forcode想看的


forcode看过的


新技术
新趋势
奇思妙想
科学探索
科幻奇幻
资料搜集
网络研究
统计定量
社会学研究
书摘读后感
数码网络
软件评测
数据指标
实用信息
有趣的东西
房地产
网络赚钱
投资创业
新闻评论
网站经营
电影八卦
美景美人
人物朋友
情感回忆梦
forcode生活

2008-06-30

Bill Gates and Steve Jobs


Bill Gates and Steve Jobs

Bill Gates and Steve Jobs

To create a new standard, it takes something that's not just a little bit different, it takes something that's really new and really captures people's imagination and the Macintosh, of all the machines I've ever seen, is the only one that meets that standard."
Microsoft founder Bill Gates, 1984

If I were running Apple, I would milk the Macintosh for all it's worth–and get busy on the next great thing. The PC wars are over. Done. Microsoft won a long time ago."

–Steve Jobs, 1996

Soon the great Silicon Valley soap opera will come full circle. Not since Apple CEO Steve Jobs famously interviewed Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates as a possible suitor during the "Macintosh Dating Game" back in 1983 have the two men appeared in a joint bill. And in a few moments, the two will share a stage again for the first time in more than 20 years for what promises to be a historic discussion. Live coverage to follow …

Gates and Jobs
[Note: The liveblog below has been updated with content from our transcript of the conversation]
7:15 p.m PDT: Tonight's conversation is prefaced by a short film of previous Gates/Jobs appearances. First up: The Macintosh Dating game, circa 1983. [Ah, they looked so much younger then...] And finally Gates and Jobs joking together at D in 2005.

7:20 p.m.: Gates and Jobs onstage.

Walt recognizes the other two bachelors from the "Macintosh Dating Game": Mitch Kapor and Fred Gibbons, who are both in the audience.

Walt: "Before we get started, there were some pioneers–of course, we have the pioneers here on the stage, but there were some other really important pioneers in the video we just saw and a couple of them are here in the audience. Mitch Kapor, who is a regular, could you just stand up, wherever you are? There he is. And Fred Gibbons, who has not come to D before, but is here tonight."

Kara: So let's get started. I wanted to ask, there's been a lot of mano-a-mano/catfight kind of thing in a lot of the blogs and the press and stuff like that, and we wanted to–the first question I was interested in asking is what you think each has contributed to the computer and technology industry, starting with you, Steve, for Bill, and vice versa.

Steve: Well, you know, Bill built the first software company in the industry and I think he built the first software company before anybody really in our industry knew what a software company was, except for these guys. And that was huge. That was really huge. And the business model that they ended up pursuing turned out to be the one that worked really well, you know, for the industry. I think the biggest thing was, Bill was really focused on software before almost anybody else had a clue that it was really the software.

Kara: Was important?

Steve: That's what I see. I mean, a lot of other things you could say, but that's the high order bit. And I think building a company's really hard, and it requires your greatest persuasive abilities to hire the best people you can and keep them at your company and keep them working, doing the best work of their lives, hopefully. And Bill's been able to stay with it for all these years.

Walt: Bill, how about the contribution of Steve and Apple?

Bill: Well, first, I want to clarify: I'm not Fake Steve Jobs. [Peals of laughter.]
What Steve's done is quite phenomenal, and if you look back to 1977, that Apple II computer, the idea that it would be a mass-market machine, you know, the bet that was made there by Apple uniquely–there were other people with products, but the idea that this could be an incredible empowering phenomenon, Apple pursued that dream.Then one of the most fun things we did was the Macintosh and that was so risky. People may not remember that Apple really bet the company. Lisa hadn't done that well, and some people were saying that general approach wasn't good, but the team that Steve built even within the company to pursue that, even some days it felt a little ahead of its time–I don't know if you remember that Twiggy disk drive and…

Steve: One hundred twenty-eight K.

7:35 p.m.:Walt notes that the Mac broadened the base of who could use computers. "I actually looked at an Apple ad from 1978. It was a print ad. That shows you how ancient it was. And it said, thousands of people have discovered the Apple computer. Thousands of people. And it also said, you don't want to buy one of these computers where you put a cartridge in. I think that was a reference to one of the Atari or something."
Steve: Oh, no. … We had some very strange ads back then. We had one where it was in a kitchen and there was a woman that looked like the wife and she was typing in recipes on the computer with the husband looking on approvingly in the back. Stuff like that.

Walt: How did that work for you?

Steve: I don't think well.

Walt:There was actually some Microsoft software in that Apple II computer. You want to talk about what happened there, how that occurred?

Bill: Yeah. There had been the Altair and a few other companies–actually, about 24–that had done various machines, but the '77 group included the PET, TRS-80 …

Walt: Commodore?

Bill: Yeah, the Commodore PET, TRS-80 and the Apple II. The original Apple II BASIC, the Integer BASIC, we had nothing to do with. But then there was a floating-point one where–and I mostly worked with Woz on that.

