ON BILL GATES, GORDON MOORE, AND REAL VISION

It's a bit of a shame that Context portrays Bill Gates as someone with vision-being able to make lots of money by exploiting people doesn't strike me as vision. J.C.R. Licklider, John McCarthy, Ivan Sutherland, David Evans, Larry Roberts, Doug Engelbart, Nicholas Negroponte, etc. had vision, and what little seems like vision in Mr. Gates' statements was said much earlier and better by these smarter people.

Gordon Moore also had vision, and Context's portrayal of him is all too typical of the way the general public thinks about science-i.e., as strokes of luck. Mr. Moore was a solid-state physicist who gathered data, used deep knowledge, and made up a model for what could happen with a certain kind of transistor-making process. It's not true that "he had no idea how accurate it would be," as Context stated in its premiere issue-on the contrary, science is all about having an idea about how accurate your model is. His first model in 1965 said the increase in the number of transistors on a chip "could be as good as a factor of two every year"-in part, because his graph plotted since 1959 showed just such a progression. A few years later he took a more careful look and argued that "it wouldn't be worse than a factor of two improvement every two years over the next 30 years." This argument was in part based on an analysis of the technology. Mr. Moore was saying that with reasonable effort the silicon materials would cooperate. The actual results from history are a factor of two increase every 18 months. In other words, Mr. Moore had accurately bracketed a 30-year prediction.

It was the people who thought to wait several decades to see if Moore's Law proved itself that missed the silicon and personal computer revolutions and wound up thinking they had to buy Bill Gates' shoddy wares. The people who understood Moore's Law from the start were the ones who invented the best of the technology that we have today. (It wasn't a question of believing in Moore's Law, but understanding it.)

It would be great if part of Context's mission could be to help people learn how to deal with highly probable future conditions when first recognized, without having to wait for them to transpire. This is how you get the time to be ahead of the learning curves for the new. Waiting until things are obvious sounds like a good strategy-but it is disastrous because it takes years to gain sophistication and fluency with new, powerful ideas. The waiters are always behind, and often are not aware just how far behind they are. The history of the human race (especially the last several hundred years) can be fruitfully construed as one failure of imagination after another with just a few bright exceptions.

We have to help people learn how to imagine better, earlier, and more accurately-and science is by far the best way to boost our abilities to imagine that has ever been devised.

—Alan Kay
Disney Fellow

GATES' LAW REVISITED

I cannot see Gates' Law coming true, because future and current employees for most companies are not technical enough to handle the information overload that would occur. If people cannot deal with the information they receive on a day-to-day basis now, how can they focus when the information is coming at them at the speed of a T1 line?

Higher education is also not ready for this change to occur. In the last five years, business schools have increased the amount of time students spend on computers, but not in the data mining or research methods that would be required under Gates' Law. Business schools are happy if students can use a word processor when they get out. Also, most schools cannot afford the expense of keeping up with the technology changes, just like many companies. Without that technically literate employee emerging from higher education, companies will not be able to employ Gates' Law.

—Thomas Lucy-Bouler
Associate Professor
Auburn University Montgomery

We already have lots of data available. Note here that I said data-not information. I do believe that in 10 years we will have far more "data" available. But without some sort of radical initiative and a revamping of 90% of the "data/information" sources, we won't have information. We will have the newest industrial disease, Data or Information Overload.

—Mary E. S. Morris
Author of Cybercareers

If Bill Gates had said "data," I might have agreed with him. But, right now, I agree with those who differentiate data from information. The other articles in the premiere issue point to the possibilities of information. But if one extrapolates from the last 10, 20, 30, or 40 years, there is nothing out there that suggests that 10 years from now software will have sufficient capability to turn data into information on its own. Many businesses will have the computing power. Few will know how to deploy it usefully.

—William Armbruster

Bill Gates isn't worthy of having anything named after him. Here's my version of Gates' Law: "Hmm, laws. . . . What are those?"

