メジャーリガー野茂英雄が2008年7月17日に引退を表明した。日本人2人目のメジャーリーガとして活躍し、日米両国で新人王を獲得している唯一のプレイヤーでしす。その後は、皆さんもご存じの通り、両リーグでノーヒットノーランの達成など輝かしい功績を残し、２００５年に日米通算２００勝を達成。
野茂選手は、日本人メジャーリーガーに先鞭をつけた功労者として称えられている証拠に、メジャーリーガー野茂選手以来沢山の日本人メジャーリーガーが誕生しています。
有能な選手がこのようにグラウンドから去られるのは寂しいですが、第二の野茂英雄を育成するような素晴らしいコーチまたは監督としてユニフォームを着た姿を心より楽しみにしています。
下記記事は7月19日に発売したTHE DAILY YOMIURIの記事です。リーディングに役立ててください。
野茂選手引退表明後、ドジャーズに監督を務めていたLasorda元監督のコメントです。私には、聞きづらかったですが、皆さんはいかがでしょうか。
0
0先月この記事を掲載する予定だったのですが、時期を逃してしまったので、今回アップします。
Randy Pauschは、カーネギーメロン大学コンピューターサイエンス学部の教授で、バーチャルリアリティー分野で権威ある人でした。
２００７年にLast Lecture（タイトル:Really Achieving Your Childhood Dreams）として最後の講義が開かれる前、彼の肝臓に１０個の腫瘍を抱えて、良い健康状態としても３〜６ヶ月の余命と診断を受けている。講義の際の映像を見てもらうと分かりますが、エネルギッシュでとても末期癌を患っているようには見受けられない。また、彼の最後の講義は、世界中から大きな反響を呼び、オンライン上で６００万人の人が彼の講義を見ている。彼の話は、早口ですが、とてもためとなる講義です。ぜひ一度ご覧下さい。
Randy Pausch’s Last Lecture was held at Carnegie Mellon University on September 18th, 2007
上の映像で話されているスクリプトとプレゼンで使用しているパワーポイントの資料[13Mbyte]をダウンロードできます。
以下のリンクは、日本語字幕入りの映像ですが、9分割されています。
Randy Pausch 「Last Lecture」1
Randy Pausch 「Last Lecture」2
Randy Pausch 「Last Lecture」3
Randy Pausch 「Last Lecture」4
Randy Pausch 「Last Lecture」5
Randy Pausch 「Last Lecture」6
Randy Pausch 「Last Lecture」7
Randy Pausch 「Last Lecture」8
Randy Pausch 「Last Lecture」9
また、Last Lectureに関する書籍も発売されているようです。
興味のある方は、どうぞ参照してください。
Randy Pausch made a speech for graduates on May 18th, 2008
The news was carried by CBS after Randy Pausch has died of complications from pancreatic cancerhe on July 25th, 2008 at the age of 47.
いや〜昨日、福田首相が辞意を表明いたしました。
安倍前首相もそうでしたが、突然かつ何故このタイミングでと言う時に辞意を表明するのか、私には、理解できません。
まあ、参議院選挙で惨敗もしくは過半数割れの結果を受けての辞意表明であれば、理解はできますが・・・・。おそらく、福田首相では選挙は戦えないという理由なのでしょうかね。いずれにせよ、次総理には、リーダーシップがあり強固な姿勢がとれる方になってほしいものです。でも、今まで通りの、後追い内閣ではどうにもなりませんけどね。
Yutubeで福田総理の辞任のNews（CNN）を見つけましたので、聞いてみてください。
Liberal Democratic Party, Taro Aso was elected the Japan's 59th Prime Minister on 24th of Sep, 2008 and The attestation ceremony was held at the Imperial Palace at the same afternoon. and then He became Jpan's new prime Minister.
He announced his new cabinet lineup himself on that evening. I think new cabinet was always announcing by the Chief Cabinet Secretary.
I could not understand why he announced new cabinet by himself in only this time.
What do you think about it?
24日の事を英文で書いてみました。必要以上に時間がかかりました。ﾗｲﾃｨﾝｸﾞの勉強もしなければいけないのは分かっているのですが、まずは、英語ピラミッドの底辺部のﾘｰﾃﾞｨﾝｸﾞと中間部の下にあたるﾘｽﾆﾝｸﾞと中間部の上にあたるｽﾋﾟｰｷﾝｸﾞを鍛え上げるのが第一優先だから。
政治に関連する語彙を調べてみました。と言ってもほとんどが固有名詞に使われるものです。
国務大臣
Prime Minister: 内閣総理大臣
Internal Affairs and Communications Minister: 総務大臣
Justice Minister: 法務大臣
Foreign Minister: 外務大臣
Finance Minister: 財務大臣
Education, Science and Technology Minister: 文部科学大臣
Health, Labor and Welfare Minister: 厚生労働大臣
Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Minister: 農林水産大臣
Economy, Trade and Industry Minister: 経済産業大臣
Construction and Transport Minister: 国土交通大臣
Enviroment Minister: 環境大臣
Defense Minister: 防衛大臣
State Minister in Charge of Financial Services: 金融担当相
State Minister in Charge of Diaster Management: 防災担当相
Chief Cabinet Secretary: 内閣官房長官
State Minister in Charge of Economic and Fiscal Policy: 経済財政担当相
State Minister in Charge of Administrative Reform: 行政改革担当相
State Minister in Charge of Consumer Affairs: 消費者行政推進担当大臣
State Minister in Charge of Declining Birthrate: 少子化対策担当大臣
State Minister in Charge of Gender Equality: 男女共同参画担当
National Public Safety Commission Chairman: 国家公安委員会委員長
日本の政党
Liberal Democratic Party(LDP): 自由民主党
Democratic Party of Japan(DPJ): 民主党
NEW KOMEITO: 公明党
Japanese Communist Party(JCP): 日本共産党
Social Democratic Party(SDP): 社会民主党
People's New Party(PNP): 国民新党
New Party Nippon(NPN): 新党日本
党三役
Secretary-General: 幹事長
General Council Chairman of 〜: 〜総務会長
Policy Research Council chairman of 〜: 〜政調会長
事務方の親分
Vice Minister of 〜: 〜事務次官
PNPとかNPNってトランジスタの・・・・・。知っている人が分かればいいです。単なる冗談です。
2008-10-16-Thu
CATEGORY: 英語関連
>
Apple社の新しいLaptop PCが発売になりました。昨日、そのイベントが開かれたのですが、その模様をyoutubeで見つけたので、興味のある方は、御覧下さい。
”State of the Mac”について
"a new way to build notebooks"について（焦点は、アルミ筐体です。）
次は、New MacBook Proについてです。下記は、New MacBook Proの特徴（ｸﾞﾗﾌｨｯｸ含む）とスペックです。
New MacBook Pro（$1999 or $2499/15th of Oct）
Feature
Graphics
Specification
New MacBook Proの続きとMacBook Airについてです。下記は、MacBook Airの特徴とスペックです。
MacBook Air（$1799 or $2499/Early Nov）
Feature
Specification
次は、LED Cinema Displayと現ﾓﾃﾞﾙのMacBookとNew MacBookです。下記は、LED Cinema Displayと現MacBook及びNew MacBookの特徴とスペックです。
LED Cinema Display（$899 / this Nov）
Feature
Specification
MacBook($1099==>$999/current model)
Feature
Specification
New MacBook（$1299 or $1599/15th of Oct）
Feature
Specification
イベントの中で放映されたビデオです。
私は、MacBookユーザーではありませんが、スティーブ・ジョブズ氏のスピーチが好きなのでiPhone3Gと同様にブログにアップしました。
今日は、クリスマスですね。英語学習ネタではないですが、山下達郎さんのChristmas Eveの英語バージョンをお送りします。
会社の英会話教師が話していたのですが、欧米では、クリスマスを家族で過ごしNew Yearを友人または恋人と過ごすが、なぜ日本人は、欧米人と逆なのと不思議に思っているようです。私は、その場では良い回答が思いつかなかったので、That’s a good questionと逃げてしまいました。
何か良い回答があったら、教えて下さい。
以下は、私が何回も聞いて作成したスクリプトです。
（間違っているかもしれませんが、その際はご了承下さい。）
Happy Christmas!
会社の英会話教師が話していたのですが、欧米では、クリスマスを家族で過ごしNew Yearを友人または恋人と過ごすが、なぜ日本人は、欧米人と逆なのと不思議に思っているようです。私は、その場では良い回答が思いつかなかったので、That’s a good questionと逃げてしまいました。
何か良い回答があったら、教えて下さい。
以下は、私が何回も聞いて作成したスクリプトです。
（間違っているかもしれませんが、その際はご了承下さい。）
All alone I watch the quiet rain
Wonder if it's gonna snow again
Silent night, Holy night
I was praying
you'd be here with me
But Chrisymas Eve ain't
what it used to be
Silent night, Holy night
If you were beside me
Then I could hear angels
And I'd give you rainbows,
for Christmas
Somewhere far away
the sleighbells ring
I remember
when we used to sing
Silent night, Holy night
I keep you inside me
Oh the truth is unspoken,
So my heart won't be broken,
on Christmas
They lit the trees
along the avenue
Twinkling silver with a touch of blue
Silent night, Holy night
All alone I watch the quiet rain
Wonder if it's gonna snow again
Silent night, Holy night
I was praying
you'd be here with me
But Chrisymas Eve ain't
what it used to be
Silent night, Holy night
Wonder if it's gonna snow again
Silent night, Holy night
I was praying
you'd be here with me
But Chrisymas Eve ain't
what it used to be
Silent night, Holy night
If you were beside me
Then I could hear angels
And I'd give you rainbows,
for Christmas
Somewhere far away
the sleighbells ring
I remember
when we used to sing
Silent night, Holy night
I keep you inside me
Oh the truth is unspoken,
So my heart won't be broken,
on Christmas
They lit the trees
along the avenue
Twinkling silver with a touch of blue
Silent night, Holy night
All alone I watch the quiet rain
Wonder if it's gonna snow again
Silent night, Holy night
I was praying
you'd be here with me
But Chrisymas Eve ain't
what it used to be
Silent night, Holy night
Happy Christmas!
管理人のみ閲覧できます by-
byRyuukai
隠しコメントRさん。
返信コメント有難う御座います。
もしかしたら機会があるのかなぁっと言う淡い気持ちがったので、コメントさせて頂きました。そうですよね、忙し時期でもありますし、やらなければならない事も沢山あるんですなら、そちらを優先するのが当然だと思います。
話は変わりますが、次回のTOEICは、2009年3月の予定です。（大凡4カ月周期で受験しています。）
お互い頑張りましょうね。
返信コメント有難う御座います。
もしかしたら機会があるのかなぁっと言う淡い気持ちがったので、コメントさせて頂きました。そうですよね、忙し時期でもありますし、やらなければならない事も沢山あるんですなら、そちらを優先するのが当然だと思います。
話は変わりますが、次回のTOEICは、2009年3月の予定です。（大凡4カ月周期で受験しています。）
お互い頑張りましょうね。
クリスマスの過ごし方 byとし
クリスマスの過ごし方の違いですが、日本では年末年始休暇と言うことで、年末年始が連休となるのに対して、イギリスではクリスマス休暇としてクリスマスの前後１週間くらいが連休となるそうです。
休みの長さと誰と過ごすかが相関していると思いますがどうでしょう？
＃自ブログにコメントありがとうございました。またお会いできる日を楽しみにしています。
休みの長さと誰と過ごすかが相関していると思いますがどうでしょう？
＃自ブログにコメントありがとうございました。またお会いできる日を楽しみにしています。
こんちは bytoeicmaniac
先日は、理系テーブルで盛り上がりの欠ける会になってしまいましたが、それなりに楽しめました（苦笑）。ところで、会社の連中は、年末年始に実家に帰らない人が多いです。TOEIC英語は、速く読む、速く聞く、速く書く、速くしゃべる（これは関係ないか）、ってことを日常的にやれば易しい英語だと思います。エンジニアは、「じっくり読み込む」傾向があるので、一度読んだ論文や専門書を速読することをお勧めします。よろしくお願いします。
はじめまして byころりん
はじめまして、ryuukaiさん。<(_ _)>
なぜ日本人は欧米人と逆なのかという疑問・・・・
何ででしょうね・・・？
やっぱり宗教的なものが関わってる行事の時や、厳粛な気持ちの時に、恋人と一緒に過ごすってことは、欧米人にとっても日本人にとっても、少し後ろめたいってことなんでしょうかね？
でももしそうだとしたら、多くの人が、恋愛を単なる”色恋沙汰”ととらえてるってことでしょうか？！
夜中に弱ってるアタマで、いろいろ考えてしまいました（笑）(^_^;)
なぜ日本人は欧米人と逆なのかという疑問・・・・
何ででしょうね・・・？
やっぱり宗教的なものが関わってる行事の時や、厳粛な気持ちの時に、恋人と一緒に過ごすってことは、欧米人にとっても日本人にとっても、少し後ろめたいってことなんでしょうかね？
でももしそうだとしたら、多くの人が、恋愛を単なる”色恋沙汰”ととらえてるってことでしょうか？！
夜中に弱ってるアタマで、いろいろ考えてしまいました（笑）(^_^;)
byRyuukai
としさん、コメント有難う御座います。
コメントの返信が遅くなってすいませんでした。
異文化の貴重なコメント有難う御座います。
私も仕事のプロジェクトに関わりのある各エンジニア（北米・東南アジア地域）のクリスマス前後の動きをみると、大半が集週間単位で休暇を取得し、自国に帰国して過ごされる方が多いです。休暇をどこで誰と過ごす事も関係ありそうですね。私は、あと気になっているのは、宗教の問題です。日本の場合ほとんどが、無宗教なので・・・。
今年も僅かとなりましたが、体調を崩さす、良い年をお迎えください。
2009年もとしさんにとって、良い年でありますように。
コメントの返信が遅くなってすいませんでした。
異文化の貴重なコメント有難う御座います。
私も仕事のプロジェクトに関わりのある各エンジニア（北米・東南アジア地域）のクリスマス前後の動きをみると、大半が集週間単位で休暇を取得し、自国に帰国して過ごされる方が多いです。休暇をどこで誰と過ごす事も関係ありそうですね。私は、あと気になっているのは、宗教の問題です。日本の場合ほとんどが、無宗教なので・・・。
今年も僅かとなりましたが、体調を崩さす、良い年をお迎えください。
2009年もとしさんにとって、良い年でありますように。
byRyuukai
toeicmaniacさん、こんばんは。
コメント有難う御座います。
TOEIC英語への取組みの助言有難う御座います。でも、私はTOEICの受験は英語力を確認するだけの為の物差しでしかないので・・・。業務をスムーズに遂行するのに必要な英語技能の4技法（読む・書く・聞く・話す）を全ての能力の底上げが急務なので・・・・。
寒い日が続いていますので、風邪等を引かないよう留意してください。
来年がtoeicmaniacさんにとって良い年でありますように。
コメント有難う御座います。
TOEIC英語への取組みの助言有難う御座います。でも、私はTOEICの受験は英語力を確認するだけの為の物差しでしかないので・・・。業務をスムーズに遂行するのに必要な英語技能の4技法（読む・書く・聞く・話す）を全ての能力の底上げが急務なので・・・・。
寒い日が続いていますので、風邪等を引かないよう留意してください。
来年がtoeicmaniacさんにとって良い年でありますように。
byRyuukai
ころりんさん、はじめまして！
コメント有難う御座います。
私も色々ネットで調べてみましたが、クリスマスに両親の下に集まるのが一般的のようです。また、親しい人を招いてパーティを開いて共有な時間を楽しむ事が通例のようです。日本で言う正月の感じがします。
私の問いかけに考えて頂き有難う御座いました。
今年も僅かですが、悔いの残らない、残りの2008年を楽しんで下さい。
2009年がころりんさんにとって良き年でありますように。
コメント有難う御座います。
私も色々ネットで調べてみましたが、クリスマスに両親の下に集まるのが一般的のようです。また、親しい人を招いてパーティを開いて共有な時間を楽しむ事が通例のようです。日本で言う正月の感じがします。
私の問いかけに考えて頂き有難う御座いました。
今年も僅かですが、悔いの残らない、残りの2008年を楽しんで下さい。
2009年がころりんさんにとって良き年でありますように。
Michael Phelps's first TV interview after his cannabis smoking by pipe came to light and USA swimming has decided to suspend all competition for three month from 5th of Feb, 2009.
