Bill Gates Interview - Bitcoin is Better than Currency

[lyth0s]

If you listen closely to all his videos.. you will find the answer. 

1. He likes the concept.
2. He does not like the anonymity
3. He would like to see this being implemented, but with their own crypto coin.
4. Bitcoin has a bad reputation.. {Link to terrorist funding}

He is after all a US citizen and they have to adhere to all the KYC and AML laws of the country.... The bigger companies have close ties to government and will lose out on huge government tenders, if they do not adhere to the laws of the country.

There you have it.... You will see a "Ripple" like coin coming out soon, adopted and supported by Microsoft. 

Nah. Centralized currencies like ripple may be introduced to the market, but I think they will be largely rejected by the people due to the enormous wealth it will create for the people that created and control the coin. People will get frustrated with banks and lead them to using decentralized currencies.

No one is giving Ecuador's centralized a big thumbs up. No one is giving ripple a big thumbs up other than holders and the creators/controllers

[tokeweed]

I don't understand Bill gates anymore , sometimes he  criticize it and sometimes he likes it . confusing me . I don't think that the news it's that old ? the last Interview wasen't like this , was it ?

Here is the video that I've found (was looking some Mark Karpeles videos) : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6KRp91YAw8

~ Madness

Imagine, what if Bill Gates was 16 years old today...  He could be a big contributor to the BTC code.  Or better yet, finding a way to dominate the whole crypto scene.

[tokeweed]

If you listen closely to all his videos.. you will find the answer. 

1. He likes the concept.
2. He does not like the anonymity
3. He would like to see this being implemented, but with their own crypto coin.
4. Bitcoin has a bad reputation.. {Link to terrorist funding}

He is after all a US citizen and they have to adhere to all the KYC and AML laws of the country.... The bigger companies have close ties to government and will lose out on huge government tenders, if they do not adhere to the laws of the country.

There you have it.... You will see a "Ripple" like coin coming out soon, adopted and supported by Microsoft. 

His statements has Ripple written all over it.

[koelen3]

If you listen closely to all his videos.. you will find the answer. 

1. He likes the concept.
2. He does not like the anonymity
3. He would like to see this being implemented, but with their own crypto coin.
4. Bitcoin has a bad reputation.. {Link to terrorist funding}

He is after all a US citizen and they have to adhere to all the KYC and AML laws of the country.... The bigger companies have close ties to government and will lose out on huge government tenders, if they do not adhere to the laws of the country.

There you have it.... You will see a "Ripple" like coin coming out soon, adopted and supported by Microsoft. 

His statements has Ripple written all over it.

And i think that coin might just make good over market

[tee-rex]

I don't understand Bill gates anymore , sometimes he  criticize it and sometimes he likes it . confusing me . I don't think that the news it's that old ? the last Interview wasen't like this , was it ?

Here is the video that I've found (was looking some Mark Karpeles videos) : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6KRp91YAw8

~ Madness

Imagine, what if Bill Gates was 16 years old today...  He could be a big contributor to the BTC code.  Or better yet, finding a way to dominate the whole crypto scene.

Let's not forget that Basic was written by Monte Davidoff, the MS-DOS code was stolen by Microsoft, the Windows NT kernel has its roots in the VMS operating system while its developers came from Digital, and even the company name was Paul Allen's idea.

[Beliathon]

Let's not forget only that Basic was written by Monte Davidoff, the MS-DOS code was stolen, the Window NT kernel has its roots in the VMS operating system while its developers came from Digital, and even the company name was Paul Allen's idea.

This. Gates was never a true computer scientist, he was a glorified businessman who manipulated and conned his way to the top. Why do you think Micro$oft is such a piece of shit company?

[cellard]

Let's not forget only that Basic was written by Monte Davidoff, the MS-DOS code was stolen, the Window NT kernel has its roots in the VMS operating system while its developers came from Digital, and even the company name was Paul Allen's idea.