[Steve interrupts Bill - like an old married couple, these two] "Let me tell this story … My partner we started out with, this guy named Steve Wozniak. Brilliant, brilliant guy. He writes this BASIC that is, like, the best BASIC on the planet. It does stuff that no other BASIC's ever done. You don't have to run it to find your error messages. It finds them when you type it in and stuff. It's perfect in every way, except for one thing, which is it's just fixed-point, right? It's not floating-point.

So we're getting a lot of input that people want this BASIC to be floating-point. And, like, we're begging Woz, please, please make this floating point.

[Great moment here, seeing Jobs so animated about something so, let's face it, geeky. Jobs, in a sense, almost trades places with Gates here.]

Walt: Who's we? How many people are in Apple?

Steve: Well, me. We're begging Woz to make this floating-point and he just never does it. You know, and he wrote it by hand on paper. I mean, you know, he didn't have an assembler or anything to write it with. It was all just written on paper and he'd type it in. He just never got around to making it floating-point.

Kara: Why?

Steve: This is one of the mysteries of life. I don't know, but he never did.

Walt: Microsoft, if I remember correctly from what I've read, wasn't Microsoft one of the few companies that were allowed to even have a prototype of the Mac at the time?

Steve: Yeah. What's interesting, what's hard to remember now is that Microsoft wasn't in the applications business then. They took a big bet on the Mac because this is how they got into the apps business. Lotus dominated the apps business on the PC back then.

Bill: Right. We'd done just MultiPlan, which was a hit on the Apple II, and then Mitch did an incredible job betting on the IBM PC and 1-2-3 came in and, you know, ruled that part of the business. So the question was, what was the next paradigm shift that would allow for an entry? We had Word, but WordPerfect was by far the strongest in word processing dBase database. … So we made this bet that the paradigm shift would be graphics interface and, in particular, that the Macintosh would make that happen with 128K of memory, 22K of which was for the screen buffer, 14K was for the operating system. So it was …

Walt: 14K?

Bill: Yeah.

Walt: The original Mac operating system was 14K?

Bill: 14K that we had to have loaded when our software ran. So when the shell would come up, it had all the 128K.

Steve: The OS was bigger than 14K. It was in the 20s somewhere.

Kara: Bill, what did you think would happen after the disasters at Apple and Steve left?

Bill: After the 512K Mac was done, the product line just didn't evolve as fast–Steve wasn't there–as it needed to. And we were actually negotiating a deal to invest and make some commitments and things with Gil Amelio. No, seriously. So I was calling him up on the weekend and all this stuff and next thing I knew, Steve called me up and said, don't worry about that negotiation with Gil Amelio. You can just talk to me now. And I said, "Wow."

Steve: Gil was a nice guy, but he had a saying. He said, "Apple is like a ship with a hole in the bottom leaking water and my job is to get the ship pointed in the right direction."

[Walt notes Jobs's statement in the 1997 video about competition with Microsoft being destructive.]

Steve: If the game was a zero-sum game where if Apple wanted to win, Microsoft had to lose, then Apple was going to lose. But Apple didn't have to beat Microsoft. It had to remember what Apple was. Microsoft was the biggest software developer around, and Apple was weak. So I called Bill up.

[ Interesting. Steve says the developer relationship between Microsoft and Apple is one of the best Apple has.]

[Ah, the obligatory "I'm a Mac, and I'm a PC" reference.]

Kara: And do you look at yourselves as rivals now? Today as the landscape has evolved–and we'll talk about the Internet landscape and everything else and other companies that have [gone] forward, but how do you look at yourselves in this landscape today? … You watch the commercials, right?

Steve: The art of those commercials is not to be mean, but it's actually for the guys to like each other. Thanks. PC guy is great. Got a big heart.

[Nice little moment we've got going here. Bill's smiling and rolling his eyes a bit. Clearly has a sense of humor about the whole thing. Then:]

Bill: His mother loves him.

Steve: PC guy's what makes it all work, actually.

Walt: How often is Apple on your radar screen at Microsoft in a business sense?

Bill: Well, they're on the radar screen as an opportunity. In a few cases like the Zune, if you go over to that group, they think of Apple as a competitor. They love the fact that Apple's created a gigantic market and they're going to try and come in and contribute something to that. [Love it. Apple trying to "contribute" something to the MS ecosystem]

Steve: And we love them because they're all customers. [Bahahahaha. Man, Jobs is quick on his feet]

Kara: Steve, how do you look at Microsoft from an Apple perspective?

[Jobs recycles his "Apple is about beautiful software in a beautiful box" comments from the earlier session today.] "The big secret about Apple, of course–not-so-big secret maybe–is that Apple views itself as a software company and there aren't very many software companies left, and Microsoft is a software company. And so, you know, we look at what they do and we think some of it's really great, and we think a little bit of it's competitive and most of it's not. You know, we don't have a belief that the Mac is going to take over 80% of the PC market. You know, we're really happy when our market share goes up a point and we love that and we work real hard at it, but Apple's fundamentally a software company and there's not a lot of us left and Microsoft's one of them."