2009-02-08-Sun
CATEGORY: 英語関連
>
今週の月曜日、英紙ニューズ・オブ・ザ・ワールドが、水泳の北京８冠を果たしたマイケル・フェルプス選手（米国）の麻薬吸引しているような写真を掲載しました。彼は、この事実を認め謝罪をしたが、公の場には現れませんでした。しかし、謝罪の中には、実際に当人が吸引をしたのかについては触れられていなかったようです。
そんな中、現地時間の４日に騒動後、初めてTV取材に回答しています。この時は、まだ米国水泳連盟からの制裁措置は決まっていなかったようです。映像を見つけましたので、どうぞ。
以下は、米国水泳連盟が発表したマイケル・フェルプスに対する制裁措置です。
（USA Swimmingからの引用です）
USA Swimming has reprimanded Michael Phelps under its Code of Conduct by withdrawing financial support and the eligibility to compete for a period of three months effective today, Feb. 5, 2009.
This is not a situation where any anti-doping rule was violated, but we decided to send a strong message to Michael because he disappointed so many people, particularly the hundreds of thousands of USA Swimming member kids who look up to him as a role model and a hero.
Michael has voluntarily accepted this reprimand and has committed to earn back our trust.
と言う事は、５月の初めには、競技会出場及び経済援助（強化費支給）の資格も復帰する言う事でしょうか。あまりにも米国水泳連盟が下した処分が甘い気がします。今回の処分が、ドーピング（禁止薬物使用）に対する規定違反ではなく、あくまで彼を目標としている子供達を落胆させたとあるけど、麻薬に対する制裁措置は一切触れていない。日本人から視点では、・・・・・・。
まあ、復帰後に競技の中で信頼を取り戻せるよう頑張って下さい。まだ、若いのだから
bysmiley man
始めまして楽しく拝見させていただいでます。
私のブログにリンクを貼ってもよろしいでしょうか？
私のブログにリンクを貼ってもよろしいでしょうか？
smiley manさん byRyuukai
smiley manさん（元ドットさん）、はじめまして。
コメント有難う御座います。
ブログのリンクは、構いませんので、私のブログにもsmiley manさんのリンクを張らせて頂きます。
私は、英語の劣等生でしたので、そんな状態で2005年から英語学習を再度、開始しました。色々と試行錯誤して、2007年10月に英語上達完全メソッドに出会ってからは、ゆっくりですが英語力が上達している事を感じています。smiley manさんも一つの教材を使って、音読を100回以上もされいるなんてすごいですよ。
お互い英語学習、頑張りましょう。
コメント有難う御座います。
ブログのリンクは、構いませんので、私のブログにもsmiley manさんのリンクを張らせて頂きます。
私は、英語の劣等生でしたので、そんな状態で2005年から英語学習を再度、開始しました。色々と試行錯誤して、2007年10月に英語上達完全メソッドに出会ってからは、ゆっくりですが英語力が上達している事を感じています。smiley manさんも一つの教材を使って、音読を100回以上もされいるなんてすごいですよ。
お互い英語学習、頑張りましょう。
Alex Rodriguez admitted the use of the steroid between 2001 and 2003 by TV program interview of ESPN.
2009-02-11-Wed
CATEGORY: 英語関連
>
２回程、この記事を書いたのですが、完了間際にPCがハングアップしてしまい。書いた内容を全て忘れてしまったので、簡潔に書きます。
ヤンキーズのアレックス・ロドリゲス内野手は、9日（現地時間）にESPNのTV番組内のTVインタビューで、2001年から2003年の間に筋肉増強剤の禁止薬物（ステロイド）を使用した事を認めた。また、ロドリゲス選手は、使用した経緯について、レンジャーズ所属当初から、常に良い成績を残すと言う任務を果たすべく、大きなプレッシャーを感じていたためと説明。
大リーグは、1991年から筋肉増強剤の禁止をしていたが、2004年からドーピング検査で陽性反応者に対して出場停止処分などの罰則をなされていた。しかし、ロドリゲス選手は、2004年から禁止薬物を止めており、罰則などを受けないようです。
スポーツ選手たるもの、良い結果を残す為に、安易に禁止薬物を使用する行為は許されるものではありません。しかし、2004年以降、禁止薬物を止めた理由は色々あるが、彼自身、自ら禁止薬物を断ちきり、それ以降も高いレベルで好成績を残されている。これらは、彼の努力の結果であり、素晴らしい事だと私自身思います。
また、過去の悪行は、消し去ることはできないので、競技場でファンを魅了するようなプレーをし、来世の子供達の手本となる様な選手であり続けて欲しいと思います。
そのTV番組内のインタビューの映像です。
以下のTranscriptionは、ESPNからの引用です。全インタビューは35分56秒です。
PETER GAMMONS: Alex, this weekend Sports Illustrated reported that in 2003 you tested positive for testosterone, an anabolic steroid known as Primobolan. What is the truth?
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: When I arrived in Texas in 2001, I felt an enormous amount of pressure. I felt like I had all the weight of the world on top of me, and I needed to perform, and perform at a high level every day.
Back then, it was a different culture. It was very loose. I was young. I was stupid. I was naive. And I wanted to prove to everyone that, you know, I was worth being one of the greatest players of all time. And I did take a banned substance. You know, for that I'm very sorry and deeply regretful.
... The culture back then, and Major League Baseball overall, was very -- I just feel that, you know, I'm just sorry. I'm sorry for that time. I'm sorry to my fans. I'm sorry for my fans in Texas. It wasn't until then that I ever thought about a substance of any kind, and since then, I've proved to myself and to everyone that I don't need any of that.
PETER GAMMONS: You're saying that the time period was 2001, '2 and '3?
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: That's pretty accurate, yes.
PETER GAMMONS: What kind of substances were you taking?
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: Peter, that's the thing. Again, it was such a loosey-goosey era. I'm guilty for a lot of things. I'm guilty for being negligent, naive, not asking all the right questions. And to be quite honest, I don't know exactly what substance I was guilty of using.
PETER GAMMONS: Where did you originally get the substance?
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: Again, at the time, you know, you have nutritionists, you have doctors, you have trainers. That's the right question today: Where did you get it? We're in the era of BALCO ... Back then, it was just about what.
There's many things that you can take that are banned substances. I mean, there's things that have been removed from GNC today that would trigger a positive test.
I'm not sure exactly what substance I used. But whatever it is, I feel terribly about it.
PETER GAMMONS: Now, when did you get the wake-up call?
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: It wasn't until 2003. I was laying in my bed in Surprise, Arizona. We were doing a team conditioning down by the pool in Arizona. And I suffered a very serious neck injury that went all the way down to my spine. I missed about 2½ weeks of spring training, and I was scared I was going to miss time.
I also had a streak of about 400 games consecutive played, or 300, I'm not sure what the number was. But it was that point in bed that I realized, what am I doing? Not only am I going to hurt my baseball career, but I'm going to hurt my post career.
It was time to grow up, stop being selfish, stop being stupid and take control of whatever you're ingesting. And for that, I couldn't be -- I couldn't feel more regret and feel more sorry because I have so much respect for this game, and, you know, the people that follow me and respect me. And I have millions of fans out there that are, you know, will never look at me the same.
PETER GAMMONS: Let's go back. How were you introduced to these substances? Was it at the gym? Was it from other players?
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: The culture, it was pretty prevalent. There were a lot of people doing a lot of things. There was a lot of gray area, too. You know, back then you could walk in GNC and get four or five different products that today would probably trigger a positive test.
It wasn't a real dramatic day once I arrived in Texas that something monumental happened in my life. The point of the matter was that I started experimenting with things that today are not legal or today are not accepted and today you would get in a lot of trouble for.
Ever since that, that incident that happened to me in Arizona, Surprise, I realized that, you know what, I don't need any of it, and what I have is enough. I've played the best baseball of my career since. I've won two MVPs since, and I've never felt better in my career. Of that I'm very proud of.
PETER GAMMONS: So the test that was failed in 2003, that came off -- what were you using of the spring training before you got hurt?
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: I'm not sure exactly of the timing of everything, because it is a long time. It's been almost six years. But I do remember thinking in my bed in Arizona, "What am I doing? Wake up. Stop being selfish." You get to a point where you get tired of being stupid and selfish and not being honest with yourself. And that's what I realized in '03.
So I am sorry for my Texas years. I apologize to the fans of Texas. And there's absolutely no excuse, and I really feel bad about it.
PETER GAMMONS: To talk a little bit about that culture. It was an underground culture. A player said to me last summer that he really believes in that period between about '98 and 2004, that the players who didn't do one thing or another were either scared or didn't care. Do you agree with that?
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: I think you just felt a tremendous need to keep up and to play well. You know, it was hot in Texas every day. It was over a hundred degrees. You know, you felt like, without trying to overinvestigate what you're taking, can I have an edge just to get out there and play every day? And that's what it came down to. I can't speak for everybody who did. I can only speak for myself.
Regardless of what we want to [unintelligible] and say and justify, there's absolutely no excuse for what I did. I'm sorry. If I was a fan, a fan of mine, a fan of the Rangers, I would be very pissed off. And I can't take that back. But just realize that I'm sorry, and I want to do things to change.
I want to do things to influence children and realize they should learn from my mistake because, you know, it's the biggest regret I have in my life because baseball's given me everything, and I have so much respect.
There will be some people that say, you know, Alex is not a great player, going back to high school, I mean, they're just going to have this blanket cloud over my career. And for those, they may have their own point, but it feels good coming out and being completely honest and putting it out there and realizing that the more honest we can all be, the quicker we get baseball to where it needs to be.
PETER GAMMONS: To go back, you were 21 years old. You're saying at that point in your career, high school, No. 1 pick in the country, you're hitting .358 at the age of 21, you were completely clean?
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: 100 percent. 100 percent. Even before that I had never even seen or even heard of the idea of taking any substance. I've been very fortunate to come up. I was up at 18 years old. I remember meeting you when I was a few months removed away from high school. I was all of 195 pounds or 200 pounds. That was a special time.
And you put my first year and you put my very last year in New York, there haven't been many peaks and valleys. I had the greatest year of my career in 2007. It's a year that I'm very proud of. Although we didn't win a championship, it was a year that was full of -- you know, it was a very historic year. Just to have 2007, 1996, that for me says a lot.
PETER GAMMONS: How much of the culture -- how prevalent was this culture in Texas at that time?
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: You know, I've always been a guy that raced my own race. And I don't like to look left, I don't like to look right. You just feel there's an energy. To say only Texas, that wouldn't be fair. But overall, you felt that there was -- I felt a tremendous pressure to play and play really well. I felt like I was going up against the whole world. I just signed this enormous contract. I got unbelievable negative press, for lack of a better term, for [Rangers owner] Tom Hicks and I teaming up together...
So I felt that I needed something, without overinvestigating what I was taking, to get me to the next level.
PETER GAMMONS: How long was it before you found out that what you were doing was actually illegal?
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: Again, at the time of that culture, there was no illegal or legal. It was just -- you have to understand the time. To take you back there, again, people were taking a number of different things, from GNC, to whatever.
To be quite honest with you, the first time that I knew I had failed a test 100 percent was when the lady from Sports Illustrated [Selena Roberts] came into my gym just a few days ago and told me, "You have failed a test."
PETER GAMMONS: [Major League Baseball Players Association COO] Gene Orza didn't tell you that? There's a report that says that he told all the players who failed drug tests in 2003.
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: Gene was very specific in 2004. We had a meeting in September or August. Don't quote me on the date. But he said there's a government list, there's 104 players on it. You might or might not have tested positive.
At that point I said OK. That was five years ago. I never heard anything ever since. In my mind I assumed that, OK, whatever I was experiencing in Texas perhaps was OK, I'm OK. And in my mind, as I did my interview with CBS last year, I felt I haven't failed a test ... And that was my belief. Whether I wanted to convince myself of that or ... That's just where my mind was.
I felt it was important for me that all my years in New York have been clean, and I wanted just to move to the next chapter in my life.
PETER GAMMONS: ESPN surveyed a number of doctors and experts in this field, and they said the Primobolan could never be prescribed by a doctor. But it was accessible?
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: First of all, I want to see these tests because I haven't seen them ... I am saying I'm guilty of being naive and not having all the information and being negligent. But I would love to see the tests before I start answering questions that I've never even heard before, probably yesterday for the first time.
