honestly microsoft as a company is much more open to apple and vice versa than apple is to say android. Bill gates used to own a huge portion of apple at one point. They even have a deal where microsoft exclusively produces office for them. If microsoft got into the phone game then yeah I think the rivalry would be heated but after the vista beef its cooled down.
@@has3219 That's true, call it a rivaley if you want but the truth is that Bill Gates and Apple come a long way. Despite popular believe Gates and Jobs were pretty good friends
If you're the richest person in the world, you wouldn't probably say a damn thing. Would you? Fuck no, you wouldn't. Who would. I'm surprised he gave Rose the time of day, even though Charlie Rose interrupted him every 10 seconds
+Beyond World One straight answer in this case for dumb fucks like you who can easily trap into the whole media gossip perpetuation that Charlie Rose here is trying to instigate. Issues like this are extremely complicated esp with addition of greater technology and to say yes or no is so irrelevant and digging ur own grave
He dodges the question. With out a doubt. What he is trying to get across is that Apple is setting the tone for whether companies are going to hand over private info with a fight or without.
+TheSacko He outright lies. Gates said Apple admitted it can find a way to devise a tool that only breaks into this encrypted iPhone only once. Apple never said they could do that, in fact, they've been very rightly and very passionately saying the opposite, and Gates knows this. He's just doing PR rounds for this little elite club of power-hungry sociopaths who are leaning on him. "We need to give up our privacy and encryption and trust our government without question otherwise there will be biological terrorism." Seriously? Talk about going overboard on the fear tactics. It would look like an SNL spoof if the subject wasn't so serious and so misunderstood by the masses. To be clear, Apple said it would be possible to create an OS that would create a backdoor into encrypted iPhones. This is destroying encryption by definition. And once you create a software that does that, it's like creating a master universal lock pick. Apple knows this. Google and about 30 other of the biggest tech companies know this. Family members of VICTIMS in the San Bernardino case who side with Apple obviously understand the bigger picture, if they can put all of their personal anger at the murders aside. Sure, that pick will adapt itself to this one handle, but by its very nature, a universal lock pick will easily adapt itself to all other locks too, because it is a universal lock pick. That's what creating what Tim Cook called a "cancer" of an OS that destroys encryption for the FBI would do. Gates isn't a moron, he knows all this. So does every tech savvy mind who knows anything about encryption, which is why all of them who aren't puppets are backing Apple right now. Do not listen to Bill Gates' overblown fear tactics, he's wrong, he knows it, and so does the FBI, he's just doing the rounds in the media for his sociopathic overlords. What this little group of elite thugs is trying to steal from everyone is sick, just sick.
+TheSacko « Maybe they could propose an overall plan for striking the balance between government being able to know things in some cases and having safeguards to make sure those powers are confined to appropriate cases. There is no avoiding this debate and they could contribute to how the balance should be struck. » Bill Gates on Reddit 2 days ago.
+Yehtox48 Imagine criminals are after you, and always waiting, just outside your door. Apple wants to keep the door locked at all times. Striking a balance in this debate is like saying we'll only open the door part way.
Bill Gates gave a great answer. A complete one. He kept being interrupted because his answer wasn't simple enough. He agrees that the government should ultimately have the right to visibility to ultimately protect its citizens. It was a great answer. We need to stop letting people force us to give knee jerk answers because they are abrupt and keep interrupting. That is manipulation and intimidation. Don't let them do it. The press uses it almost continuously.
+marteenah sanchez he answered, just not to his liking. so he forced bill to answer to his liking, yes or no, which couldn't be done without creating a bigger problem in society
+marteenah sanchez if he answered "give it to the government", people will demand their privacy. if he said "won't give it to the government" when he knows the government is the one protecting the country, it's like saying "they do the best, I can help them, but I won't. I just won't. Even if that makes our country weaker and easier to attack."
In other words, Bill Gates is completely fine giving back doors to the US Government, and thereby compromising the security of all their customers. Microsofts past behaviour has shown this to be true.
MY FATHEY VOMITTED BLOOD, MILLIONS OF THOSE ANIMALS RAPED ME, AND THEN THEY SAW I AM GETTING STRONGER, THEY LOCKED ME IN HELL, IF I CAN MAKE THEM PAY THEIR DEBTS TO MOM DAD AND ME, I WILL BE GARTEFUL TO U
+wcm5150 Yes, but at the same time I think what he was saying that regardless of the company that manufactured the phone the outcome would be the same. Eventually the government/courts will force the unlock, whether it was Apple or Microsoft or whomever. So in the end it doesn't really matter if you just delay the inevitable.
+CormanToth Actually Bill did dodge the question. The outcome would not have to be the same. In other words, a CEO has the power to decide whether to cooperate with the government right away or wait for the higher court ruling. It is one thing OR the other. What would Bill choose to do? That was the question. He didn't answer it.
+CormanToth It does matter, because this is an issue that needs to be taken to a higher court, and brought to public debate over the real implications here. Once people understand the real issue, every sane person will make sure the outcome favors saving encryption and denying the FBI.
+Kancho Charlie isn't a good interviewer here asking for yes or no answers. What's the point in that? What Bill did here is to give a broader perspective and understanding of the issue here while all Charlie cares is to force Bill to show his position and where he stands which people like you only cares about instead of allowing Bill to actually express his views and understanding of the issues discussed.
Its scary to be a CEO or be a board of members in companies like this. Whatever you say in public is going to have an impact on the company's share/stock or you are going to be on media for all the reasons who don't want to.