Walt:Was there something you might have done differently where you could have had a bigger market share for the Mac. Is there something you regret?

Steve: There's a lot of things that happened that I'm sure I could have done better when I was at a Apple the first time and a lot of things that happened after I left that I thought were wrong turns, but it doesn't matter. It really doesn't matter and you kind of got to let go of that stuff and we are where we are. So we tend to look forward.

And, you know, one of the things I did when I got back to Apple 10 years ago was I gave the museum to Stanford and all the papers and all the old machines and kind of cleared out the cobwebs and said, let's stop looking backwards here. It's all about what happens tomorrow. Because you can't look back and say, well, gosh, you know, I wish I hadn't have gotten fired, I wish I was there, I wish this, I wish that. It doesn't matter. And so let's go invent tomorrow rather than worrying about what happened yesterday.

Kara:How do you look at the landscape at this moment and what's happening especially in the Internet space?

Steve: I think it's super healthy right now. I think there's a lot of young people out there building some great companies who want to build companies, who aren't just interested in starting something and selling it to one of the big guys, but who want to build companies. And I think there's some real exciting companies getting built out there. Some next-generation stuff that, you know, some of us play catch-up with and, you know, some of us find ways to partner with and things like that, but there's a lot of activity out there now, wouldn't you say?

Bill: Yeah, I'd say it's a healthy period. The notion of what the new form factors look like, what natural interface can do, the ability to use the cloud, the Internet, to do part of the task in a complementary way to the local experience, there's a lot of invention that the whole approach of start-ups, the existing companies who do research, we'll look back at this as one of the great periods of invention.

Walt:You're the guys who represent the rich client, the personal computer, the, you know, big operating system and all that In five years, is the personal computer still going to be the linchpin of all this stuff?

Bill: Well, you can say that it will be predicted that it won't be. You know, the network computer took this over about, whatever, five years ago we disappeared. Remember the single-function computer? There was somebody who said that these general purpose things are kind of a dumb idea. … The mainstream is always under attack. The thing that people don't realize is that you're going to have rich local functionality, I mean, at least our bet, whereas you get things like speech and vision, as you get more natural form factors, it's a question of using that local richness together with the richness that's elsewhere. And as you look at the device, say, that's connecting to the TV set or connecting in the car, there are lighter-weight hardware Internet connections, but when you come to the full screen rich, you know, edit the document, create things, you know, I think we're nowhere near where we could be on making that stronger.

Walt:What are the devices you might carry around five years from now?

Bill: I don't think you'll have one device. I think you'll have a full-screen device that you can carry around and you'll do dramatically more reading off of that.

Kara: Light.

Bill: Yeah. I mean, I believe in the tablet form factor. I think you'll have voice. I think you'll have ink. You'll have some way of having a hardware keyboard and some settings for that. And then you'll have the device that fits in your pocket, which the whole notion of how much function should you combine in there, you know, there's navigation computers, there's media, there's phone. Technology is letting us put more things in there, but then again, you really want to tune it so people know what they expect. So there's quite a bit of experimentation in that pocket-size device. But I think those are natural form factors and that we'll have the evolution of the portable machine. And the evolution of the phone will both be extremely high volume, complementary–that is, if you own one, you're more likely to own the other.

Steve:It will be the PC maybe used a little more tightly coupled with some back-end Internet services and some things like that. And, of course, PCs are going mobile in an ever greater degree. So I think the PC is going to continue. This general purpose device is going to continue to be with us and morph with us, whether it's a tablet or a notebook or, you know, a big curved desktop that you have at your house or whatever it might be. So I think that'll be something that most people have, at least in this society. In others, maybe not, but certainly in this one. But then there's an explosion that's starting to happen in what you call post-PC devices, right? You can call the iPod one of them. There's a lot of things that are not. … I think there's just a category of devices that aren't as general purpose, that are really more focused on specific functions, whether they're phones or iPods or Zunes or what have you. And I think that category of devices is going to continue to be very innovative and we're going to see lots of them.

Walt: Is the iPhone and some of these other smart phones–and I know you believe that the iPhone is much better than these other smart phones at the moment, but are these things–aren't they really just computers in a different form factor? I mean, when we use the word phone, it sounds like…

Steve: We're getting to the point where everything's a computer in a different form factor. So what, right? So what if it's built with a computer inside it? It doesn't matter. It's, what is it? How do you use it? You know, how does the consumer approach it? And so who cares what's inside it anymore?

Walt: So what are the core functions of the device formerly known as the cellphone, whatever we want to call it?