So, again, I am guilty of being very naive, and I'm deeply sorry for that.
PETER GAMMONS: Now, you mentioned the Katie Couric interview. You were asked if you ever used steroids, human growth hormones or other performance-enhancing substances. You said no, flat-out no. In your mind, that wasn't a lie?
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: At the time, Peter, I wasn't even being truthful with myself. How am I going to be truthful with Katie or CBS? Today, I'm here to tell the truth, and I feel good about that. I think my fans deserve that. I'm ready to put everything behind me and go play baseball. You know, we have a great team this year. I couldn't be more excited about the guys that we've brought in, Mark Teixeira, A.J. Burnett ... It's an important time in my life to turn the page and focus on what's next.
PETER GAMMONS: So from 2004 on, you have been completely clean?
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: Yes.
PETER GAMMONS: Have you even been able to check and find out how many times you've been tested?
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: I don't know the real number, but I would guess at least eight to 10 times. But I would like to know that number. I know I've been tested quite a bit over the last five years.
PETER GAMMONS: You were tested during the WBC [World Baseball Classic] in 2006, is that correct?
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: Correct. I got tested in 2006. And also this year when I go down to Puerto Rico, I'm sure I'll get tested again in 2009.
Prior to Texas, I really had -- at that time in Seattle, I had never even heard of a player taking a substance, a steroid of any kind in my Seattle days. I mean, I know this lady from Sports Illustrated, Selena Roberts, is trying to throw things out there that in high school I tried steroids. I mean, that's the biggest bunch of baloney I've ever heard in my life.
I mean, what makes me upset is that Sports Illustrated pays this lady, Selena Roberts, to stalk me. This lady has been thrown out of my apartment in New York City. This lady has five days ago just been thrown out of the University of Miami police for trespassing. And four days ago she tried to break into my house where my girls are up there sleeping, and got cited by the Miami Beach police. I have the paper here. This lady is coming out with all these allegations, all these lies because she's writing an article for Sports Illustrated and she's coming out with a book in May.
Really respectable journalists are following this lady off the cliff and following her lead. And that, to me, is unfortunate.
PETER GAMMONS: How do you go about making people believe you?
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: Well, I think coming into the league at 20 years, coming second to Juan Gonzalez as MVP is one good indication. And then, 14 years later in 2007, having the greatest year of my career is another. The other thing is, I'm going to have a sample of 14 years past this Texas era where I get to show and prove to the world who I am as a player. Hopefully I'm part of a championship team or two.
And I also, more importantly, have a chance to, you know, tell the story to kids so they can learn from my mistake. Because there's a story to be said here. I'm looking forward to that challenge.
But to me, '09, now I'm getting excited going to spring training. When you take this gorilla and this monkey off your back, you realize that honesty is the only way. I'm finally beginning to grow up. I'm pretty tired of being stupid and selfish, you know, about myself. The truth needed to come out a long time ago. I'm glad it's coming out today.
PETER GAMMONS: Two years ago when Barry Bonds was passing Henry Aaron, it was written a lot of places, well, the great thing -- when you pass Bonds, the great thing will be we'll finally have a legitimate home run champion. When you read those articles, did you worry a little bit about all this coming back to haunt you?
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: You naturally have to worry. I mean, again, there's such a gray area. That era wasn't about facts. That era -- those words you just mentioned, I guarantee that half the guys that did that in any sport don't know what that is.
You basically end up trusting the wrong people. You end up, you know, not being very careful about what you're ingesting. And, yeah, it worried me completely, absolutely. And today, although I know that people are going to be very disappointed, just like I am, I feel good about moving forward and doing things the way I've been doing it the last five years and the way I did it prior to being in Texas. And that's a very important point for me.
PETER GAMMONS: A lot has been said about the fact that the union did not get those samples destroyed, which involves over a hundred players. Are you bitter at all that the union didn't get those tests destroyed?
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: No, I mean, God has done this for a reason. There's a reason why. I can care less about what the union did. I could care less about what Selena Roberts did. This has to come out. This is very important.
The most important thing for me in my career is to be honest and forthright, to go into my '09 season as part of the greatest organization in the world, as one of the guys to go out and try to reach our goal.
And when you have that monkey on your back, it's really hard to be the person that you know you can be. It's hard to fulfill your potential that way.
PETER GAMMONS: Over the years, have you talked to anybody about this?
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: No.
PETER GAMMONS: You haven't talked to [agent] Scott Boras?
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: Not one word. Not one word.
PETER GAMMONS: How much did you learn from Andy Pettitte coming forward and essentially admitting what he did last year?
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: It was very commendable. I love Andy like a brother. He's one of my best friends on the team. I know he went through a very hard time.
But the one thing is all of us, 1 through 25, we supported him, we loved him, we didn't judge him. And going through this process, Andy has been texting me four or five times.
You know, one thing I'm learning as I get older, and hopefully a little wiser, is that honesty, the truth will set you free. I'm just proud that I'm here sharing my story. Regardless of what the union -- this is no one's fault. This is my fault. I'm responsible for this. And I'm deeply sorry for that.
PETER GAMMONS: Given the opportunity, would you like to go to Major League Baseball and say, "OK, what can I do to help kids across the country?"
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: 100 percent. I mean, that's what I've done with the Boys and Girls Club my whole life. You know, I was born in Washington Heights [N.Y.]. I would love to really get into that community and do things that are real, that are going to make a difference. And I have an opportunity here to help out a lot of kids. And I have nine years and the rest of my career to devote myself to children in the future and really bring awareness to, you know, where we need to head as a game. And I think we are headed in the right direction.
PETER GAMMONS: Would part of your message be that your best years were clean?
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: 100 percent. One message is that what you have is enough. Hard work is the most important thing, having a clear mind, and realizing that -- you know, having certainty is the most important thing, believing in yourself. And I've proven that in my career, at 18 years old when I came to the big leagues, and at 20 being second to Juan Gonzalez being MVP, probably my best year of all time, you know, followed by my 2007 year. And, again, no peaks and valleys. I mean, there's some peaks and valleys, but my career overall has been very consistent, not only in games played, but being out there for my team and performing at a high level.
I will hang my hat on that. And I just ask the American public to look at those three years as something that -- as an aberration. I screwed up in those years. I was stupid. I was naive. And ever since I've been doing the right thing and proud of.
PETER GAMMONS: Have you talked to Hal [Steinbrenner] and Brian [Cashman] about this?
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: Yes, I've talked to our front office, uh-huh.
PETER GAMMONS: And what do they say?
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: They're supportive. I think overall they just want me to be truthful and be honest. What happened six years ago happened, six, seven, eight years ago. And they're ready for bigger and better things, which is winning a championship. We're a great franchise. We're moving into a new stadium this year. Our fans have been very patient with us. They're ready for us, you know, to turn up the heat a little bit. And I think we have a team that's ready to do all of that. I'm going to be a part of that team and do my best.
PETER GAMMONS: Everyone cares about what other people think.
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: Uh-huh.
PETER GAMMONS: This weekend, there was a quote -- there was an unnamed Yankee front-office official who said his legacy is now gone. There's a column in the New York Daily News that started out, now it appears he really is A-Fraud, Alex Rodriguez can forget about have been his run at Barry Bonds' all-time home run record taken seriously and can probably forget about the Hall of Fame, too. What do you say about that?
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: I'm sorry if Bill feels that way. He's one of the respected journalist I respect in New York. And, again, you know, I feel that -- I hope that people don't follow this Selena Roberts lady and take their lead. I hope they look at this and give it time and realize that this was three years that I'm not proud of, it's three years I'm going out there, but to really judge me on, you know, prior Texas and post Texas. And that's all I want.
Also, I have nine years remaining in my career where I can still do some pretty special things, I think.
PETER GAMMONS: Are you worried at all what it's going to be like those nine years in New York?
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: Look, I think New Yorkers like honesty. I think they like people that say the truth. I also think they like great players that know how to win. And I think winning's the ultimate medicine we can take here. If we can win a championship, if we can play well, if we can play well down the stretch, I think New Yorkers love to forgive you.
And right now, I made a mistake. I was stupid. I was an idiot, all these things. And I think New Yorkers can probably relate with that every once in a while. And I think they want to see me, now that I've come forward, continue and, like with Andy Pettitte, be a great player again.
PETER GAMMONS: One of your goals all along has been to be in the Hall of Fame. Do you think a player who has tested positive or admitted to taking illegal substances is disqualified from Cooperstown?
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: I hope not. I hope not. I mean, I think every case is different. I think you have to look at the data. If you take a career of, you know, 25 years, and you take away three, or you take away 2½, or you take away one, I think overall you have to make a decision.
I don't have a Hall of Fame vote. It would be a dream to be in the Hall of Fame, and I hope one day I get in. But my biggest dreams are now to win a world championship and to be the last team standing on that field.
PETER GAMMONS: Now, Jose Canseco talked a lot in his books about you. He claimed in his last book that he hooked you up with a guy that was very well acquainted with performance-enhancing drugs here in Miami. Is that true?
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: That couldn't be more false. That's a hundred percent not true. And, you know, it's kind of interesting how "SportsCenter" and ESPN still quote this guy. No, it's a hundred percent false.
PETER GAMMONS: What do you think the drugs that you took, 2001 through 2003, what do you think it did for your performance?
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: I'm not sure. I know that I've always enjoyed hitting in Texas. I think it's a wonderful place to play. It's a great place to hit. But I don't know ...
PETER GAMMONS: What do you think is the best evidence that you have been clean since 2004?
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: Well, I go back further, Peter. When I was 20 years old, I was 210. And today I'm 225. I gained a pound a year for 15 years. That's not a lot of change. I'm also going to be on trial for the next nine years, so 14 years post my Texas era.
I think there's a great sample there for someone who has a Hall of Fame vote to say, OK, I have 20 years of clean baseball, and then make up their mind.
PETER GAMMONS: Do you think it will be hard in the first couple of years to deal with people who bring up "cheating"?
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: Well, the truth is the truth. Again, I think it's important to get it out there. You know, it might take five years. It might take 10 years. It may never go away. But, you know, being honest is absolutely the only thing for me to do right now.
PETER GAMMONS: You're one of the kings of the tabloids, your private life, your divorce, whatever. Do you start to get tired of celebrity?
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: Of?
PETER GAMMONS: Being a celebrity?
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: It comes with the territory. It really does. I mean, I wouldn't trade my life for anybody. I think I'm really the most fortunate, have such appreciation. Even a day like today I feel very grateful for what God's been able to do for me.
With that, there's been some challenges that are necessary for me to get through. This being one of them. This being the biggest one of my life. You know, divorce was another major thing. It's been a rough couple -- 15 months here for me. But, you know, I have great certainty that I'm going to, you know, overcome this and become a better person for it and a better father.
PETER GAMMONS: As you get a little bit older, what will you tell your daughters?
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: I was stupid for three years. I was very, very stupid. And I hope that, again, the Selena Roberts of the world do not try to go back to when I was 15 years old, whatever nonsense she's going to report in her book, or whatever nonsense she's -- whatever information she's collected through stalking me the last three or four years to ruin it more than I've done for myself.
I've made more mistakes than anyone, and for that I'm very sorry.
PETER GAMMONS: What will you tell kids around the country?
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: You know, work hard. What you have is enough. You know, believe in yourself. Don't make the mistake that I made.
PETER GAMMONS: As you've been living with this, has this been more difficult than dealing with things like what came out in Joe Torre's book?
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: This is by far the most serious thing that's ever happened in my life, along with, you know, my personal life, what happened with my breakup of Cynthia, you know, for the last 13 years. I mean, she was an integral part of my life, and we have two beautiful children. It seems like every year around this time somebody else is coming out with a book, you know, talking about me.
You know, again, I think God has a reason for everything, and I'm sorry we have to be in the middle of these controversies. But at the end of the day, I feel good today about coming forward and being honest and turning the page to the next chapter in my life.
PETER GAMMONS: Did you feel betrayed by Joe Torre?
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: No. I haven't read the book, Peter. So, I mean, to even comment on the book wouldn't be fair to Joe, wouldn't be fair to myself.
PETER GAMMONS: Did you hear people call you A-Fraud?
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: The one thing is, first of all, let me say I've always had a lot of respect for Joe as a manager. You know, actually the year when he left in '07, I was really excited, we had a huge turnaround. I thought we got along really well. I actually thought we were pretty close.
So I don't have any problems with Joe, and I will not comment on it now or during spring training. Until I read the book, I won't comment.
Peter, in our clubhouse, everybody makes fun of me. I'm talking about from the clubhouse kid, to every coach, Larry, Mike, Joe Torre. Every guy on the team. And I like it. I like taking it. I am not a good ragger, but I am a good receiver.
That's really a compliment the guys feel that comfortable that they can actually make fun of me at any time. So did I hear A-Fraud? We joked around about a lot of things. Listen, 25 guys have 25 different nicknames. So to me there's no harm, no foul there.
PETER GAMMONS: Are you worried now about how often you're going to have to answer these questions about those three years?
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: Um, well, I'm answering 'em here today. I hope soon enough we can put it in a vault and move forward. I mean, I know the consequences. But I know the truth is the truth.
PETER GAMMONS: Can baseball ever be as much fun for you as it was when you were 21 hitting .358?
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: Yeah, absolutely. I haven't been part of a world championship team. That's my only goal. I get to start a new chapter in my life where I can only focus on baseball, my team, the fans of New York, and recommitting a hundred percent of my focus.
I can't wait to get to spring training. Because to play with -- going through a divorce, this gorilla on my back, not being 100 percent honest and forthright and being transparent, I get to play baseball, the game I love most. That's my savior, the game of baseball.
So, yes, I mean, it can be as much fun as ever before.
PETER GAMMONS: If a young player or young person said to you, "Well, if you knew that what you were doing was illegal, why did you do it?" Would you be able to answer that?
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: Ask that question again, Peter.
PETER GAMMONS: When some young player or some player comes up to you and says, "All right, you knew that what you were taking was illegal. Why did you do it?" How do you answer that?
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: Well, I've answered that. I mean, I think it comes back to the culture was much different. It had a lot to do with me being stupid and selfish and naive and just, you know, I got caught up in this "everybody's doing it" era. So, you know, why not experiment with X, Y or Z?
You know, there's absolutely no excuses, and I feel deep regret for that.
PETER GAMMONS: Do you think it's possible over the next nine years to prove your innocence after 2003?