This. Gates was never a true computer scientist, he was a glorified businessman who manipulated and conned his way to the top. Why do you think Micro$oft is such a piece of shit company?

How is Microsoft a piece of shit company? It's an highly successful company, if we measure success by money that is, and thats how most things are measured in the real world.

[ChuckBuck]

I don't really see or get all the hate for Bill Gates.  If it weren't for him pushing personal computing and Windows GUI in the 80s and 90s, users of Linux and MAC OS'es would still be the in the dinosaur text based age.

Competition is good, and if he didn't make his contribution, y'all ingrates would be still typing a million characters to open a browser....

[tee-rex]

I don't really see or get all the hate for Bill Gates.  If it weren't him pushing personal computing and Windows GUI in the 80s and 90s, users of Linux and MAC OS'es would still be the in the dinosaur text based age.

I have to remind you that GUI was Xerox's invention, and it was Steve Jobs, not Bill Gates, who was among the first to see the potential of Xerox mouse-driven GUI (read about the Apple Lisa, the first personal computer offering a graphical user interface). And that was years before Windows, actually even before MS-DOS (in 1978, if you're curious).

[ChuckBuck]

I don't really see or get all the hate for Bill Gates.  If it weren't him pushing personal computing and Windows GUI in the 80s and 90s, users of Linux and MAC OS'es would still be the in the dinosaur text based age.

I have to remind you that GUI was Xerox's invention and it was Steve Jobs who was among the first to see the potential of Xerox mouse-driven graphical user interface (read about the Apple Lisa). And that was years before Windows.

Semantics, both Jobs and Gates ripped off Xerox template.  Gates took PC's to the next level with Windows 95, and soon after everyone followed suit, even Apple.  Jobs and Gates with all their differences, actually collaborated quite a bit during the early years.

You can't just dispute Gates historical importance.  His ability to break ground for the PC both for home and business was unparalleled, and helped bring technology to where it is today.

[tee-rex]

I don't really see or get all the hate for Bill Gates.  If it weren't him pushing personal computing and Windows GUI in the 80s and 90s, users of Linux and MAC OS'es would still be the in the dinosaur text based age.

I have to remind you that GUI was Xerox's invention and it was Steve Jobs who was among the first to see the potential of Xerox mouse-driven graphical user interface (read about the Apple Lisa). And that was years before Windows.

Semantics, both Jobs and Gates ripped off Xerox template.  Gates took PC's to the next level with Windows 95, and soon after everyone followed suit, even Apple.  Jobs and Gates with all their differences, actually collaborated quite a bit during the early years.

You can't just dispute Gates historical importance.  His ability to break ground for the PC both for home and business was unparalleled, and helped bring technology to where it is today.

I beg to differ. It was IBM actually who was behind the scenes. It had been their decision about opening IBM PC's specification that "broke ground for the PC both for home and business". And once again I have to remind you that Windows 95 should have been IBM's OS/2 but for Bill Gates' treachery (at the times of Windows 3.0).

And just in case, Windows 95 is MS-DOS v.7 under the hood plus a graphical shell running on top of it (win.com).

[ChuckBuck]

I don't really see or get all the hate for Bill Gates.  If it weren't him pushing personal computing and Windows GUI in the 80s and 90s, users of Linux and MAC OS'es would still be the in the dinosaur text based age.

I have to remind you that GUI was Xerox's invention and it was Steve Jobs who was among the first to see the potential of Xerox mouse-driven graphical user interface (read about the Apple Lisa). And that was years before Windows.

Semantics, both Jobs and Gates ripped off Xerox template.  Gates took PC's to the next level with Windows 95, and soon after everyone followed suit, even Apple.  Jobs and Gates with all their differences, actually collaborated quite a bit during the early years.

You can't just dispute Gates historical importance.  His ability to break ground for the PC both for home and business was unparalleled, and helped bring technology to where it is today.

I beg to differ. It was IBM actually who was behind the scenes. It had been their decision about opening IBM PC's specification that "broke ground for the PC both for home and business". And once again I have to remind you that Windows 95 should have been IBM's OS/2 but for Bill Gates' treachery (at the times of Windows 3.0).