Bill: How quickly all these things that have been somewhat specialized, the navigation device, the digital wallet, the phone, the camera, the video camera, how quickly those all come together, it's hard to chart out. But eventually, you'll be able to pick something that has the capability to do every one of those things.

And yet, given the small size, you still won't want to edit your homework or edit a movie on the screen of that size. And so you'll have something else that lets you do the reading and editing and those things. Now, if we could ever get a screen that would just roll out like a scroll, you know, then you might be able to have the device that did everything.

Kara: Outside the computing area, what are the exciting areas in the Internet space at all that you're looking at that's interesting to each of your companies and in general for you? Any social networking, any kind of the Wikis, those kind of things, things we've talked about in the past couple–today, essentially?

Steve: You know, we're working on some things that I can't talk about … [But they will restore a sense of childlike wonderment to our lives, right?]

Steve: There's a zillion interesting things going on on the Internet. The most interesting things to me are these incredible new services that people are bringing up … There's a lot of them surrounding entertainment, but there's a lot of them that have to do with just sort of figuring how to navigate through life a little more efficiently. And I think, you know, it's really great when you show somebody something and you don't have to convince them they have a problem this solves. They know they have a problem, you can show them something, they go, oh, my God, I need this. And I think you're going to see a lot of things like that happen over the next year or two.

Walt: Bill, you weren't here, but Steve showed a new function of Apple TV that brings YouTube directly to the TV. Is there going to be more of that from you? Do you see yourself the way Bill says, as an enabler of entertainment or, I mean, putting aside your Disney role, but your Apple role?

Steve: I mean, I think people want to enjoy their entertainment when they want it and how they want it, on the device that they want it on. So ultimately, that's going to drive the entertainment companies into all sorts of different business models. And that's a good thing. I mean, if you're a content company, that's a great thing. More people wanting to, you know, enjoy your content more often in more different ways, that's why you're in business, but the transitions are hard sometimes.

And, you know, the music industry, it turned out that the Internet got fast enough to download songs pretty easily. There was no legal alternative and maybe they made some bad choices in how they reacted to that, but, you know, they're still trying to make the transition to a very different way of doing business, or ways of doing business while they're under attack from piracy. And we can all highlight some of the mistakes that have been made, but, you know, still, it's a tough job.

And Hollywood, I think, you know, has watched what's happened in music, learned some things to do, some things not to do, but, you know, they're still trying to map this out. How do they make some of these transitions, some new business models, different platforms, allowing their customers way more freedom on when they want to watch stuff and how they want to watch it. And I think there's a tremendous amount of experimentation and thought going on that's going to be good. It's going to be really good if you're a content owner.

Walt: In the offing in the next four or five years, is it possible there's a new paradigm for organizing the user interface of the personal computer?

Bill: One of the things that's been anticipated for a long time is when 3D comes into that interface. And there was a lot of experimentation, sites on the Internet where you'd kind of walk around and meet people, but in fact, the richness, the speed, it just didn't sustain itself. Now we're starting to see with some of the mapping stuff, a few of the sites, that the quality of that graphics, the tools and things, are getting to the point where 3D can really come in. So I'd definitely say that when you go to a store, bookstore, you'll be able to see the books lined up, you know, the way you might be interested in or lined up the way they are in the real store.

So 3D is a way of organizing things, particularly as we're getting much more media information on the computer, a lot more choices, a lot more navigation than we've ever had before. And we can take that into this communications world where the PC is playing a much more central role, kind of taking over what was the PBX, sort of one of the last mainframes in the business environment. That will be a big change that will come to it. And as we get natural input, that will cause a change. … Software is doing vision and so, you know, imagine a game machine where you're just going to pick up the bat and swing it or the tennis racket and swing it.

Walt: We have one of those.

Kara: Yeah. Wii.

Bill: No, that's not it. You can't pick up your tennis racket. And swing it.

Bill: You can't sit there with your friends and do those natural things. That's a 3D positional device. This is video recognition.

Kara: Steve? I know you're working on something, it's going to be beautiful, we'll see it soon.

Walt: And you can't talk about it.

Steve: Yeah.

Walt: Bill discusses all his secret plans. You don't discuss any.

Steve: I know, it's not fair. But I think the question is a very simple one, which is how much of the really revolutionary things people are going to do in the next five years are done on the PCs or how much of it is really focused on the post-PC devices. And there's a real temptation to focus it on the post-PC devices because it's a clean slate and because they're more focused devices and because, you know, they don't have the legacy of these zillions of apps that have to run in zillions of markets.

And so I think there's going to be tremendous revolution, you know, in the experiences of the post-PC devices. Now, the question is how much to do in the PCs. And I think I'm sure Microsoft is–we're working on some really cool stuff, but some of it has to be tempered a little bit because you do have, you know, these tens of millions, in our case, or hundreds of millions in Bill's case, users that are familiar with something that, you know, they don't want a car with six wheels. They like the car with four wheels. They don't want to drive with a joystick. They like the steering wheel.
And so, you know, you have to, as Bill was saying, in some cases, you have to augment what exists there and in some cases, you can replace things. But I think the radical rethinking of things is going to happen in a lot of these post-PC devices.