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm going to take it one day at a time, count my blessings every day for having an opportunity to play Major League Baseball, and continue what I've done the last five years, which is play very good baseball past all that era.
PETER GAMMONS: For the good of the game, would you like to see all those 104 names released from the positive tests in 2003?
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: I don't have any interest in any of that. I mean, obviously I would defer to Major League Baseball, the commissioner's office, and the union to deal with those matters.
The one thing that I'm proud of is coming forthright about my own situation ...
PETER GAMMONS: Did you learn anything from the congressional hearings and some of the players with comments who have been in staunch denial? Did you learn from them?
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: You know, again, I don't like to focus on anybody else but my situation. I think there's always something to be learned. There's a lesson to be learned in every situation.
I just know that for me, you know, putting everything out there and being honest was the most important thing.
PETER GAMMONS: Are you concerned that over the next few months this will hurt baseball?
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: Maybe over the next few months it will hurt baseball, but in the long run, I think it will help. I think any time you put the truth out there, I think it's very painful in the beginning, but I think at the end of the tunnel, there will be light. And, you know, I think the more of that that happens, the more light will be revealed at the end of the tunnel for the game of baseball as well.
PETER GAMMONS: Young players that you talk to, kids say, "All right, start with this, what do you regret most," what would you answer?
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: Start with what? What do you mean?
PETER GAMMONS: What do you regret most?
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: Definitely not educating myself and realizing at the time. I mean, in hindsight we can all look back and say these are all my mistakes. Very simple to look at that right now.
Just probably overall my mistakes I made in Texas.
PETER GAMMONS: What do you think the headline will be tomorrow in New York?
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: I have no idea. I mean, you know, the one good thing is, I feel the truth will always set you free.
PETER GAMMONS: Thank you.
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: When I arrived in Texas in 2001, I felt an enormous amount of pressure. I felt like I had all the weight of the world on top of me, and I needed to perform, and perform at a high level every day.
Back then, it was a different culture. It was very loose. I was young. I was stupid. I was naive. And I wanted to prove to everyone that, you know, I was worth being one of the greatest players of all time. And I did take a banned substance. You know, for that I'm very sorry and deeply regretful.
... The culture back then, and Major League Baseball overall, was very -- I just feel that, you know, I'm just sorry. I'm sorry for that time. I'm sorry to my fans. I'm sorry for my fans in Texas. It wasn't until then that I ever thought about a substance of any kind, and since then, I've proved to myself and to everyone that I don't need any of that.
PETER GAMMONS: You're saying that the time period was 2001, '2 and '3?
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: That's pretty accurate, yes.
PETER GAMMONS: What kind of substances were you taking?
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: Peter, that's the thing. Again, it was such a loosey-goosey era. I'm guilty for a lot of things. I'm guilty for being negligent, naive, not asking all the right questions. And to be quite honest, I don't know exactly what substance I was guilty of using.
PETER GAMMONS: Where did you originally get the substance?
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: Again, at the time, you know, you have nutritionists, you have doctors, you have trainers. That's the right question today: Where did you get it? We're in the era of BALCO ... Back then, it was just about what.
There's many things that you can take that are banned substances. I mean, there's things that have been removed from GNC today that would trigger a positive test.
I'm not sure exactly what substance I used. But whatever it is, I feel terribly about it.
PETER GAMMONS: Now, when did you get the wake-up call?
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: It wasn't until 2003. I was laying in my bed in Surprise, Arizona. We were doing a team conditioning down by the pool in Arizona. And I suffered a very serious neck injury that went all the way down to my spine. I missed about 2½ weeks of spring training, and I was scared I was going to miss time.
I also had a streak of about 400 games consecutive played, or 300, I'm not sure what the number was. But it was that point in bed that I realized, what am I doing? Not only am I going to hurt my baseball career, but I'm going to hurt my post career.
It was time to grow up, stop being selfish, stop being stupid and take control of whatever you're ingesting. And for that, I couldn't be -- I couldn't feel more regret and feel more sorry because I have so much respect for this game, and, you know, the people that follow me and respect me. And I have millions of fans out there that are, you know, will never look at me the same.
PETER GAMMONS: Let's go back. How were you introduced to these substances? Was it at the gym? Was it from other players?
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: The culture, it was pretty prevalent. There were a lot of people doing a lot of things. There was a lot of gray area, too. You know, back then you could walk in GNC and get four or five different products that today would probably trigger a positive test.
It wasn't a real dramatic day once I arrived in Texas that something monumental happened in my life. The point of the matter was that I started experimenting with things that today are not legal or today are not accepted and today you would get in a lot of trouble for.
Ever since that, that incident that happened to me in Arizona, Surprise, I realized that, you know what, I don't need any of it, and what I have is enough. I've played the best baseball of my career since. I've won two MVPs since, and I've never felt better in my career. Of that I'm very proud of.
PETER GAMMONS: So the test that was failed in 2003, that came off -- what were you using of the spring training before you got hurt?
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: I'm not sure exactly of the timing of everything, because it is a long time. It's been almost six years. But I do remember thinking in my bed in Arizona, "What am I doing? Wake up. Stop being selfish." You get to a point where you get tired of being stupid and selfish and not being honest with yourself. And that's what I realized in '03.
So I am sorry for my Texas years. I apologize to the fans of Texas. And there's absolutely no excuse, and I really feel bad about it.
PETER GAMMONS: To talk a little bit about that culture. It was an underground culture. A player said to me last summer that he really believes in that period between about '98 and 2004, that the players who didn't do one thing or another were either scared or didn't care. Do you agree with that?
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: I think you just felt a tremendous need to keep up and to play well. You know, it was hot in Texas every day. It was over a hundred degrees. You know, you felt like, without trying to overinvestigate what you're taking, can I have an edge just to get out there and play every day? And that's what it came down to. I can't speak for everybody who did. I can only speak for myself.
Regardless of what we want to [unintelligible] and say and justify, there's absolutely no excuse for what I did. I'm sorry. If I was a fan, a fan of mine, a fan of the Rangers, I would be very pissed off. And I can't take that back. But just realize that I'm sorry, and I want to do things to change.
I want to do things to influence children and realize they should learn from my mistake because, you know, it's the biggest regret I have in my life because baseball's given me everything, and I have so much respect.
There will be some people that say, you know, Alex is not a great player, going back to high school, I mean, they're just going to have this blanket cloud over my career. And for those, they may have their own point, but it feels good coming out and being completely honest and putting it out there and realizing that the more honest we can all be, the quicker we get baseball to where it needs to be.
PETER GAMMONS: To go back, you were 21 years old. You're saying at that point in your career, high school, No. 1 pick in the country, you're hitting .358 at the age of 21, you were completely clean?
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: 100 percent. 100 percent. Even before that I had never even seen or even heard of the idea of taking any substance. I've been very fortunate to come up. I was up at 18 years old. I remember meeting you when I was a few months removed away from high school. I was all of 195 pounds or 200 pounds. That was a special time.
And you put my first year and you put my very last year in New York, there haven't been many peaks and valleys. I had the greatest year of my career in 2007. It's a year that I'm very proud of. Although we didn't win a championship, it was a year that was full of -- you know, it was a very historic year. Just to have 2007, 1996, that for me says a lot.
PETER GAMMONS: How much of the culture -- how prevalent was this culture in Texas at that time?
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: You know, I've always been a guy that raced my own race. And I don't like to look left, I don't like to look right. You just feel there's an energy. To say only Texas, that wouldn't be fair. But overall, you felt that there was -- I felt a tremendous pressure to play and play really well. I felt like I was going up against the whole world. I just signed this enormous contract. I got unbelievable negative press, for lack of a better term, for [Rangers owner] Tom Hicks and I teaming up together...
So I felt that I needed something, without overinvestigating what I was taking, to get me to the next level.
PETER GAMMONS: How long was it before you found out that what you were doing was actually illegal?
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: Again, at the time of that culture, there was no illegal or legal. It was just -- you have to understand the time. To take you back there, again, people were taking a number of different things, from GNC, to whatever.
To be quite honest with you, the first time that I knew I had failed a test 100 percent was when the lady from Sports Illustrated [Selena Roberts] came into my gym just a few days ago and told me, "You have failed a test."
PETER GAMMONS: [Major League Baseball Players Association COO] Gene Orza didn't tell you that? There's a report that says that he told all the players who failed drug tests in 2003.
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: Gene was very specific in 2004. We had a meeting in September or August. Don't quote me on the date. But he said there's a government list, there's 104 players on it. You might or might not have tested positive.
At that point I said OK. That was five years ago. I never heard anything ever since. In my mind I assumed that, OK, whatever I was experiencing in Texas perhaps was OK, I'm OK. And in my mind, as I did my interview with CBS last year, I felt I haven't failed a test ... And that was my belief. Whether I wanted to convince myself of that or ... That's just where my mind was.
I felt it was important for me that all my years in New York have been clean, and I wanted just to move to the next chapter in my life.
PETER GAMMONS: ESPN surveyed a number of doctors and experts in this field, and they said the Primobolan could never be prescribed by a doctor. But it was accessible?
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: First of all, I want to see these tests because I haven't seen them ... I am saying I'm guilty of being naive and not having all the information and being negligent. But I would love to see the tests before I start answering questions that I've never even heard before, probably yesterday for the first time.
So, again, I am guilty of being very naive, and I'm deeply sorry for that.
PETER GAMMONS: Now, you mentioned the Katie Couric interview. You were asked if you ever used steroids, human growth hormones or other performance-enhancing substances. You said no, flat-out no. In your mind, that wasn't a lie?
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: At the time, Peter, I wasn't even being truthful with myself. How am I going to be truthful with Katie or CBS? Today, I'm here to tell the truth, and I feel good about that. I think my fans deserve that. I'm ready to put everything behind me and go play baseball. You know, we have a great team this year. I couldn't be more excited about the guys that we've brought in, Mark Teixeira, A.J. Burnett ... It's an important time in my life to turn the page and focus on what's next.
PETER GAMMONS: So from 2004 on, you have been completely clean?
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: Yes.
PETER GAMMONS: Have you even been able to check and find out how many times you've been tested?
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: I don't know the real number, but I would guess at least eight to 10 times. But I would like to know that number. I know I've been tested quite a bit over the last five years.
PETER GAMMONS: You were tested during the WBC [World Baseball Classic] in 2006, is that correct?
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: Correct. I got tested in 2006. And also this year when I go down to Puerto Rico, I'm sure I'll get tested again in 2009.
Prior to Texas, I really had -- at that time in Seattle, I had never even heard of a player taking a substance, a steroid of any kind in my Seattle days. I mean, I know this lady from Sports Illustrated, Selena Roberts, is trying to throw things out there that in high school I tried steroids. I mean, that's the biggest bunch of baloney I've ever heard in my life.
I mean, what makes me upset is that Sports Illustrated pays this lady, Selena Roberts, to stalk me. This lady has been thrown out of my apartment in New York City. This lady has five days ago just been thrown out of the University of Miami police for trespassing. And four days ago she tried to break into my house where my girls are up there sleeping, and got cited by the Miami Beach police. I have the paper here. This lady is coming out with all these allegations, all these lies because she's writing an article for Sports Illustrated and she's coming out with a book in May.
Really respectable journalists are following this lady off the cliff and following her lead. And that, to me, is unfortunate.
PETER GAMMONS: How do you go about making people believe you?
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: Well, I think coming into the league at 20 years, coming second to Juan Gonzalez as MVP is one good indication. And then, 14 years later in 2007, having the greatest year of my career is another. The other thing is, I'm going to have a sample of 14 years past this Texas era where I get to show and prove to the world who I am as a player. Hopefully I'm part of a championship team or two.
And I also, more importantly, have a chance to, you know, tell the story to kids so they can learn from my mistake. Because there's a story to be said here. I'm looking forward to that challenge.
But to me, '09, now I'm getting excited going to spring training. When you take this gorilla and this monkey off your back, you realize that honesty is the only way. I'm finally beginning to grow up. I'm pretty tired of being stupid and selfish, you know, about myself. The truth needed to come out a long time ago. I'm glad it's coming out today.
PETER GAMMONS: Two years ago when Barry Bonds was passing Henry Aaron, it was written a lot of places, well, the great thing -- when you pass Bonds, the great thing will be we'll finally have a legitimate home run champion. When you read those articles, did you worry a little bit about all this coming back to haunt you?
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: You naturally have to worry. I mean, again, there's such a gray area. That era wasn't about facts. That era -- those words you just mentioned, I guarantee that half the guys that did that in any sport don't know what that is.
You basically end up trusting the wrong people. You end up, you know, not being very careful about what you're ingesting. And, yeah, it worried me completely, absolutely. And today, although I know that people are going to be very disappointed, just like I am, I feel good about moving forward and doing things the way I've been doing it the last five years and the way I did it prior to being in Texas. And that's a very important point for me.
PETER GAMMONS: A lot has been said about the fact that the union did not get those samples destroyed, which involves over a hundred players. Are you bitter at all that the union didn't get those tests destroyed?
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: No, I mean, God has done this for a reason. There's a reason why. I can care less about what the union did. I could care less about what Selena Roberts did. This has to come out. This is very important.
The most important thing for me in my career is to be honest and forthright, to go into my '09 season as part of the greatest organization in the world, as one of the guys to go out and try to reach our goal.
And when you have that monkey on your back, it's really hard to be the person that you know you can be. It's hard to fulfill your potential that way.
PETER GAMMONS: Over the years, have you talked to anybody about this?
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: No.
PETER GAMMONS: You haven't talked to [agent] Scott Boras?
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: Not one word. Not one word.
PETER GAMMONS: How much did you learn from Andy Pettitte coming forward and essentially admitting what he did last year?
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: It was very commendable. I love Andy like a brother. He's one of my best friends on the team. I know he went through a very hard time.
But the one thing is all of us, 1 through 25, we supported him, we loved him, we didn't judge him. And going through this process, Andy has been texting me four or five times.
You know, one thing I'm learning as I get older, and hopefully a little wiser, is that honesty, the truth will set you free. I'm just proud that I'm here sharing my story. Regardless of what the union -- this is no one's fault. This is my fault. I'm responsible for this. And I'm deeply sorry for that.
PETER GAMMONS: Given the opportunity, would you like to go to Major League Baseball and say, "OK, what can I do to help kids across the country?"