Ehh, I'm not really reading about any treachery on Gates part.  It seems OS/2 was IBM's own fault and demise:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OS/2

Basically IBM's vision of OS/2 wanted to close source it strictly to IBM machines, and Gates wanted Windows 3.0 to be an open hardware OS, independent of manufacturer.  Also Windows 3.0 was more device driver friendly,  more future proof, and application friendly than OS/2.

Gates didn't hijack, sabotage, or steal anything from IBM.  They had a business relationship, they had a strategic differences, and they parted ways soon after.  IBM screwed themselves in this regard, OS/2 was closed off and blew chunks, and them failing had nothing to do with Gates.

[tee-rex]

I don't really see or get all the hate for Bill Gates.  If it weren't him pushing personal computing and Windows GUI in the 80s and 90s, users of Linux and MAC OS'es would still be the in the dinosaur text based age.

I have to remind you that GUI was Xerox's invention and it was Steve Jobs who was among the first to see the potential of Xerox mouse-driven graphical user interface (read about the Apple Lisa). And that was years before Windows.

Semantics, both Jobs and Gates ripped off Xerox template.  Gates took PC's to the next level with Windows 95, and soon after everyone followed suit, even Apple.  Jobs and Gates with all their differences, actually collaborated quite a bit during the early years.

You can't just dispute Gates historical importance.  His ability to break ground for the PC both for home and business was unparalleled, and helped bring technology to where it is today.

I beg to differ. It was IBM actually who was behind the scenes. It had been their decision about opening IBM PC's specification that "broke ground for the PC both for home and business". And once again I have to remind you that Windows 95 should have been IBM's OS/2 but for Bill Gates' treachery (at the times of Windows 3.0).

Ehh, I'm not really reading about any treachery on Gates part.  It seems OS/2 was IBM's own fault and demise:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OS/2

Basically IBM's vision of OS/2 wanted to close source it strictly to IBM machines, and Gates wanted Windows 3.0 to be an open hardware OS, independent of manufacturer.  Also Windows 3.0 was more device driver friendly,  more future proof, and application friendly than OS/2.

Gates didn't hijack, sabotage, or steal anything from IBM.  They had a business relationship, they had a strategic differences, and they parted ways soon after.  IBM screwed themselves in this regard, OS/2 was closed off and blew chunks, and them failing had nothing to do with Gates.

IBM and Microsoft signed a joint development agreement in 1985 to co-develop OS/2 as a DOS successor, which the latter broke in 1990. The primary reason was popularity of Windows, which at that time was a simple graphical add-on to DOS, inferior to OS/2 but easy to use and compatible with the huge base of legacy DOS software. It was sheer profit from Windows that made Gates break the agreement with IBM, not their "strategic differences" or whatever else is written in Wikipedia.

[jbrnt]

Gates stole the GUI idea from Apple while he was contracted by Jobs to write an interface driver for the mouse. Then he released Windows 1.0 for DOS. What made Windows successful was not being easy to use or being a superior system, but because of Word and Excel (copy of Wordperfect and Lotus123)

[ChuckBuck]

I don't really see or get all the hate for Bill Gates.  If it weren't him pushing personal computing and Windows GUI in the 80s and 90s, users of Linux and MAC OS'es would still be the in the dinosaur text based age.

I have to remind you that GUI was Xerox's invention and it was Steve Jobs who was among the first to see the potential of Xerox mouse-driven graphical user interface (read about the Apple Lisa). And that was years before Windows.

Semantics, both Jobs and Gates ripped off Xerox template.  Gates took PC's to the next level with Windows 95, and soon after everyone followed suit, even Apple.  Jobs and Gates with all their differences, actually collaborated quite a bit during the early years.

You can't just dispute Gates historical importance.  His ability to break ground for the PC both for home and business was unparalleled, and helped bring technology to where it is today.

