending their proprietary formats and protocols onto the web.

M$ has the Zune as a way of extending their proprietary formats and protocols into your content. Watch for the iZune, i mean, Zune Phone which combines the Windows Mobile failure with the Zune "platform" failure.

M$ has the Windows Auto edition to extend their proprietary formats and protocols into cars.

So M$ has a lot of balls in the air; something will stick, if not all. The billions they have from their Office monopoly will keep them going for a long, long time.

Score: 0

By Hollywood__

edited May 7, 2008 - 2:45 PM

Your obsession with MS and your constant need to denounce anything they produce pretty much makes you the biggest loser with nothing better to do on the planet.

"I own a Mac" - No, you said you own a Dell

"I own an iPod" - My guess is you own a Sansa or cheaper player

"I just picked up a PS3 with GTA 4" - You own a $249 Wii (possibly) and a huge 26" TV.

_____________________

Edited just for dingo

Score: 0

By SGD

posted May 7, 2008 - 3:43 PM

He cries that MS makes something that is proprietary yet many companies do that very same thing, I guess that is different. Sony makes a memory card that is itunes for Apple to mention a few.

I bet if Apple would have made the music in car option then it would have been the best thing ever made.

Score: 0

By SGD

posted May 7, 2008 - 2:36 PM

More of the expected MS hate talk from the local troll.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted May 7, 2008 - 12:55 PM

*laughing*

Gawd damn, that's funny. I don't care who you are.

Score: 0

By lvthunder

posted May 7, 2008 - 12:39 PM

You come so close to making some valid points but then you act like a juvenile by using word like M$ and SilverTurd. Grow up.

Score: 0

By preinterpost

edited May 7, 2008 - 1:47 PM

That's almost as funny as the original post. I have no issue with MSFT (or anyone giving me tools to make tons of cash for that matter) and if anyone wants to call them M$ it is an efficient abbrev/recognition for that money machine.

Of course all this evil-doing conspiracy spin is just the babbling of a blinded fool.

Score: 0

By Digital1021

posted May 7, 2008 - 3:17 PM

Pretty soon M$ will be implanting crap into our brains reading our thoughts..........

Score: 0

By preinterpost

posted May 7, 2008 - 3:32 PM

Cool.....

Score: 0

By Digital1021

posted May 7, 2008 - 4:57 PM

I wonder if they will charge us a subscription fee to do it.....

Score: 0

By preinterpost

posted May 8, 2008 - 9:09 AM

Yes, but you'll also have the option to make your brain available during idle time and charge back for mesh processing plus a sublimal ad supported version.

Score: 0

By Digital1021

posted May 8, 2008 - 5:51 PM

God forbid it gives me the BSOD :)

Score: 0

By Floodland

posted May 7, 2008 - 1:22 PM

Why so much discomfort to write Microsoft with $? I accept is an old joke, but having to answer any comments because of that... Weird...
I still think it is a right alias as Microsoft do not seems to care much about anything but money.

Score: 0

By pitdingo2

posted May 7, 2008 - 1:30 PM

yeah people on here get so bent out of shape about the whole M$ or Micro$oft thing. The funniest part is, they act as if I invented it.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted May 7, 2008 - 1:39 PM

Actually, I think they're "acting" as if you're using a tired meme that died back in the early 80's and are also operating under the false assumption that it is, somehow, still amusing to anyone above the age of 6. ;)

Score: 0

By pitdingo2

posted May 7, 2008 - 2:08 PM

all the more reason to keep using M$...just to get people belly aching.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

edited May 7, 2008 - 2:44 PM

So a, "Stick to what you're best at" sort of thing then, aye? ;)

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted May 7, 2008 - 1:24 PM

Yeah, who'd expect a business to want to make money.

...how silly.

/sarcasm

Score: 0

By Niro

posted May 7, 2008 - 12:57 PM

ha...I don't think he even comes close to making any valid points?

Office monopoly? What happened to the dozens of office applications out there...I guess they don't exist in his "MS is a monopoly" world.

Score: 0

By ConceptJunkie

posted May 7, 2008 - 1:15 PM

Ever worked for a business? MS _does_ have a monopoly in office software. It's only rebels like me that refuse to use their horrible bloated crap (exception: I think Excel is good).

Of course, I'm convinced word processing was a big mistake to begin with. Markup is where it's at (I like reStructuredText). If you honestly need WYSIWYG then you are doing DTP, not WP, and need something appropriate. Word isn't appropriate for anything but taking up too much disk space.

Score: 0

By preinterpost

posted May 7, 2008 - 1:49 PM

"It's only rebels like me"

You guys crack me up :) Did you get that line from the Apple marketing department?

Score: 0

By dkratter

posted May 7, 2008 - 12:29 PM

Talk about picking nits. Gates is clearly saying Microsoft is moving on, independently from any joint Yahoo strategy they might have developed over the past six months.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted May 7, 2008 - 12:53 PM

This story, as most other MSFT stories is just another hit generator. No meat, no substance, just pure speculation and biased assumptions. I'd say Scott should stick the the technical stuff, on which he is very detailed and provides a great amount of useful information, but those don't tend to be huge hit-generators.

Score: 0

By preinterpost

posted May 7, 2008 - 1:50 PM

And he even admits it literally:

"...but if they did that -- and in so doing, actually answer some of these questions -- then we might have less to write about."