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: 100 percent. I mean, that's what I've done with the Boys and Girls Club my whole life. You know, I was born in Washington Heights [N.Y.]. I would love to really get into that community and do things that are real, that are going to make a difference. And I have an opportunity here to help out a lot of kids. And I have nine years and the rest of my career to devote myself to children in the future and really bring awareness to, you know, where we need to head as a game. And I think we are headed in the right direction.
PETER GAMMONS: Would part of your message be that your best years were clean?
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: 100 percent. One message is that what you have is enough. Hard work is the most important thing, having a clear mind, and realizing that -- you know, having certainty is the most important thing, believing in yourself. And I've proven that in my career, at 18 years old when I came to the big leagues, and at 20 being second to Juan Gonzalez being MVP, probably my best year of all time, you know, followed by my 2007 year. And, again, no peaks and valleys. I mean, there's some peaks and valleys, but my career overall has been very consistent, not only in games played, but being out there for my team and performing at a high level.
I will hang my hat on that. And I just ask the American public to look at those three years as something that -- as an aberration. I screwed up in those years. I was stupid. I was naive. And ever since I've been doing the right thing and proud of.
PETER GAMMONS: Have you talked to Hal [Steinbrenner] and Brian [Cashman] about this?
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: Yes, I've talked to our front office, uh-huh.
PETER GAMMONS: And what do they say?
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: They're supportive. I think overall they just want me to be truthful and be honest. What happened six years ago happened, six, seven, eight years ago. And they're ready for bigger and better things, which is winning a championship. We're a great franchise. We're moving into a new stadium this year. Our fans have been very patient with us. They're ready for us, you know, to turn up the heat a little bit. And I think we have a team that's ready to do all of that. I'm going to be a part of that team and do my best.
PETER GAMMONS: Everyone cares about what other people think.
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: Uh-huh.
PETER GAMMONS: This weekend, there was a quote -- there was an unnamed Yankee front-office official who said his legacy is now gone. There's a column in the New York Daily News that started out, now it appears he really is A-Fraud, Alex Rodriguez can forget about have been his run at Barry Bonds' all-time home run record taken seriously and can probably forget about the Hall of Fame, too. What do you say about that?
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: I'm sorry if Bill feels that way. He's one of the respected journalist I respect in New York. And, again, you know, I feel that -- I hope that people don't follow this Selena Roberts lady and take their lead. I hope they look at this and give it time and realize that this was three years that I'm not proud of, it's three years I'm going out there, but to really judge me on, you know, prior Texas and post Texas. And that's all I want.
Also, I have nine years remaining in my career where I can still do some pretty special things, I think.
PETER GAMMONS: Are you worried at all what it's going to be like those nine years in New York?
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: Look, I think New Yorkers like honesty. I think they like people that say the truth. I also think they like great players that know how to win. And I think winning's the ultimate medicine we can take here. If we can win a championship, if we can play well, if we can play well down the stretch, I think New Yorkers love to forgive you.
And right now, I made a mistake. I was stupid. I was an idiot, all these things. And I think New Yorkers can probably relate with that every once in a while. And I think they want to see me, now that I've come forward, continue and, like with Andy Pettitte, be a great player again.
PETER GAMMONS: One of your goals all along has been to be in the Hall of Fame. Do you think a player who has tested positive or admitted to taking illegal substances is disqualified from Cooperstown?
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: I hope not. I hope not. I mean, I think every case is different. I think you have to look at the data. If you take a career of, you know, 25 years, and you take away three, or you take away 2½, or you take away one, I think overall you have to make a decision.
I don't have a Hall of Fame vote. It would be a dream to be in the Hall of Fame, and I hope one day I get in. But my biggest dreams are now to win a world championship and to be the last team standing on that field.
PETER GAMMONS: Now, Jose Canseco talked a lot in his books about you. He claimed in his last book that he hooked you up with a guy that was very well acquainted with performance-enhancing drugs here in Miami. Is that true?
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: That couldn't be more false. That's a hundred percent not true. And, you know, it's kind of interesting how "SportsCenter" and ESPN still quote this guy. No, it's a hundred percent false.
PETER GAMMONS: What do you think the drugs that you took, 2001 through 2003, what do you think it did for your performance?
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: I'm not sure. I know that I've always enjoyed hitting in Texas. I think it's a wonderful place to play. It's a great place to hit. But I don't know ...
PETER GAMMONS: What do you think is the best evidence that you have been clean since 2004?
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: Well, I go back further, Peter. When I was 20 years old, I was 210. And today I'm 225. I gained a pound a year for 15 years. That's not a lot of change. I'm also going to be on trial for the next nine years, so 14 years post my Texas era.
I think there's a great sample there for someone who has a Hall of Fame vote to say, OK, I have 20 years of clean baseball, and then make up their mind.
PETER GAMMONS: Do you think it will be hard in the first couple of years to deal with people who bring up "cheating"?
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: Well, the truth is the truth. Again, I think it's important to get it out there. You know, it might take five years. It might take 10 years. It may never go away. But, you know, being honest is absolutely the only thing for me to do right now.
PETER GAMMONS: You're one of the kings of the tabloids, your private life, your divorce, whatever. Do you start to get tired of celebrity?
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: Of?
PETER GAMMONS: Being a celebrity?
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: It comes with the territory. It really does. I mean, I wouldn't trade my life for anybody. I think I'm really the most fortunate, have such appreciation. Even a day like today I feel very grateful for what God's been able to do for me.
With that, there's been some challenges that are necessary for me to get through. This being one of them. This being the biggest one of my life. You know, divorce was another major thing. It's been a rough couple -- 15 months here for me. But, you know, I have great certainty that I'm going to, you know, overcome this and become a better person for it and a better father.
PETER GAMMONS: As you get a little bit older, what will you tell your daughters?
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: I was stupid for three years. I was very, very stupid. And I hope that, again, the Selena Roberts of the world do not try to go back to when I was 15 years old, whatever nonsense she's going to report in her book, or whatever nonsense she's -- whatever information she's collected through stalking me the last three or four years to ruin it more than I've done for myself.
I've made more mistakes than anyone, and for that I'm very sorry.
PETER GAMMONS: What will you tell kids around the country?
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: You know, work hard. What you have is enough. You know, believe in yourself. Don't make the mistake that I made.
PETER GAMMONS: As you've been living with this, has this been more difficult than dealing with things like what came out in Joe Torre's book?
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: This is by far the most serious thing that's ever happened in my life, along with, you know, my personal life, what happened with my breakup of Cynthia, you know, for the last 13 years. I mean, she was an integral part of my life, and we have two beautiful children. It seems like every year around this time somebody else is coming out with a book, you know, talking about me.
You know, again, I think God has a reason for everything, and I'm sorry we have to be in the middle of these controversies. But at the end of the day, I feel good today about coming forward and being honest and turning the page to the next chapter in my life.
PETER GAMMONS: Did you feel betrayed by Joe Torre?
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: No. I haven't read the book, Peter. So, I mean, to even comment on the book wouldn't be fair to Joe, wouldn't be fair to myself.
PETER GAMMONS: Did you hear people call you A-Fraud?
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: The one thing is, first of all, let me say I've always had a lot of respect for Joe as a manager. You know, actually the year when he left in '07, I was really excited, we had a huge turnaround. I thought we got along really well. I actually thought we were pretty close.
So I don't have any problems with Joe, and I will not comment on it now or during spring training. Until I read the book, I won't comment.
Peter, in our clubhouse, everybody makes fun of me. I'm talking about from the clubhouse kid, to every coach, Larry, Mike, Joe Torre. Every guy on the team. And I like it. I like taking it. I am not a good ragger, but I am a good receiver.
That's really a compliment the guys feel that comfortable that they can actually make fun of me at any time. So did I hear A-Fraud? We joked around about a lot of things. Listen, 25 guys have 25 different nicknames. So to me there's no harm, no foul there.
PETER GAMMONS: Are you worried now about how often you're going to have to answer these questions about those three years?
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: Um, well, I'm answering 'em here today. I hope soon enough we can put it in a vault and move forward. I mean, I know the consequences. But I know the truth is the truth.
PETER GAMMONS: Can baseball ever be as much fun for you as it was when you were 21 hitting .358?
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: Yeah, absolutely. I haven't been part of a world championship team. That's my only goal. I get to start a new chapter in my life where I can only focus on baseball, my team, the fans of New York, and recommitting a hundred percent of my focus.
I can't wait to get to spring training. Because to play with -- going through a divorce, this gorilla on my back, not being 100 percent honest and forthright and being transparent, I get to play baseball, the game I love most. That's my savior, the game of baseball.
So, yes, I mean, it can be as much fun as ever before.
PETER GAMMONS: If a young player or young person said to you, "Well, if you knew that what you were doing was illegal, why did you do it?" Would you be able to answer that?
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: Ask that question again, Peter.
PETER GAMMONS: When some young player or some player comes up to you and says, "All right, you knew that what you were taking was illegal. Why did you do it?" How do you answer that?
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: Well, I've answered that. I mean, I think it comes back to the culture was much different. It had a lot to do with me being stupid and selfish and naive and just, you know, I got caught up in this "everybody's doing it" era. So, you know, why not experiment with X, Y or Z?
You know, there's absolutely no excuses, and I feel deep regret for that.
PETER GAMMONS: Do you think it's possible over the next nine years to prove your innocence after 2003?
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm going to take it one day at a time, count my blessings every day for having an opportunity to play Major League Baseball, and continue what I've done the last five years, which is play very good baseball past all that era.
PETER GAMMONS: For the good of the game, would you like to see all those 104 names released from the positive tests in 2003?
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: I don't have any interest in any of that. I mean, obviously I would defer to Major League Baseball, the commissioner's office, and the union to deal with those matters.
The one thing that I'm proud of is coming forthright about my own situation ...
PETER GAMMONS: Did you learn anything from the congressional hearings and some of the players with comments who have been in staunch denial? Did you learn from them?
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: You know, again, I don't like to focus on anybody else but my situation. I think there's always something to be learned. There's a lesson to be learned in every situation.
I just know that for me, you know, putting everything out there and being honest was the most important thing.
PETER GAMMONS: Are you concerned that over the next few months this will hurt baseball?
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: Maybe over the next few months it will hurt baseball, but in the long run, I think it will help. I think any time you put the truth out there, I think it's very painful in the beginning, but I think at the end of the tunnel, there will be light. And, you know, I think the more of that that happens, the more light will be revealed at the end of the tunnel for the game of baseball as well.
PETER GAMMONS: Young players that you talk to, kids say, "All right, start with this, what do you regret most," what would you answer?
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: Start with what? What do you mean?
PETER GAMMONS: What do you regret most?
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: Definitely not educating myself and realizing at the time. I mean, in hindsight we can all look back and say these are all my mistakes. Very simple to look at that right now.
Just probably overall my mistakes I made in Texas.
PETER GAMMONS: What do you think the headline will be tomorrow in New York?
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: I have no idea. I mean, you know, the one good thing is, I feel the truth will always set you free.
PETER GAMMONS: Thank you.
アメリカでは byHUMMER
以前、WWE（プロレス）でも薬物の使用が大きな問題となり、それを理由に多くの選手たちが解雇されるということがありました。
ステロイドなどは、筋肉肥大絶大な効果をもたらすようですが、同時に選手自身の身体・生命への悪影響も多いようですね。
薬物による心臓発作で亡くなったプロレスラーはたくさんいます。
日本でも、僕の好きな船木誠勝選手（総合格闘技）などは、海外でステロイドに手を出したことを自著で赤裸々に綴っています。
>>彼自身、自ら禁止薬物を断ちきり、それ以降も高いレベルで好成績を残されている。これらは、彼の努力の結果であり、素晴らしい事だと私自身思います。
また、過去の悪行は、消し去ることはできないので、競技場でファンを魅了するようなプレーをし、来世の子供達の手本となる様な選手であり続けて欲しいと思います。
この部分に大いに共感します。
ダメなものはダメですが、薬物から立ち直った姿をファンに示すことも、ある意味大きな影響力を持つと思います。
Ａ・ロッドにもがんばってほしいですね。
ステロイドなどは、筋肉肥大絶大な効果をもたらすようですが、同時に選手自身の身体・生命への悪影響も多いようですね。
薬物による心臓発作で亡くなったプロレスラーはたくさんいます。
日本でも、僕の好きな船木誠勝選手（総合格闘技）などは、海外でステロイドに手を出したことを自著で赤裸々に綴っています。
>>彼自身、自ら禁止薬物を断ちきり、それ以降も高いレベルで好成績を残されている。これらは、彼の努力の結果であり、素晴らしい事だと私自身思います。
また、過去の悪行は、消し去ることはできないので、競技場でファンを魅了するようなプレーをし、来世の子供達の手本となる様な選手であり続けて欲しいと思います。
この部分に大いに共感します。
ダメなものはダメですが、薬物から立ち直った姿をファンに示すことも、ある意味大きな影響力を持つと思います。
Ａ・ロッドにもがんばってほしいですね。
HUMMERさん byRyuukai
HUMMERさん、コメント有難う御座います。
以前、サイト名は忘れてしまいましたが、薬物使用による肉体への影響に関するビデオを見たことがあります。その時は、専門化が肉体へ影響や寿命を短くなる等の事を聞いたときには、ぞっとした気持ちになりました。私も数年前まで故障が無ければ、陸上競技を続けていたかった者で、このような話題は、気になってしまいます。
船木選手の本は、読んだことは無いのですが、彼が海外でステロイドを使用していた事は、知らなかったです。今年は、色々な本を読もうとしているので、本屋で船木選手の著書を読みたいと思います。また、A・ロッド選手は、2008年のシーズン途中で怪我で一時離脱してしまったので、2009年のシーズンは、怪我をなく連続出場できるよう頑張って欲しいです。
以前、サイト名は忘れてしまいましたが、薬物使用による肉体への影響に関するビデオを見たことがあります。その時は、専門化が肉体へ影響や寿命を短くなる等の事を聞いたときには、ぞっとした気持ちになりました。私も数年前まで故障が無ければ、陸上競技を続けていたかった者で、このような話題は、気になってしまいます。
船木選手の本は、読んだことは無いのですが、彼が海外でステロイドを使用していた事は、知らなかったです。今年は、色々な本を読もうとしているので、本屋で船木選手の著書を読みたいと思います。また、A・ロッド選手は、2008年のシーズン途中で怪我で一時離脱してしまったので、2009年のシーズンは、怪我をなく連続出場できるよう頑張って欲しいです。
“Slumdog Millionaire” won for 8 Academy Awards including Best Picture, Directing, Adapted Screenplay, Cinematography and so on.