Kara:What's the greatest misunderstanding in your relationship?

Steve: We've kept our marriage secret for over a decade now. [Rimshot! Laughter and applause.]

Kara: Canada. That trip to Canada. [Audience still roaring. More laughter and applause]

Bill: It's been fun to work together. I actually kind of miss some of the people who aren't around anymore. You know, people come and go in this industry. It's nice when somebody sticks around and they have some context of all the things that have worked and not worked. The industry gets all crazy about some new thing, you know, like, there's always this paradigm of the company that's successful is going to go away and stuff like that. It's nice to have people seeing the waves and waves of that and yet, when it counted, to take the risk to bring in something new.

Steve:You know, when Bill and I first met each other and worked together in the early days, generally, we were both the youngest guys in the room, right? Individually or together. I'm about six months older than he is, but roughly the same age. And now when we're working at our respective companies, I don't know about you, but I'm the oldest guy in the room most of the time. And that's why I love being here. … And, you know, I think of most things in life as either a Bob Dylan or a Beatles song, but there's that one line in that one Beatles song, "you and I have memories longer than the road that stretches out ahead." And that's clearly true here.

[That may come across as cheesy here in print, but honestly it wasn't. It was pretty touching. Watch the video and you'll see Jobs emotional and, if only for a very brief moment, vulnerable. ]

And after that tender moment, we're on to the Q&A …

Question: Hi. I'm Jesse Kornbluth, HeadButler.com. But you're not the youngest guys in the room anymore, it's perhaps appropriate to ask you a question about legacy, each of you. Bill, even your harshest critic would have to admit that your philanthropy work is, you know, planet-shaking, incredible, and could be, if you make it, a second act so amazing that it would dwarf what you've actually done at Microsoft.

[Applause]

If you had to choose a legacy, what would it be? And Steve, do you look at Bill and you think, gee, that guy is so lucky he had a company so rich with talent that he didn't have to personally come in every day and save it and, you know, I wish I had the opportunity?

Kara: OK. He's not going to answer that one.

Walt: Bill?

Bill: Well, the most important work I got a chance to be involved in, no matter what I do, is the personal computer. You know, that's what I grew up, in my teens, my 20s, my 30s, you know, I even knew not to get married until later because I was so obsessed with it. That's my life's work. And it's lucky for me that some of the skills and resources–but I put skills first–that I was able to develop through those experiences can be applied to the benefit of the people who haven't had technology, including medicine, working for them. So it's an incredible blessing to have two things like that. But the thing that I'll, you know, if you look inside my brain, it's filled with software and, you know, the magic of software and the belief in software and, you know, that's not going to change.

Steve: So your question was about whether I wish I didn't have to go into Apple every day?

Jesse: No, if you envied Bill a bit, this second act that he has.

Steve: Oh, no. I think the world's…

Kara: You want to do anything else.

Steve: I think the world's a better place because Bill realized that his goal isn't to be the richest guy in the cemetery, right? That's a good thing and so he's doing a lot of good with the money that he made.
You know, I'm sure Bill was like me in this way. I mean, I grew up fairly middle-class, lower middle-class, and I never really cared much about money. And Apple was so successful early on in life that I was very lucky that I didn't have to care about money then. And so I've been able to focus on work and then later on, my family.

And I sort of look at us as two of the luckiest guys on the planet because we found what we loved to do and we were at the right place at the right time and we've gotten to go to work every day with super bright people for 30 years and do what we love doing.

And so it's hard to be happier than that. You know, your family and that. What more can you ask for? And so I don't think about legacy much. I just think about being able to get up every day and go in and hang around these great people and hopefully create something that other people will love as much as we do. And if we can do that, that's great.

More coverage at The Wall Street Journal

Text and video coverage of the complete Steve Jobs and Bill Gates interview:


--
未来新技术和新趋势的种种可能:奇想录 http://www.qixianglu.cn
订阅 http://feed.feedsky.com/woodphone 作者QQ群:50108840
给奇想录投稿:http://www.qixianglu.cn/tougao
讨论区-奇想家园:http://www.douban.com/group/forcode
读者QQ群1号:11564958 QQ群2号:61921847 QQ群3号:61921931

forcode点评:网络操作系统的四种可能

forcode:虽然很早就听说过firefox将成为网络操作系统入口这样的说法,但是第一次看到有人直接将firefox比作虚拟机,感觉还是很新鲜。陆陆续续也读了不少IT新闻,也有不少想法,稍作一下总结吧。

forcode奇想:手机版的DOS网络操作系统
http://www.qixianglu.cn/374455.html

网络操作系统概念诞生十周年
http://www.qixianglu.cn/380540.html

网络操作系统有四条可能的道路:

1、firefox模式。正如下面的转帖所说,firefox作为虚拟机,所有程序以firefox插件形式运行在firefox之上,无论是什么本地操作系统,只要安装了firefox,你就可以运行相同的程序。

优点:可以实现web程序与本地程序的无缝对接,比如google reader,在google gear的支持下,既可以在线阅读,也可以离线使用;由于软件功能所需要的大部分计算已经由服务器端处理,所以本地客户端可以做的非常小;而且,由于用户操作数据联网,所以可以实现用户操作数据的社会化分享和挖掘。

缺点:网络化程度还不够,所有插件程序依然需要安装在本地,随着安装的插件数量的增加,对firefox虚拟机的要求也越来越高,firefox崩溃的风险比windows崩溃的风险更大,firefox要成一个稳定可靠的虚拟机,还需要加入更多的安全机制,比如类似windows休眠功能这样的系统状态和操作数据备份工具。

2、facebook模式。facebook模式更加彻底,完全摆脱了本地限制,根本不需要本地有一个虚拟机,不管是firefox还是IE或者opera,只需要有一个标准的浏览器就可以,所有的计算和功能增减完全在服务器端完成。在这种模式下,本地的计算能力完全不是问题,甚至本地也不需要有一个复杂的操作系统,如果BIOS成功支持大容量记忆体,我们只需要在BIOS硬件记忆体中预安装全功能浏览器,就可以像开电视机一样,按一下按钮,不需要漫长的设备自检和操作系统加载,1秒钟内立刻打开浏览器,马上可以登录到facebook使用各种功能。

优点:本地客户端可以做到最瘦,这非常适合手机这样的便携式平台,可以随时在线,瘦客户端可以加速网络覆盖人数,减少第三世界的数字鸿沟。用户数据和操作可以实现最大程度的社会化,这些数据的SNS交互,可以创造出全新的商业模式,广告的效率可以成倍提高。

缺点:对网络速度和稳定性要求很高,尤其是稳定性,一旦网络出现故障或不稳定,操作无法获得即时反馈,用户体验骤降,所有本地设备都成为废品,不能作其他用途。从目前的技术来看,网络稳定性(尤其是无线网络的稳定性)还有待改进,本地缓存机制依然是必要的。

3、远程协助模式。这种想法是从QQ远程协助功能受到启发产生的,在这种模式下,不需要创造一个全新的生态系统,只需要一款足够强大的远程控制程序和足够快的带宽,只要在你的手机中安装了这款强大的远程控制程序,使用3G网络,你可以观看到在服务器端运行的任何操作系统和程序的桌面,实际上,计算能力依然是在服务器端,但是,你的手机屏幕成为了这个服务器的显示器,你的手机键盘成了这个服务器的输入设备,你的所有操作和反馈全部以图像的方式在手机终端与服务器之间传送,这对客户端而言,下行带宽要求很高。但是3G时代,这可能不是问题了。

优点:在3G普及的前提下,只需要一个程序即可解决网络操作系统的所有问题,依然使用的是传统的硬件、操作系统和程序,所需要的只是一个程序,对于整个社会而言,这是代价最小的网络操作系统方案。你可以使用手机来操作你家里那台服务器上的photoshop来处理你手机刚拍摄的照片,你完全可以使用photoshop的所有功能,处理完的照片,你可以重新传送回手机,然后立刻分享给好友。

缺点:由于必须有一个真实的服务器在同步运行你手机正在操作的程序,所以,在一定程度上造成了硬件的浪费。但是,由于VMWARE这样的操作系统虚拟软件的发展,在一台硬件上虚拟数十台电脑将不是问题。另外,这种网络操作系统的模式依然是非社会化的,用户数据依然是分散存储在各个独立的服务器内,无法实现分享。

4、IM机器人操作系统。我们知道,在windows之前,DOS曾经是非常流行的操作系统,拥有很多优点,不需要在复杂的菜单中来回倒腾,输入一行简单的命令,立刻可以得到需要的结果,现在UNIX等系统,SAS和stata等统计软件依然使用类似DOS的命令行操作方式,对于高手而言,命令行比菜单操作效率更高。IM机器人作为网络版DOS的命令行输入工具,这种想法是来自gtalk机器人,我们只需要给IM的机器人发一个HELP,就可以返回一大堆的命令选项,然后输入选项序号,可以进入相应的子选项,也可以用来实现不少功能。如果我们的IM内加入数百个机器人呢?每一个机器人可以实现一定的功能,也相当于一个程序,使用率越高的机器人越靠前,也可以使用机器人搜索功能来添加新的"插件"(或程序),这可能在某些领域非常实用,比如金山词霸可以弄一个IM机器人版的程序,天气预报查询,google reader也可以弄一个gtalk机器人。