Gates was not dodging the question. He was saying that he would comply with government orders, just as Apple would. And Rose just doesn't understand the issue, that is, that Apple's phone was not encrypted, and being not-encrypted Apple MUST comply. To understand this, you have to understand the meaning of the term "encryption" (which Rose does not). Encryption is black and white: If a device is encrypted it is IMPOSSIBLE to decode without a key, and there is no issue about releasing information to the government if the requested party does not have the key because one can't be required to produce information that one does not have. The fact that Apple has a way to decode the phone says that the phone was not properly encrypted to the degree that is easily feasible (ie impossible to decrypt) and so Apple HAS access to the information and must comply with a court order.
Perhaps he's dodging the question because people will think that he's speaking for Microsoft. I don't think Microsoft gave a solid answer of support at the time the interview was given.
didn't you notice that not all smart people talk fast? I don't think that talking speed correlates with intelligence. Maybe smart guys always have 10 different thoughts on every question, so they actually THINK while talking. They always are trying to find the way to say something or explain in the simplest, human understandable terms. Albert Einstein wasn't a fast talker either. Bill Gates has an average talking speed. Elon Musk isn't super fast either. But for instance layyydies from Los Angeles tend to talk super fast with their nasal, annoying tones. Those just cannot shut up, they spray word after word after word. And in the end you don't even understand what they are trying to say, they just say meaningless stuff. All I want to do is mush their faces against the floor and yell: "shut up, just shut up for once! Go blow a slow talking guy, because these are rich"
The answer sounds more like I support the government in getting full access to everything. Even though not long ago Jews were imprisoned in Germany, being Gay was illegal (and still is in some countries). Criticizing governments can get you jailed (like many protester and investigative journalists, especially abroad). And yet we need to trust our Governments that they will never do such thing if we give them full control. Bill Gates to me can not be trusted and I will never use a Windows device again.
When someone like him speaks you should ATLEAST let him say what he wants to say you can disagree and put forth your point BUT friggin' listen to someone like him. This is like the most basic thing.
If we are not allowed to have all information about what the governments are doing, why should the government be allowed have information about what we are doing?
He avoided the question because he was presented with a false dichotomy. If he was allowed to speak in more detail, perhaps we could have learned something.
There seems to be this notion that if someone asks you a direct question, you must give a direct answer. This is wrong. You can ask any question you want. And I can give any answer I want.
the fbi may not be able too. but does anyone think the cia or us military can not decode it. president can order cia or us military. but you will not get the show.
Did you noticed that Steve danced around the question with another question! It's funny to know now the government went to a third party to get it and it showed the perpetrators erased the iPhones so it was all for nothing!
Bill's still gettting that 5 dollar haircut in Chinatown. For a guy with a full head of hair...fresh off the skateboard seems like just one of many options.
I feel as if he said a lot about nothing... Does he solely agree or disagree? I'm not too sure he made that clear. More importantly he muffled and messed up whatever he was trying to say in the end. That's really quite disappointing. Bill you should let others process and think. I still respect the man but as I said I'm disappointed.
+DotShaddy Well he is a powerful person in the world and he needs to protect what he says. I know it's hard to see or you may not like what he said but that's the reality. He answered a question on the situation and avoided a conflict by disagreeing with Tim Cook. It's respect in my eyes.
Love how Charlie had the balls to wear an Apple Watch while interviewing Gates, basically, I dont give a fuck if he gets offended, this is what I wear :)
he is smart.. :-) I believe Apple is going to courts, as it does not want to set a bad practice..Today one..Tomorrow government will ask for 1000 per day.. or may be simply for publicity ..!!
Talk about avoiding the question... Apple provided encryption and other security features to prevent ANYONE from easily accessing that data. If they did the job correctly Apple would need to break that encryption through brute force or other methods just like the rest of us.
Founder Microsoft Bill Gates and Scientist facing few years Pandamic Dear Sir Any girls and men or child trapt time her first security cell phone 16 years many time disconnected Maffia agency bangladesh I hope today exit bangladesh my life partner and me bangladesh army top general not sense Geneva war criminal court open panist must God Bless Well Being America!
It's an elected democratic Government we're talking about here, while Apple is a privately owned company, which is run like a dictatorship. It's for the court to decide what to do about this case. The Government, which was elected by the people of the United States should in my opinion have access to any information held by a private company registered in the United States, if it pertains to national security.
+Ketan Singh You have no idea how many bullshit reasons they have come up with to do shitty things in the name of "National Security". They could make it shit up and you want to give them access to everything? lol And thats why nobody values your opinion.
The Captain 4 Then democratically protest to have the system fixed. The FBI and NSA have not done their jobs properly in the past and have lost the trust of the people, that is a specific problem to be solved. It's not that just because they have been unreliable in the past will they continue to be the same forever.
Or we could stop trying to give up privacy for the sake of safety. As a society we have immaturely convinced ourselves that we can prevent all the bad things from happening. THAT mentality is what needs to change.
Yeah it surely needs to change. It will be surely change once terrorism is wiped off the face of the earth. Until then, I'd wager that the democratically elected Govt. in exceptional cases such as this, should have access to the data of a terrorist. This is a very exceptional case. The FBI has not requested for a website to look at people's data like Facebook newsfeed. They just need access to data contained in a proven terrorist's phone.
I really appreciate how bill gates can sail through such point blank questions. He doesn't get swayed away by such forceful and annoying questions. The very nature of the question doesn't deserve to be answered. "If you were so and so ......what would you do ". He is not some other person, he is bill gates he doesn't care what would Tim Cook do. I think the question doesn't deserve to be answered here