2009-02-24-Tue
CATEGORY: 英語関連
>
色々なサイトを巡っていたら、第81回アカデミー賞の結果が発表されていました。ここ数年、映画鑑賞などは、鑑賞せずに、レンタルでDVDを鑑賞する事が多かったので、アカデミー賞は、ノーマークでした。
全ての結果は、以下のリンクをクリックすると確認できます。
また、色々な方々のスピーチもこちらで聞く事が出来ます。個々のスピーチ等は、短いですが、興味のある方は、どうぞ楽しんでください。
このようなスピーチを楽しんで聞けるようなレベルになりたいですね。そうなれば、何か違った世界が、垣間見えそうな気がします。現実は、どうなんでしょう？？
授賞式後の翌朝？に作品賞を含む8部門を受賞したSlumdog Millionaireチームの皆さんが、インタビューに答えている映像です。嬉しさがこちらに凄く伝わってきます。
”スラムドッグ＄ミリオネア”の公式サイトです。4月18日公開が決まったようです。
byOJiM（オジム）
ryuukaiさん
スラムドックはずっと楽しみにしていました。
絶対に観にいこうと思っているので、情報遮断しているのですが、オスカーを獲ってますます、いろんな情報が入ってきそうですね。
あー早く観たい！
スラムドックはずっと楽しみにしていました。
絶対に観にいこうと思っているので、情報遮断しているのですが、オスカーを獲ってますます、いろんな情報が入ってきそうですね。
あー早く観たい！
管理人のみ閲覧できます by-
byhachi
テレビですと、おくりびとと、つみきのいえのニュースばかりで
作品賞や主演男優賞は誰がとったのか分からなかったのですが、
こちらからのリンクで知りました。
こういうかたちで英語に接するのもいい刺激になりますね。
ありがとうございました。
作品賞や主演男優賞は誰がとったのか分からなかったのですが、
こちらからのリンクで知りました。
こういうかたちで英語に接するのもいい刺激になりますね。
ありがとうございました。
OJiMさん byRyuukai
OJiMさん、コメント有難う御座います。
コメントの返信が遅くなってすいませんでした。
OJiMさんは、情報先取りで、スラムドッグの映画はご存じでいたのですね。こう言った情報（映画・音楽等）を雑誌などで確認しないので、知らない事が多いです。どんどん取り残されてますね（＾＾）
日本で公開される4月18日以降にスラムドッグを劇場で鑑賞したいと思います。まあ、数年前のハリーポッター以来劇場に足を運んでいないので・・・。
コメントの返信が遅くなってすいませんでした。
OJiMさんは、情報先取りで、スラムドッグの映画はご存じでいたのですね。こう言った情報（映画・音楽等）を雑誌などで確認しないので、知らない事が多いです。どんどん取り残されてますね（＾＾）
日本で公開される4月18日以降にスラムドッグを劇場で鑑賞したいと思います。まあ、数年前のハリーポッター以来劇場に足を運んでいないので・・・。
匿名コメントSさん byRyuukai
匿名コメントSさん、コメント有難う御座います。
私は、発音を勉強していると言うよりは、子音や母音の各音を自然と出来る（自動化）ように、訓練していると言った方が近いかもしれません。個人競技スポーツをやっていた関係もあって、こういった淡々とした訓練は、辛いとは思っていないのは良い点かなと思います。でも、私の方法は、決して楽しいと思えるものではないので、人にお勧めできる方法ではないと思います。取りあえず、繰り返し回数が100回まで継続してやるつもりです。
また、私は、Sさんほどの努力を積み重ねる事は難しいですが、ゆっくりと皆さんのレベルに到達できるよう頑張りたいと思います。
3月のTOEICまで、残り2週間足らずとなりましたが、お互いの目標に到達できるよう頑張りましょう！
私は、発音を勉強していると言うよりは、子音や母音の各音を自然と出来る（自動化）ように、訓練していると言った方が近いかもしれません。個人競技スポーツをやっていた関係もあって、こういった淡々とした訓練は、辛いとは思っていないのは良い点かなと思います。でも、私の方法は、決して楽しいと思えるものではないので、人にお勧めできる方法ではないと思います。取りあえず、繰り返し回数が100回まで継続してやるつもりです。
また、私は、Sさんほどの努力を積み重ねる事は難しいですが、ゆっくりと皆さんのレベルに到達できるよう頑張りたいと思います。
3月のTOEICまで、残り2週間足らずとなりましたが、お互いの目標に到達できるよう頑張りましょう！
ｈａｃｈｉさん byRyuukai
ｈａｃｈｉさん、コメント有難う御座います。
>こういうかたちで英語に接するのもいい刺激になりますね。
英語の学習をしていると、国外の情報（ニュースや色々な出来事）について、リアルタイムに知りたいと言う気持ちが強くなり、MSNBCやNPR等の記事を読んだり映像を見たりしています。（詳細理解は、まだまだ程遠い感じがしています。）
その分、国内の色々な情報への関心が弱まってしまっているので、バランスを取らなくてはと思っているのですが、なかなか出来ず、今日に至っています。
何気なく書いた記事がお役に立てて嬉しいです。
テレビですと、おくりびとと、つみきのいえのニュースばかりで
作品賞や主演男優賞は誰がとったのか分からなかったのですが、
こちらからのリンクで知りました。
こういうかたちで英語に接するのもいい刺激になりますね。
ありがとうございました。
>こういうかたちで英語に接するのもいい刺激になりますね。
英語の学習をしていると、国外の情報（ニュースや色々な出来事）について、リアルタイムに知りたいと言う気持ちが強くなり、MSNBCやNPR等の記事を読んだり映像を見たりしています。（詳細理解は、まだまだ程遠い感じがしています。）
その分、国内の色々な情報への関心が弱まってしまっているので、バランスを取らなくてはと思っているのですが、なかなか出来ず、今日に至っています。
何気なく書いた記事がお役に立てて嬉しいです。
テレビですと、おくりびとと、つみきのいえのニュースばかりで
作品賞や主演男優賞は誰がとったのか分からなかったのですが、
こちらからのリンクで知りました。
こういうかたちで英語に接するのもいい刺激になりますね。
ありがとうございました。
2009-04-04-Sat
CATEGORY: 英語関連
>
今日は、午前・午後ともに英語学習をする意欲が沸かなかったので、ネットをいろいろと巡回していたら、Bill GatesとSteve Jobsが共にインタービューを受けている映像（83分15秒）があったので、Transcriptionを見ながら堪能していました。この映像は、私自身貴重だと思ったので、記事として載せています。（今さながら、こんな出来事があった事を知らない事がちょっと恥ずかしいです）なので、興味がない人にとっては何だこれと言った感じだと思います。
個人的な勉強の為の資料及び教材と思って頂ければと思います。
以下のTranscriptionは、 All Things Digitalからの引用です。
Part 1 of 7（15分05秒／83分15秒）
Kara: Well, thank you.
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.
[Applause]
Walt: And Fred Gibbons, who has not come to D before, but is here tonight. Fred. There’s Fred right there.
[Applause]
Walt: And I don’t know if he’s in the room, but I do want to recognize our fellow journalist, Brent Schlender from Fortune, who, to my knowledge, did the last joint interview these guys did. It was not onstage, but it was Fortune magazine. Brent, I don’t know if you’re in the room. If you are, can you stand? Maybe he’s way over there.
[Applause]
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.
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.
Kara: Oh, the Twiggy disk drive, yes.
Bill: Steve gave a speech once, which is one of my favorites, where he talked about, in a certain sense, we build the products that we want to use ourselves. And so he’s really pursued that with incredible taste and elegance that has had a huge impact on the industry. And his ability to always come around and figure out where that next bet should be has been phenomenal. Apple literally was failing when Steve went back and re-infused the innovation and risk-taking that have been phenomenal. So the industry’s benefited immensely from his work. We’ve both been lucky to be part of it, but I’d say he’s contributed as much as anyone.
Steve: We’ve also both been incredibly lucky to have had great partners that we started the companies with and we’ve attracted great people. I mean, so everything that’s been done at Microsoft and at Apple has been done by just remarkable people, none of which are sitting up here today.
Kara: Well, not us.
Walt: Not us. So in a way, you’re the stand-ins for all those other people.
Steve: Yeah, in a way, we are. In a very tangible way.
Walt: So Bill mentioned the Apple II and 1977 and 30 years ago. And there were a couple of other computers which were aimed at the idea that average people might be able to use them, and looking back on it, a really average-average person might not have been able to use them by today’s standards, but it certainly 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.
Walt: You want a computer you can write your own programs on. And obviously, people still do.
Steve: 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: I know you started Microsoft prior to 1977. I think Apple started the year before, in ‘76.
Steve: ‘76.
Walt: Microsoft in …
Bill: ‘74 was when we started writing BASIC. Then we shipped the BASIC in ‘75.
Walt: Some people here, but I don’t think most people, know that 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: Let me tell the 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.
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. So, you know, Microsoft had this very popular, really good floating-point BASIC that we ended up going to them and saying “help.”
Walt: And how much was the–I think you were telling us earlier …
Bill: Oh, it was $31,000.
Walt: That Apple paid you for the …
Bill: For the floating-point BASIC. And I flew out to Apple, I spent two days there getting the cassette. The cassette tapes were the main ways that people stored things at the time, right? And, you know, that was fun.
I think the most fun is later when we worked together.
Walt: What was the most fun? Tell the story about the most fun that was later.
Kara: Or maybe later, not the most fun.
Walt: Let them talk.
Kara: Teasing.
Bill: Well, you know, Steve can probably start it better. The team that was assembled there to do the Macintosh was a very committed team. And there was an equivalent team on our side that just got totally focused on this activity. Jeff Harbers, a lot of incredible people. And we had really bet our future on the Macintosh being successful, and then, hopefully, graphics interfaces in general being successful, but first and foremost, the thing that would popularize that being the Macintosh.
So we were working together. The schedules were uncertain. The quality was uncertain. The price. When Steve first came up, it was going to be a lot cheaper computer than it ended up being, but that was fine.
Kara: So you worked in both places?
Bill: Well, we were in Seattle and we’d fly down there.
Walt: But 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.
Walt: And Word was kind of a DOS text …
Bill: All of these products I’m saying were DOS-based products.
Walt: Right.
Bill: Because Windows wasn’t in the picture at the time.
Walt: Right.
Bill: That’s more early ’90s that we get to that. 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.
Walt: I see.
Steve: We ship these computers now with, you know, a gigabyte, 2 gigabytes of memory, and nobody remembers 128K.
Walt: I remember that. I remember paying a lot of money for computers with 128K in those days. So the two companies worked closely on the Mac project because you were maybe not the only, but the principal or one of the principal software creators for it, is that right?
Steve: Well, Apple did the Mac itself, but we got Bill and his team involved to write these applications. We were doing a few apps ourselves. We did MacPaint, MacDraw and stuff like that, but Bill and his team did some great work.
Kara: Now, in terms of moving forward after you left and your company grew more and more strong, what did you think was going to happen to Apple after sort of the disasters that occurred after Steve left?
Bill: Well, Apple, they hung in the balance. We continued to do Macintosh software. Excel, which Steve and I introduced together in New York City, that was kind of a fun event, that went on and did very well. But then, you know, Apple just wasn’t differentiating itself well enough from the higher-volume platform.
Walt: Meaning Windows, right?
Bill: DOS and Windows.
Walt: OK. But especially Windows in the ’90s began to take off.
Bill: By 1995, Windows became popular. The big debate wasn’t sort of Mac versus Windows. The big debate was character mode interface versus graphics mode interface. And when the 386 came and we got more memory and the speed was adequate and some development tools came along, that paradigm bet on GUI paid off for everybody who’d gotten in early and said, you know, this is the way that’s going to go.
Walt: But Apple wasn’t able to leverage its products?
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.
Kara: Don’t be mean to him.
Bill: I’m sorry?
Kara: Just saying the word Gil Amelio, you can see his…
Bill: 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: 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.
[Applause]
Walt: And Fred Gibbons, who has not come to D before, but is here tonight. Fred. There’s Fred right there.
[Applause]
Walt: And I don’t know if he’s in the room, but I do want to recognize our fellow journalist, Brent Schlender from Fortune, who, to my knowledge, did the last joint interview these guys did. It was not onstage, but it was Fortune magazine. Brent, I don’t know if you’re in the room. If you are, can you stand? Maybe he’s way over there.
[Applause]
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.
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.
Kara: Oh, the Twiggy disk drive, yes.
Bill: Steve gave a speech once, which is one of my favorites, where he talked about, in a certain sense, we build the products that we want to use ourselves. And so he’s really pursued that with incredible taste and elegance that has had a huge impact on the industry. And his ability to always come around and figure out where that next bet should be has been phenomenal. Apple literally was failing when Steve went back and re-infused the innovation and risk-taking that have been phenomenal. So the industry’s benefited immensely from his work. We’ve both been lucky to be part of it, but I’d say he’s contributed as much as anyone.
Steve: We’ve also both been incredibly lucky to have had great partners that we started the companies with and we’ve attracted great people. I mean, so everything that’s been done at Microsoft and at Apple has been done by just remarkable people, none of which are sitting up here today.
Kara: Well, not us.
Walt: Not us. So in a way, you’re the stand-ins for all those other people.
Steve: Yeah, in a way, we are. In a very tangible way.
Walt: So Bill mentioned the Apple II and 1977 and 30 years ago. And there were a couple of other computers which were aimed at the idea that average people might be able to use them, and looking back on it, a really average-average person might not have been able to use them by today’s standards, but it certainly 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.
Walt: You want a computer you can write your own programs on. And obviously, people still do.
Steve: 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: I know you started Microsoft prior to 1977. I think Apple started the year before, in ‘76.
Steve: ‘76.
Walt: Microsoft in …
Bill: ‘74 was when we started writing BASIC. Then we shipped the BASIC in ‘75.
Walt: Some people here, but I don’t think most people, know that 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: Let me tell the 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.
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. So, you know, Microsoft had this very popular, really good floating-point BASIC that we ended up going to them and saying “help.”
Walt: And how much was the–I think you were telling us earlier …
Bill: Oh, it was $31,000.
Walt: That Apple paid you for the …
Bill: For the floating-point BASIC. And I flew out to Apple, I spent two days there getting the cassette. The cassette tapes were the main ways that people stored things at the time, right? And, you know, that was fun.