优点:操作效率很高,可以迅速得到需要的结果。在某些领域可能非常有用处,比如可以用来做统计,所有统计数据和统计软件全部存放在服务器端,你可以在手机内使用IM(比如gtalk)的SAS机器人,可以与它交互来获得需要的统计分析结果。也可以用来输入搜索关键词、获取SNS的好友消息等,将来3G网络肯定是随时在线,这种SNS好友动态也是很多人关心的,移动版的IM机器人应该大有用武之地。非常不消耗系统资源,而且可以保存所有操作过程的记录,可以作为一种补充模式存在下去。

缺点:缺乏用户数据的交互,缺乏图形界面(但是未来IM支持图形反馈界面应该也是必然的了),非图形化界面,输入可能比较繁琐,而且需要记忆大量的操作命令,学习成本较高。

做好准备迎接新的平台大战。Google Gears 直指微软领地
from 译言-电脑/网络/数码科技 by 净空无道

原文作者:Nik Cubrilovic
原文链接:Get Ready For A New Platform War. Google Gears Drives Straight A
译者:净空无道

lame_logo

Google 在去年五月发布了 Gears, 之后的一年里 Gears 被认为是一个小众产品,只会有很少开发者和用户用它来开发能够离线访问的 web 程序。兴许你还能回想起当年的争论:在到处都有网络连接的情况下,究竟谁需要离线访问功能,而且还没有足够的程序支持,等等。不到一年的时间,就在几周 前,Google 亮出了他的王牌:Gears 助力 MySpace 加速邮件系统。其实 Google 早就加入了这场提供新 web API 的比赛,但是居然一年了都没有人注意到。

将 来的浏览器很可能会变成运行所有程序的虚拟机。在这种情况下,操作系统会变的透明,就像 Adobe 所作的,它的 Flash 技术是现在使用的最普遍、最统一的 web 虚拟机,而微软则要自保(它的利润的来源)了。Google 不隐瞒他们想瞄准并且攻击微软的野心,他们知道,要做到这点的最好方法就是上移一层把操作系统架空,让浏览器成为标准且强劲的应用程序虚拟机。

很难在一片评论里表达清楚 Gears 如何改变并且增加 web 程序的功能。以前使用基于浏览器的 Javascript 脚本,MySpace 中的一些类似邮件列表和排序、根据好友列表过滤这样的功能会让人感觉很慢,而当浏览器向服务器发送多个请求时,进度条还可能会定住,沙漏图标在不停的旋 转。而现在,安装 Gears 只要在确认框点击一下并且等待几秒钟,安装之后,以前让用户抓狂的那些功能现在感觉起来就好象是浏览器自带功能一样。Google 给我们秀了一把 Gears 与 MySpace 集成后的能力,这唤醒了大部分人关注他真正的意图:不再仅是离线浏览,而是直接针对 Adobe 和微软所采取的行动。

截至目前为止,Google 拥有一系列共计 28 个基于 web 的程序, 这些程序在全世界有数百万的用户。Google 开发 web 程序的技术都是基于标准的 HTML、CSS 和 Javascript。选择 Ajax 仅仅是因为这是最好的解决方案,但是 Google 还要做更多以面对现实,那就是每个类似的 web 开发技术体系都是被一个直接竞争者所开发、控制。Google 对开源浏览器 Firefox 的开发给予了强大的支持,并且支持开放 web 标准作为他们的技术体系之选。Google 这么做是因为他们的 web 程序都依赖于开放标准,Firefox 的失败会导致 Internet Explorer 复生并且把 web 的控制权拱手让给微软。

以前,只用基于浏览器的 Javascript 来支持 web 程序对 Google 来说不是个问题。直到竞争者领先一步发布了他们自己的第二代 web 平台,分别是 Flex/AIRSilverlight, 情况才发生了变化。基于 web 的程序在有了类桌面的界面和功能后能够做什么,从这一方面开说,微软和 Adobe 已经超前了一大步。用不了多久,大大小小的竞争者就会使用竞争性技术平台创建竞争性程序,那会使 Google 的产品看起来像是还停留在上个世纪九十年代的样子。

留给 Google 的选择现在很明了了:要么放弃使用基于浏览器的 Javascript 和开放标准进行开发,转而接受新技术中的一种,要么继续坚持使用核心 web 技术并且发展这些技术直到成为可行的替代技术。Google 的问题是,新标准和预期的浏览器功能很快就会带来富 web 技术,但是开发那些标准的进度却如此缓慢,以至于很可能需要几年时间才能看到那些标准被广泛的应用。新的 HTML 标准,HTML5,特别关注扩展本地浏览器对 web 程序的支持能力,在不用附加私有运行时的情况下。Google web API 的基础就是这些同样的功能以及其他的附加功能。