I beg to differ. It was IBM actually who was behind the scenes. It had been their decision about opening IBM PC's specification that "broke ground for the PC both for home and business". And once again I have to remind you that Windows 95 should have been IBM's OS/2 but for Bill Gates' treachery (at the times of Windows 3.0).

Ehh, I'm not really reading about any treachery on Gates part.  It seems OS/2 was IBM's own fault and demise:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OS/2

Basically IBM's vision of OS/2 wanted to close source it strictly to IBM machines, and Gates wanted Windows 3.0 to be an open hardware OS, independent of manufacturer.  Also Windows 3.0 was more device driver friendly,  more future proof, and application friendly than OS/2.

Gates didn't hijack, sabotage, or steal anything from IBM.  They had a business relationship, they had a strategic differences, and they parted ways soon after.  IBM screwed themselves in this regard, OS/2 was closed off and blew chunks, and them failing had nothing to do with Gates.

IBM and Microsoft signed a joint development agreement in 1985 to co-develop OS/2 as a DOS successor, which the latter broke in 1990. The primary reason was popularity of Windows, which at that time was a simple graphical add-on to DOS, inferior to OS/2 but easy to use and compatible with the huge base of legacy DOS software. It was sheer profit from Windows that made Gates break the agreement with IBM, not their "strategic differences" or whatever else is written in Wikipedia.

You're letting your unwarranted hate for Gates cloud reality dude.  IBM has always been IBM's worst enemy, not Gates.  Instead of trying to fault Gates for the downfall of IBM's OS business, see history for what it is.  IBM is always behind the tech curve when it comes to innovation and opening it's architecture behind closed doors:

http://www.nasdaq.com/article/4-ibm-blunders-that-gave-big-blues-competition-the-edge-nyse-ibm-cm443432

They basically handed the OS monopoly to Bill Gates, they have no one to blame but themselves...

[tee-rex]

Ehh, I'm not really reading about any treachery on Gates part.  It seems OS/2 was IBM's own fault and demise:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OS/2

Basically IBM's vision of OS/2 wanted to close source it strictly to IBM machines, and Gates wanted Windows 3.0 to be an open hardware OS, independent of manufacturer.  Also Windows 3.0 was more device driver friendly,  more future proof, and application friendly than OS/2.

Gates didn't hijack, sabotage, or steal anything from IBM.  They had a business relationship, they had a strategic differences, and they parted ways soon after.  IBM screwed themselves in this regard, OS/2 was closed off and blew chunks, and them failing had nothing to do with Gates.

IBM and Microsoft signed a joint development agreement in 1985 to co-develop OS/2 as a DOS successor, which the latter broke in 1990. The primary reason was popularity of Windows, which at that time was a simple graphical add-on to DOS, inferior to OS/2 but easy to use and compatible with the huge base of legacy DOS software. It was sheer profit from Windows that made Gates break the agreement with IBM, not their "strategic differences" or whatever else is written in Wikipedia.

You're letting your unwarranted hate for Gates cloud reality dude.  IBM has always been IBM's worst enemy, not Gates.  Instead of trying to fault Gates for the downfall of IBM's OS business, see history for what it is.  IBM is always behind the tech curve when it comes to innovation and opening it's architecture behind closed doors:

http://www.nasdaq.com/article/4-ibm-blunders-that-gave-big-blues-competition-the-edge-nyse-ibm-cm443432

They basically handed the OS monopoly to Bill Gates, they have no one to blame but themselves...

Yeah, haters gonna hate. Personally, I don't care about Gates, but I could just tell you the same, i.e. see history for what it is. Microsoft entered an agreement with IBM (do you deny this?) for co-developing OS/2 (don't think of this system as IBM's project only, both companies agreed to develop the new system), and Microsoft continued to develop Windows at the same time. When Windows turned out to be more profitable in the end, they just abandoned OS/2 as being Windows direct competitor.

Indeed it was IBM's fault that they didn't expect Bill to switch sides!