Score: 0

By zridling

posted May 7, 2008 - 11:48 AM

Scott Fulton provokes an interesting discussion. First was IBM which gave way to Microsoft, which has given way to Google.

IBM — along with Oracle — took the GNU/Linux road and has roared back to life this decade. Google figured it out, with a business model is rains cash anytime they need it. Not to mention, Google uses its checkbook wisely, rather than throwing $45bn offers at second-rate company acquisitions just to keep Google within sight.

Microsoft is too [revenue]-dependent on a dying product: Office on the desktop. Throw in the failed MS-OOXML format which no country has adopted, and it looks like Microsoft is running with two broken ankles. Time to admit that the OS doesn't matter; the real platform is the cloud. As of now, Windows Live is an utter mess, Gates is gone, Ballmer is looking to blow money and take the stock down even further, and they're racing to get Win7 out sooner than expected. But it won't matter. All this noise signals Microsoft is very confused (a lot like toolie boy).

Score: 0

By preinterpost

posted May 7, 2008 - 1:52 PM

"Time to admit that the OS doesn't matter; the real platform is the cloud."

I agree - but then how do you explain Apple fanboys?

Score: 0

By Neoprimal

edited May 7, 2008 - 3:19 PM

That's easy! Steve sold his soul to the devil a long time ago to get Apple rolling again - just before the Imac. In essence, anyone that uses Apple computers become little mindless drones that will eat, say, do, buy anything made by or affiliated with Apple - they don't care that it costs more for no reason, and they especially don't care that it's less functional. They're creative, superior underdog overlords of the computing consumer industry and some day, some day damnit...they'll be relevant.

I'm kidding of course. The real reason there, is that z is talking a high, steaming, smelly pile of BS.

The OS is just as relevant today as it ever was and the same goes for MS OSs'. Some of us are a bit more passionate about the use of a particular OS than others, but coming down to it, people out there who don't really care what they're on, want ease of use, functionality and uniformity/universality in their choice of OS - and they just want it to work. You only get this from 2 OSes (sorry Linux, the command line thing despite synaptics, etc kills it for you, for now).
This is why Vista/XP and OsX are by far the most popular OSes right now.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with Vista....except that MS gave way to a barrage of negativity with the whole 'Vista Capable' schibang, a mistake they hopefully will never make again. There's also a problem of not being easy/fun to program for - an issue I hear many devs. using as an excuse. Hopefully MS will change this for 7.

I hate 'Vista doesn't work/Vista works' stories equally, but I can't help to question the validity of the 'Vista sucks' stories....where people install it and it blue screens all the time or goes nuts when so and so or crashes when they make toast.
I think there are a healthy bunch of us on here alone that love our Vista installs. I would never go back to XP. I use Heron as well and have XP around, but I still prefer Vista.
I don't think MS is going anywhere and I certainly don't consider their 'hold' on society their Office software.

They're 'struggling' in the web division field because lets face it, yahoo and google were there first and for the most part played their cards right (esp. Google). Any company out there vying to be closer to number 1 (that is, google) would have done what MS did. They saw Yahoo in a slight financial funk and they decided to move in before it got so bad that Yahoo decided to (form a strategic partnership with X, break into different fields, etc. etc., reorganized - they want Yahoo and the brains there as is). That being said, I think the phrase in question isn't a big deal - it means what has already been said by Steve, 'we're moving on' without yahoo. There's no reason to over-analyze to factor in, moving on and doing it ourselves vs. looking into other partnerships, because despite what is said NOW, that decision could easily be reversed tomorrow, in a week or later.

Score: 0

By preinterpost

posted May 7, 2008 - 3:58 PM

Wow.

Well, I'm glad you got that off your chest! I agree with most but it is quite wasted in this place...

Score: 0

By lvthunder

posted May 7, 2008 - 12:36 PM

How is Office a dieing product? Do you even have a clue how many businesses use Office and don't want their information on the cloud. Now maybe Office for Home Users is dieing, but in the corporate world no one is going to be using the cloud.

Score: 0

By alex_sporik

posted May 7, 2008 - 12:34 PM

Oracle has nothing to do with Linux as primary business. IBM JUST SPONSORING linix developments, not benefit from it. Name ANY profitable linux developing company. Yeaaah man..not a single one.

Back to Microsoft. Yes you right that Internet now is a platform, but guess what - Microsoft STILL define the rules here - from browser upto online based Office (version 13 i guess).

BTW, MSFT profit still rocket high. Check stocks market.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted May 7, 2008 - 12:22 PM

Wow.

Aside from the nonsensical BS of "First was IBM which gave way to Microsoft, which has given way to Google.", and, of course, the rest of the post, that was pretty enlightening.

*yawn*

When will you people learn to stop predicting the demise of MSFT. You've been doing it for decades. It's always just moments away...

SSDD, man. Get some new material.

Score: 0

By pc_creator

edited May 7, 2008 - 5:09 PM

to get back to the why we hate vista topic heres my little list.

i custom build computers for people.... vista is a pain in the a** to make sure every little piece of hardware will work with it.

you gotta have good ram and video to make it run decent, and updates have so far been a nightmare.

aside from that, does anyone remember the hell that was windows XP at launch? or Win ME for that matter?

Vista isnt the best or worst microsoft has ever given us. i prefer Xp only because i know it works, its been around for 7 years. for the most part the bugs are all squished and, for a microsoft product, its reliable.

if people werent scared of change, linux would rule the world.

theres my two cents, try not to spend it all at once on gas.

Score: 0