I think the most fun is later when we worked together.
Walt: What was the most fun? Tell the story about the most fun that was later.
Kara: Or maybe later, not the most fun.
Walt: Let them talk.
Kara: Teasing.
Bill: Well, you know, Steve can probably start it better. The team that was assembled there to do the Macintosh was a very committed team. And there was an equivalent team on our side that just got totally focused on this activity. Jeff Harbers, a lot of incredible people. And we had really bet our future on the Macintosh being successful, and then, hopefully, graphics interfaces in general being successful, but first and foremost, the thing that would popularize that being the Macintosh.
So we were working together. The schedules were uncertain. The quality was uncertain. The price. When Steve first came up, it was going to be a lot cheaper computer than it ended up being, but that was fine.
Kara: So you worked in both places?
Bill: Well, we were in Seattle and we’d fly down there.
Walt: But 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.
Walt: And Word was kind of a DOS text …
Bill: All of these products I’m saying were DOS-based products.
Walt: Right.
Bill: Because Windows wasn’t in the picture at the time.
Walt: Right.
Bill: That’s more early ’90s that we get to that. 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.
Walt: I see.
Steve: We ship these computers now with, you know, a gigabyte, 2 gigabytes of memory, and nobody remembers 128K.
Walt: I remember that. I remember paying a lot of money for computers with 128K in those days. So the two companies worked closely on the Mac project because you were maybe not the only, but the principal or one of the principal software creators for it, is that right?
Steve: Well, Apple did the Mac itself, but we got Bill and his team involved to write these applications. We were doing a few apps ourselves. We did MacPaint, MacDraw and stuff like that, but Bill and his team did some great work.
Kara: Now, in terms of moving forward after you left and your company grew more and more strong, what did you think was going to happen to Apple after sort of the disasters that occurred after Steve left?
Bill: Well, Apple, they hung in the balance. We continued to do Macintosh software. Excel, which Steve and I introduced together in New York City, that was kind of a fun event, that went on and did very well. But then, you know, Apple just wasn’t differentiating itself well enough from the higher-volume platform.
Walt: Meaning Windows, right?
Bill: DOS and Windows.
Walt: OK. But especially Windows in the ’90s began to take off.
Bill: By 1995, Windows became popular. The big debate wasn’t sort of Mac versus Windows. The big debate was character mode interface versus graphics mode interface. And when the 386 came and we got more memory and the speed was adequate and some development tools came along, that paradigm bet on GUI paid off for everybody who’d gotten in early and said, you know, this is the way that’s going to go.
Walt: But Apple wasn’t able to leverage its products?
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.
Kara: Don’t be mean to him.
Bill: I’m sorry?
Kara: Just saying the word Gil Amelio, you can see his…
Bill: 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.”
以下のTranscriptionは、 All Things Digitalからの引用です。
Part 2 of 7（11分00秒／83分15秒）
Walt: Meanwhile, through all this–I want to get back to the thing we saw in 1997 at Macworld there–but Windows was just going great guns. I mean, Windows 95, to whatever extent earlier versions of Windows had not had all the features, all the GUI stuff that the Mac had, and Windows 95 really was an enormous, enormous leap.
Bill: Yeah. Windows 95 is when graphics interface became mainstream and when the software industry realized, wow, this is the way applications are going to be done. And it was amazing that it was ridiculed sort of in ‘93, ‘94, was not mainstream, and then in ‘95, the debate was over. It was kind of just a commonsense thing. And it was a combination of hardware and software maturity getting to a point that people could see it.
Walt: So I don’t want to go through every detail, the whole history of how you came back, but…
Steve: Thank you.
Walt: But you in that video we all saw, you said you had decided that it was destructive to have this competition with Microsoft. Now, obviously, Apple was in a lot of trouble and I presume that there was some tactical or strategic reason for that, as well as just wanting to be a nice guy, right?
Steve: You know, Apple was in very serious trouble. And what was really clear was that if the game was a zero-sum game where for Apple to win, Microsoft had to lose, then Apple was going to lose. But a lot of people’s heads were still in that place.
Kara: Why was that, from your perspective?
Steve: Well, a lot of people’s heads were in that place at Apple and even in the customer base because, you know, Apple had invented a lot of this stuff and Microsoft was being successful and Apple wasn’t and there was jealousy and this and that. There was just a lot of reasons for it that don’t matter.
But the net result of it was, was there were too many people at Apple and in the Apple ecosystem playing the game of, for Apple to win, Microsoft has to lose. And it was clear that you didn’t have to play that game because Apple wasn’t going to beat Microsoft. Apple didn’t have to beat Microsoft. Apple had to remember who Apple was because they’d forgotten who Apple was.
So to me, it was pretty essential to break that paradigm. And it was also important that, you know, Microsoft was the biggest software developer outside of Apple developing for the Mac. So it was just crazy what was happening at that time. And Apple was very weak and so I called Bill up and we tried to patch things up.
Bill: And since that time, we’ve had a team that’s fairly dedicated to doing the Mac applications and they’ve always been treated kind of in a unique way so that they can have a pretty special relationship with Apple. And that’s worked out very well. In fact, every couple years or so, there’s been something new that we’ve been able to do on the Mac and it’s been a great business for us.
Steve: And it’s actually–the relationship between the Mac development team at Microsoft and Apple is a great relationship. It’s one of our best developer relationships.
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?
Walt:Because, I mean, you are competitors in certain ways, which is the American way, right?
Kara: We watch the commercials, right?
Walt: And you get annoyed at each other from time to time.
Kara: Although you know what? I have to confess, I like PC guy.
Walt: Yeah, he’s great.
Kara: Yeah, I like him. The young guy, I want to pop him.
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.
Bill: His mother loves him.
Steve: His mother loves him.
Kara: I’m telling you, I like PC guy totally much better.
Steve: Wow.
Kara: I do. I don’t know why. He’s endearing. The other guy’s a jackass.
Steve: PC guy’s what makes it all work, actually.
Walt: All right.
Steve: It’s worth thinking about.
Kara: So how do you look at yourselves?
Walt: I mean, let me just ask you, Bill. Obviously, Microsoft is a much larger company, you’re in many more markets, many more types of products than Apple is. You know, when you were running the company or when Steve Ballmer is running the company, you think obviously about Google, you think about, I don’t know, Linux in the enterprise, you think about Sony in the game area. 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.
Steve: And we love them because they’re all customers.
Walt: I have to tell you, I was actually told by J Allard, I’m serious, that because of the nature of the processor, the development platform they used to develop a lot of the software for the Xbox 360 was Macs. And he claimed that at one point, they had, like, placed the biggest order for whatever the Mac tower was at the time of anybody, and it was Microsoft.
Bill: I don’t know if it was the biggest, but, yeah, we had the same processor essentially that the Mac had. This is one of those great ironies is they were switching away from that processor while the Xbox 360 was adopting it. But for good reasons, actually, in both cases. Because we’re not in a portable application and that was one of the things that that processor road map didn’t have. But yes, it shows pragmatism, but we try and do things that way. So that was the development system for the early people getting their software ready for the introduction of Xbox 360.
Steve: And we never ran an ad on that.
Walt: I see. Admirable restraint. That’s wonderful restraint.
Steve: There were hundreds of them.
Bill: Steve is so known for his restraint.
Kara: How do you look at Microsoft from an Apple perspective? I mean, you compete in computers and…
Walt: I mean, you can say you don’t compete, you know, the era of destructive whatever, whatever you said in 1997, but you think–you’re consciously aware of what they’re doing with Windows, you followed Vista closely, I think.
Steve: You know, what’s really interesting is–and we talked about this earlier today–if you look at the reason that the iPod exists and the Apple’s in that marketplace, it’s because these really great Japanese consumer electronics companies who kind of own the portable music market, invented it and owned it, couldn’t do the appropriate software, couldn’t conceive of and implement the appropriate software. Because an iPod’s really just software. It’s software in the iPod itself, it’s software on the PC or the Mac, and it’s software in the cloud for the store. And it’s in a beautiful box, but it’s software. If you look at what a Mac is, it’s OS X, right? It’s in a beautiful box, but it’s OS X. And if you look at what an iPhone will hopefully be, it’s software.
And so 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: But you may be fundamentally a software company, but you’ve been known, at least to your customers and to most journalists as the company that kind of pays a lot of attention to integrating software and hardware. Microsoft has made some recent moves to be a little more like that, obviously not in your core biggest businesses, but with Xbox and Zune and, you know, the Surface computing device we saw today is another example. These aren’t markets that hold up in size to Windows or Office, but they’re some of your more recent initiatives. Are the companies’ approaches to this merging a little or …
Steve: Alan Kay had a great quote back in the ’70s, I think. He said, “People that love software want to build their own hardware.”
Walt: Well, Bill loves software.
Steve: Oh, I can resist that.
Bill: The question is, are there markets where the innovation and variety you get is a net positive? The negative is that in the early stage, you really want to do the two together so you want to do prototyping and things like that, you know, really as one thing.
And then take the phone market. We think we’re on 140 different kinds of hardware. We think it’s beneficial to us that even if we did a few ourselves, it wouldn’t give us what we have through those partnerships.
Likewise, if you take the robotics market, very undeveloped. We have over 140 tiny-volume robots using Microsoft software. And the creativity, building toys, security things, medical things, we love the innovation and the ecosystem that’s going to grow up–who knows when, but we’re patient–around that and we’ll have a great asset with this robotic software platform.
So there are things like PC, phone, and robot where the Microsoft choice is to go for the variety.
Apple, it’s great. For them, they do what works super well for them. And there’s a few markets like Xbox 360, Zune, and this year we have two new ones, the Surface thing and this RoundTable, which is the meeting-room thing, where we’ll actually, through subcontractors, but the P&L on the risk and all that for the hardware, the design is completely a Microsoft thing.
Walt: The RoundTable: Is that something you’ve announced or were you just announcing it here?
Bill: We’ve shown prototypes of it. That’s the thing where it’s got the 360-degree …
Walt: Oh, right. It’s like Cisco has something in that market and HP too, right?
Bill: Oh, HP has a very high-end thing that’s a tiny bit like it, but anyway.
Walt: All right.
Bill: Yeah. Windows 95 is when graphics interface became mainstream and when the software industry realized, wow, this is the way applications are going to be done. And it was amazing that it was ridiculed sort of in ‘93, ‘94, was not mainstream, and then in ‘95, the debate was over. It was kind of just a commonsense thing. And it was a combination of hardware and software maturity getting to a point that people could see it.
Walt: So I don’t want to go through every detail, the whole history of how you came back, but…
Steve: Thank you.
Walt: But you in that video we all saw, you said you had decided that it was destructive to have this competition with Microsoft. Now, obviously, Apple was in a lot of trouble and I presume that there was some tactical or strategic reason for that, as well as just wanting to be a nice guy, right?
Steve: You know, Apple was in very serious trouble. And what was really clear was that if the game was a zero-sum game where for Apple to win, Microsoft had to lose, then Apple was going to lose. But a lot of people’s heads were still in that place.
Kara: Why was that, from your perspective?
Steve: Well, a lot of people’s heads were in that place at Apple and even in the customer base because, you know, Apple had invented a lot of this stuff and Microsoft was being successful and Apple wasn’t and there was jealousy and this and that. There was just a lot of reasons for it that don’t matter.
But the net result of it was, was there were too many people at Apple and in the Apple ecosystem playing the game of, for Apple to win, Microsoft has to lose. And it was clear that you didn’t have to play that game because Apple wasn’t going to beat Microsoft. Apple didn’t have to beat Microsoft. Apple had to remember who Apple was because they’d forgotten who Apple was.
So to me, it was pretty essential to break that paradigm. And it was also important that, you know, Microsoft was the biggest software developer outside of Apple developing for the Mac. So it was just crazy what was happening at that time. And Apple was very weak and so I called Bill up and we tried to patch things up.
Bill: And since that time, we’ve had a team that’s fairly dedicated to doing the Mac applications and they’ve always been treated kind of in a unique way so that they can have a pretty special relationship with Apple. And that’s worked out very well. In fact, every couple years or so, there’s been something new that we’ve been able to do on the Mac and it’s been a great business for us.
Steve: And it’s actually–the relationship between the Mac development team at Microsoft and Apple is a great relationship. It’s one of our best developer relationships.
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?
Walt:Because, I mean, you are competitors in certain ways, which is the American way, right?
Kara: We watch the commercials, right?
Walt: And you get annoyed at each other from time to time.
Kara: Although you know what? I have to confess, I like PC guy.
Walt: Yeah, he’s great.
Kara: Yeah, I like him. The young guy, I want to pop him.
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.
Bill: His mother loves him.
Steve: His mother loves him.
Kara: I’m telling you, I like PC guy totally much better.
Steve: Wow.
Kara: I do. I don’t know why. He’s endearing. The other guy’s a jackass.
Steve: PC guy’s what makes it all work, actually.
Walt: All right.
Steve: It’s worth thinking about.
Kara: So how do you look at yourselves?
Walt: I mean, let me just ask you, Bill. Obviously, Microsoft is a much larger company, you’re in many more markets, many more types of products than Apple is. You know, when you were running the company or when Steve Ballmer is running the company, you think obviously about Google, you think about, I don’t know, Linux in the enterprise, you think about Sony in the game area. 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.
Steve: And we love them because they’re all customers.
Walt: I have to tell you, I was actually told by J Allard, I’m serious, that because of the nature of the processor, the development platform they used to develop a lot of the software for the Xbox 360 was Macs. And he claimed that at one point, they had, like, placed the biggest order for whatever the Mac tower was at the time of anybody, and it was Microsoft.
Bill: I don’t know if it was the biggest, but, yeah, we had the same processor essentially that the Mac had. This is one of those great ironies is they were switching away from that processor while the Xbox 360 was adopting it. But for good reasons, actually, in both cases. Because we’re not in a portable application and that was one of the things that that processor road map didn’t have. But yes, it shows pragmatism, but we try and do things that way. So that was the development system for the early people getting their software ready for the introduction of Xbox 360.
Steve: And we never ran an ad on that.
Walt: I see. Admirable restraint. That’s wonderful restraint.
Steve: There were hundreds of them.
Bill: Steve is so known for his restraint.