由于标准开发的极其缓慢,导致通向更快更好,而且仍旧免费开放的 web 程序之路被堵死了,所以 Google 决定通过 Gears 自己进入这个市场。想法其实很简单:把明天的 web 技术带到今天的浏览器里。这些特定的功能大部分都来自新的 HTML5 规范,但是标准制定小组已经在上面花费了好几年。不想再等这个小组完成规范,Google 自己通过件对浏览器进行扩展,实现了这些功能并且达到了那个小组能达到的最高水平。他们宁愿在短期内抛弃标准(原话是"以后再考虑实现")也要把他们的 web 程序带到能够对抗 Flash 和 Silverlight 的下一代标准。

Gears 有一个 30 人左右的小组开发,这个小组是 Google 内部开源小组的一部分。这个小组由 Vic Gundotra 带领,再一次讽刺的转变过程中,他由微软的传教士成为 Google 的高级开发者。这个一小组开发者着手进行开发,并且保持 Google 对 Javascript 和开放浏览器虚拟机的兴趣。理论上,他们看起来很可能被大组织或者微软和 Adobe 正在投入各自平台的预算所超过。为了改变这个状况,他们把 Gears 从 Google 中分离出来(字面上也是——现在这个项目名称就只是"Gears")并且在开源协议下发布源代码。

第一个发行版将只关注于 HTML5 里面提议的新功能中他们认为最重要的功能:基于客户端的结构化数据和对象存储。 由于选择了首先实现客户端存储,所以下一年里 Gears 会被构架成一个离线应用程序解决方案,由于其他的竞争者好像都没有注意到这个这么巨大目标,所以如果他们不是有意而为之,那么肯定会发展的很好。 Google 本来有可能开发他们自己的浏览器,某些博客里的推测和谣言也都指出了这一点,但是浏览器市场竞争激烈,却平淡乏味,而且通常会失败。另外,即使他们开发了 自己的新浏览器,他们还要驱使用户接受这个新浏览器,在决定性的市场聚集起来之前只能等待,就是这样,市场上还会有 70% 或者 80% 甚至 90% 的人不使用 Google 的浏览器,却想使用 Google 的程序。

这种情况下,可选的捷径就是跳过浏览器直接在上面增加一层——Google 自己的 web 层。所有常用浏览器都提供了让开发者扩展功能的机制,这样一来,Google 要做的就是对每个浏览器开发对应的插件。这能让新的 web API 能够适应所有的桌面而不需要用户去适应,最重要的,这比起进入浏览器市场来说见效快而且痛苦少。现在可以让浏览器来做所有无聊的事情:渲染 HTML、显示界面、用户选项等等,与此同时 Google 却在改变现状,埋头向前冲。

现在 Gears 支持大量完整的新功能,有一些新功能是和微软、Adobe 他们的下一代 web API 相同的,而其他的则是 Google 自己创造出来的。现在函数调用已经对开发者开放了,包括后台处理(不会再有沙漏出现)、客户端图像处理、位置感知、更好的文件上传功能,还有浏览器内本地数据库。

要让新 API 和开发平台的应用被采用需要两方面的支持,一方面是用户的支持,因为这需要用户安装新的插件;另一方面是开发者的支持,使用 Gears 不会让开发变得更容易,这是因为这和开发其他的使用基于浏览器的 Javascript 的程序没有区别,Gears 只是给开发者提供了一系列更多的可以在浏览器内实现的功能而已。Javascript 和 web 开发者不需要学习任何新知识,用户也要做的也只是安装一个插件(与浏览器绑定的交易肯定会发生,所以这一步都可以忽略了)。Flash 花了 5 到 6 年才足够普及,能够让开发者有信心专注于使用 Flash 开发,不过有了 Google 的支持,Gears 可能只需要用一半甚至更小的时间就能做到。

在这场竞赛中,Google 没有任何损失反而赢得盆满钵丰,Google 一下子就启动了这个新 web API 的基于标准且开源的替代方案。与其他的竞争对手不一样,Google 没有兴趣控制这个平台或者直接用来盈利。相反他们却在试图维持现状:大部分程序使用浏览器里的 Javascript 开发,如果有更多需求那就使用 Flash 或者类似的技术。

上一次平台大战结束了很久了,但是每次你都能看到类似的技术经验:大公司失败,小公司成功。给这个平衡增加点开源的砝码,结果还是没有一个单独的公 司能够占优势。有这么多大公司的加入,而且如此的利益攸关,我们肯定要亲眼见证一场漫长的持久战。只有时间能够告诉我们 Google 的做法能不能带领 web 向前发展。

本文是 Nik Cubrilovic 写的下一代 web 系列中的一篇,在这阅读其他同系列文章


--
未来新技术和新趋势的种种可能:奇想录 http://www.qixianglu.cn
订阅 http://feed.feedsky.com/woodphone 奇想录作者QQ群:50108840
欢迎读者们给奇想录投稿赚取稿费:http://www.qixianglu.cn/tougao
奇想录读者讨论区-奇想家园:http://www.douban.com/group/forcode
读者QQ群1号:11564958 读者QQ群2号:61921847 读者QQ群3号:61921931