—Chris Gelowitz

As an attorney, I have witnessed the growth of technology's influence in the legal field. I welcome its impact. The sudden growth of the Internet has only just begun to open new vistas for improving the practice of law. We can now get, at no cost, breaking news on decisions that can help us argue a case immediately.

As with any technological leap, there are negatives. First and foremost is time compression. When I started practicing 21 years ago, you could expect to have several weeks to respond to any settlement proposal. Now, with faxes, e-mail, and the Internet, the other side calls you 20 minutes after they send you something to ask what you think of it. Quicker decisions are not usually better ones, just quicker ones. The stress created by this time compression is the No. 1 factor behind the large-scale dissatisfaction among attorneys.

—Larry J. Baisden
Senior Vice President
SeminarsPlus

Hmmm...interesting article. I'm not sure that I agree with Mr. Gates on the next four years' being barren in terms of profitability for businesses on the Internet.

Smart companies will use the three C's to ensure that their sites stay in the black: Commerce, Content, and Customer Service.

Commerce (along with advertising) will be the bread and butter of the on-line side of the business. It's still in its early growth stage, but, make no mistake about it, it's going to be essential to Net-based profits.

Content (meaning information and how it is displayed) will be the draw for consumers. Advertising is the obvious revenue piece here.

Customer Service, including supportive interaction, has been underestimated as a core piece of the on-line business model. Those who use it wisely by ensuring feedback and support mechanisms for their customers will guarantee themselves repeat visits and repeat sales.

Using the three C's will ensure profitability for smart businesses long before Bill G.'s prediction of four years.

—Jim Lynch

THE NEW FORCES

Digitization, globalization, and deregulation are closely linked in our industry: the new private pensions funds emerging in Latin America. Without those forces, it would not be possible for new organizations to take over the government's role and permit millions of people to be freer and have a better life during their last years.

Digitization will be widely applied in the next five years. The private pension funds must increase the number of clients by using the Internet to provide information to them. Also, technology will permit us to increase dramatically the level of service to our clients in a customized manner and at lower cost. The Digital World is real now and is waiting for people to take advantage of it.

Globalization is a very important factor, too, because workers have to be able to accumulate funds for retirement in different companies or even different nations.

Deregulation will allow for the deployment of creativity as we all try to create a better world.

These new factors must be considered in any strategic planning exercise. Not to do so means that you'll be out of the game.

—Gabriel Herrera Suazo
Operational and Technology Director
AFJP Previnter

THE CONTEXT OF CONTEXT

The magazine looks very good, and your column on the hype vs. reality of Network Computers was excellent.

I have to confess I am not sure that another magazine on this general field is needed. From this reader's perspective, high technology/information technology is way overanalyzed. But other readers' views are more pertinent than mine on this subject.

—Andy Grove
Chief Executive
Intel

The premier issue of Context arrived on my desk at just the right time. I was finding myself in need of some context on the issue of technology literacy, especially for chief executives. Technology is no longer just about automation and cost reduction. It's about information on customers, competitors, suppliers, and partners, and how that information provides competitive advantage.

Context provided me with some valuable insight, particularly Larry Downes' statement that "technology isn't the solution; it's the problem." To me, this meant that if my competitor's technology literacy is better than mine, then that's my problem. All commerce is ultimately about information, and I believe chief executives need to get serious about understanding how technology can give them the right information to attract, expand, and retain customers.

—Michael R. Brenan
Chief Executive Officer
MainStreet BankGroup

WAR STORIES

Although not usually interested in war stuff, I enjoyed the review of "In the Trenches," on World War I. I had two great-uncles killed in World War I, and their stories are quite interesting. Their letters and diaries show it really was played out as an old-fashioned war and yet, using a lot of new technology, it really had a foot in both the 19th and the 20th centuries. They talk about the use of gas, trucks, planes, etc. Yet there is also one poignant story in one of the diaries about how the two sides who were shooting at each other across a river called a truce via the old white flag on a pole. The truce was called so that all the soldiers from both sides could go down to the river and swim and bathe before dinner! They did, then proceeded to continue shooting at each other!

—Mary Ellen Clark