Kara: How do you look at Microsoft from an Apple perspective? I mean, you compete in computers and…
Walt: I mean, you can say you don’t compete, you know, the era of destructive whatever, whatever you said in 1997, but you think–you’re consciously aware of what they’re doing with Windows, you followed Vista closely, I think.
Steve: You know, what’s really interesting is–and we talked about this earlier today–if you look at the reason that the iPod exists and the Apple’s in that marketplace, it’s because these really great Japanese consumer electronics companies who kind of own the portable music market, invented it and owned it, couldn’t do the appropriate software, couldn’t conceive of and implement the appropriate software. Because an iPod’s really just software. It’s software in the iPod itself, it’s software on the PC or the Mac, and it’s software in the cloud for the store. And it’s in a beautiful box, but it’s software. If you look at what a Mac is, it’s OS X, right? It’s in a beautiful box, but it’s OS X. And if you look at what an iPhone will hopefully be, it’s software.
And so 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: But you may be fundamentally a software company, but you’ve been known, at least to your customers and to most journalists as the company that kind of pays a lot of attention to integrating software and hardware. Microsoft has made some recent moves to be a little more like that, obviously not in your core biggest businesses, but with Xbox and Zune and, you know, the Surface computing device we saw today is another example. These aren’t markets that hold up in size to Windows or Office, but they’re some of your more recent initiatives. Are the companies’ approaches to this merging a little or …
Steve: Alan Kay had a great quote back in the ’70s, I think. He said, “People that love software want to build their own hardware.”
Walt: Well, Bill loves software.
Steve: Oh, I can resist that.
Bill: The question is, are there markets where the innovation and variety you get is a net positive? The negative is that in the early stage, you really want to do the two together so you want to do prototyping and things like that, you know, really as one thing.
And then take the phone market. We think we’re on 140 different kinds of hardware. We think it’s beneficial to us that even if we did a few ourselves, it wouldn’t give us what we have through those partnerships.
Likewise, if you take the robotics market, very undeveloped. We have over 140 tiny-volume robots using Microsoft software. And the creativity, building toys, security things, medical things, we love the innovation and the ecosystem that’s going to grow up–who knows when, but we’re patient–around that and we’ll have a great asset with this robotic software platform.
So there are things like PC, phone, and robot where the Microsoft choice is to go for the variety.
Apple, it’s great. For them, they do what works super well for them. And there’s a few markets like Xbox 360, Zune, and this year we have two new ones, the Surface thing and this RoundTable, which is the meeting-room thing, where we’ll actually, through subcontractors, but the P&L on the risk and all that for the hardware, the design is completely a Microsoft thing.
Walt: The RoundTable: Is that something you’ve announced or were you just announcing it here?
Bill: We’ve shown prototypes of it. That’s the thing where it’s got the 360-degree …
Walt: Oh, right. It’s like Cisco has something in that market and HP too, right?
Bill: Oh, HP has a very high-end thing that’s a tiny bit like it, but anyway.
Walt: All right.
以下のTranscriptionは、 All Things Digitalからの引用です。
Part 3 of 7（15分10秒／83分15秒）
Walt: All right. Do you ever regret–was there something you might have wanted to do differently? And maybe you feel like this happened after you left Apple, something you might have done differently where you could have had a much bigger market share for the Mac?
Steve: Well, before I answer that, let me make a comment on Bill’s answer there, which is, it’s very interesting, in the consumer market and the enterprise market, they’re very different spaces. And in the consumer market, at least, I think one can make a pretty strong case that outside of Windows on PCs, it’s hard to see other examples of the software and hardware being decoupled working super well yet. It might in the phone space over time. It might. But it’s not clear. It’s not clear. You can see a lot more examples of the hardware/software coupling working well.
So I think this is one of the reasons we all, you know, come to work every day is because nobody knows the answers to some of these questions. And we’ll find out over the coming years and maybe both will work fine and maybe they won’t.
Walt: Yeah.
Steve: Yeah. It’s good to try both approaches. In some product categories–take music players–the solo design worked better. In the PC market, the variety of designs at this stage has a higher share.
Walt: It has a higher share? It has a lot higher share.
Steve: It’s not that much different than music players the other way around.
Walt: Is there some moment you feel like I should have done this or Apple should have done that, and we could have had …
Kara: You stuck to this idea of the hardware/software integration and it’s working very well right now.
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: We’re going to talk a little bit tomorrow, but let’s talk about today, the landscape of how you see the different players in the market and how you look at what’s developing now. What has surprised both of you since having been around for so long, and still very active and everything, and your companies are still critically key companies? There are many, many companies that are becoming quite powerful. 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.
Steve: I think so, too. There’s a lot of things that are risky right now, which is always a good sign, you know, and you can see through them, you can see to the other side and go, yes, this could be huge, but there’s a period of risk that, you know, nobody’s ever done it before.
Kara: Do you have an example?
Steve: I do, but I can’t say.
Kara: OK.
Steve: But I can say, when you feel like that, that’s a great thing.
Kara: Right.
Steve: That’s what keeps you coming to work in the morning and it tells you there’s something exciting around the next corner.
Walt: OK. So the two of you have certainly–you’re involved every day with the Internet, you have Internet products, you have a whole slew of stuff on the Internet, you have iTunes and “.Mac” and all of that, but on another level, you’re the guys who represent the rich client, the personal computer, the, you know, big operating system and all that. And there is a certain school of thought–and I’m sure it’s shared by some people in the room–that this is all migrating to the cloud and you’ll need a fairly light piece of hardware that won’t have to have all that investment, all the kind of stuff you guys have done throughout your careers. So as much as people might think of you as rivals, one way to think of you is the two guys …
Steve: We’re both dinosaurs?
Walt: Huh?
Steve: That we’re both dinosaurs?
Walt: Dinosaurs? Yeah, whatever. I can talk about that. No, seriously …
Kara: You’re betting on a system that is changing.
Walt: 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.
Kara: Larry Ellison.
Bill: 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.
Steve: I’ll give you a concrete example. I love Google Maps, use it on my computer, you know, in a browser. But when we were doing the iPhone, we thought, wouldn’t it be great to have maps on the iPhone? And so we called up Google and they’d done a few client apps in Java on some phones and they had an API that we worked with them a little on. And we ended up writing a client app for those APIs. They would provide the back-end service. And the app we were able to write, since we’re pretty reasonable at writing apps, blows away any Google Maps client. Just blows it away. Same set of data coming off the server, but the experience you have using it is unbelievable. It’s way better than the computer. And just in a completely different league than what they’d put on phones before.
And, you know, that client is the result of a lot of technology on the client, that client application. So when we show it to them, they’re just blown away by how good it is. And you can’t do that stuff in a browser.
So people are figuring out how to do more in a browser, how to get a persistent state of things when you’re disconnected from a browser, how do you actually run apps locally using, you know, apps written in those technologies so they can be pretty transparent, whether you’re connected or not.
But it’s happening fairly slowly and there’s still a lot you can do with a rich client environment. At the same time, the hardware is progressing to where you can run a rich client environment on lower and lower cost devices, on lower and lower power devices. And so there’s some pretty cool things you can do with clients.
Walt: OK. So you’re saying rich clients still matter, but–maybe I misunderstood you, but your example was about a rich client that is not a personal computer as we have thought of a personal computer.
Steve: What I’m saying is, I think the marriage of some really great client apps with some really great cloud services is incredibly powerful and right now, can be way more powerful than just having a browser on the client.
Kara: You’re talking about a software company being a software and services company rather than a …
Steve: I’m saying the marriage of these services plus a more sophisticated client is a very powerful marriage.
Walt: Bill?
Bill: Yeah. Architecturally, the question is, do you run just in the cloud and all you have downloaded locally is the browser? And that is the same question for the phone as it is for the full-screen device. There will always be different screen sizes because these are, you know, the 5-inch screen does not really compete with the 20-inch screen, does not compete with the big living room screen. Those are things that there will be some type of computing behind all of those things, all connected to the Internet, but the idea that locally you have the responsiveness of immediate interaction without the latency or bandwidth limitations that you get if you try and do it all behind, that’s what leads to the right balance.
Kara: What does that device look like in five years? What would be your principal device? Is there one or…
Walt: I could be wrong, I think you carry a tablet with you, right?
Bill: Right.
Walt: Which has not necessarily stormed the world yet.
Bill: Yeah. This is like Windows 1992, I think. That is, I’m unrepentant on my belief.
Walt: OK. But to go back to Kara’s point, what would you each imagine that you would carry as your principal, let’s say, thing to do the Web and…
Kara: I mean, Jeff Hawkins showed a very lightweight device.
Walt: Yeah. I don’t know if you guys saw, but Jeff Hawkins showed a Linux-based, very small–I think he called it a companion to a smart phone today.
Kara: A phone companion, which sounded a little naughty.
Walt: It doesn’t matter, you weren’t there, but what would you think you each would be–I assume you carry a tablet PC. I don’t know what brand it is. Maybe you change them up, I don’t know. You obviously carry a MacBook Pro, I would guess, or a MacBook.
Steve: Yeah. Well, and an iPhone.
Walt: And an iPhone?
Kara: You have one?
Steve: I do.
Kara: Right here?
Steve: Yes.
Walt: Well, he has one. He took it out before. Really.
Kara: Sorry.
Walt: He flashed his iPhone earlier today.
Kara: Anyway, go ahead. So what is your device? What’s the device that we should be carrying?
Walt: What’s your device in five years that you rely on the most?
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.
Kara: And then at home, you’d have a setup that they all plug into?
Bill: Well, home, you’ll have your living room, which is your 10-foot experience, and that’s connected up to the Internet and there you’ll have gaming and entertainment and there’s a lot of experimentation in terms of what content looks like in that world. And then in your den, you’ll have something a lot like you have at your desk at work. You know, the view is that every horizontal and vertical surface will have a projector so you can put information, you know, your desk can be a surface that you can sit and manipulate things.
Walt: Can I please have a room in my house that doesn’t have a screen and a projector in it?
Bill: You bet.
Walt: Thanks.
Bill: The bathroom.
Walt: Well…
Kara: That’s the perfect place for it, actually.
Walt: So what’s your five-year outlook at the devices you’ll carry?
Steve: You know, it’s interesting. The PC has proved to be very resilient because, as Bill said earlier, I mean, the death of the PC has been predicted every few years.
Walt: And here when you’re saying PC, you mean personal computer in general, not just Windows PCs?
Steve: I mean, personal computer in general.
Walt: Yeah, OK.
Steve: And, you know, there was the age of productivity, if you will, you know, the spreadsheets and word processors and that kind of got the whole industry moving. And it kind of plateaued for a while and was getting a little stale and then the Internet came along and everybody needed more powerful computers to get on the Internet, browsers came along, and it was this whole Internet age that came along, access to the Internet. And then some number of years ago, you could start to see that the PC that was taken for granted, things had kind of plateaued a little bit, innovation-wise, at least. And then I think this whole notion of the PC–we called it the digital hub, but you can call it anything you want, sort of the multimedia center of the house, started to take off with digital cameras and digital camcorders and sharing things over the Internet and kind of needing a repository for all that stuff and it was reborn again as sort of the hub of your digital life.
And you can sort of see that there’s something starting again. It’s not clear exactly what it is, but 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…
Walt: You can get into trouble for using that term. I want you to know that.
Steve: What?
Walt: I’m kidding. Post-PC devices.
Steve: Why?
Walt: People write letters to the editor, they complain about it. Anyway, go ahead.
Steve: Okay. Well, anyway, 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.
Kara: Give me an example of what that would be.
Steve: Well, an iPod as a post-PC…
Kara: Well, yeah.
Steve: A phone as a post-PC device.
Steve: Well, before I answer that, let me make a comment on Bill’s answer there, which is, it’s very interesting, in the consumer market and the enterprise market, they’re very different spaces. And in the consumer market, at least, I think one can make a pretty strong case that outside of Windows on PCs, it’s hard to see other examples of the software and hardware being decoupled working super well yet. It might in the phone space over time. It might. But it’s not clear. It’s not clear. You can see a lot more examples of the hardware/software coupling working well.
So I think this is one of the reasons we all, you know, come to work every day is because nobody knows the answers to some of these questions. And we’ll find out over the coming years and maybe both will work fine and maybe they won’t.
Walt: Yeah.
Steve: Yeah. It’s good to try both approaches. In some product categories–take music players–the solo design worked better. In the PC market, the variety of designs at this stage has a higher share.
Walt: It has a higher share? It has a lot higher share.
Steve: It’s not that much different than music players the other way around.
Walt: Is there some moment you feel like I should have done this or Apple should have done that, and we could have had …
Kara: You stuck to this idea of the hardware/software integration and it’s working very well right now.
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: We’re going to talk a little bit tomorrow, but let’s talk about today, the landscape of how you see the different players in the market and how you look at what’s developing now. What has surprised both of you since having been around for so long, and still very active and everything, and your companies are still critically key companies? There are many, many companies that are becoming quite powerful. 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.
Steve: I think so, too. There’s a lot of things that are risky right now, which is always a good sign, you know, and you can see through them, you can see to the other side and go, yes, this could be huge, but there’s a period of risk that, you know, nobody’s ever done it before.
Kara: Do you have an example?
Steve: I do, but I can’t say.
Kara: OK.
Steve: But I can say, when you feel like that, that’s a great thing.
Kara: Right.
Steve: That’s what keeps you coming to work in the morning and it tells you there’s something exciting around the next corner.
Walt: OK. So the two of you have certainly–you’re involved every day with the Internet, you have Internet products, you have a whole slew of stuff on the Internet, you have iTunes and “.Mac” and all of that, but on another level, you’re the guys who represent the rich client, the personal computer, the, you know, big operating system and all that. And there is a certain school of thought–and I’m sure it’s shared by some people in the room–that this is all migrating to the cloud and you’ll need a fairly light piece of hardware that won’t have to have all that investment, all the kind of stuff you guys have done throughout your careers. So as much as people might think of you as rivals, one way to think of you is the two guys …
Steve: We’re both dinosaurs?
Walt: Huh?
Steve: That we’re both dinosaurs?
Walt: Dinosaurs? Yeah, whatever. I can talk about that. No, seriously …
Kara: You’re betting on a system that is changing.
Walt: 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.
Kara: Larry Ellison.
Bill: 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.
Steve: I’ll give you a concrete example. I love Google Maps, use it on my computer, you know, in a browser. But when we were doing the iPhone, we thought, wouldn’t it be great to have maps on the iPhone? And so we called up Google and they’d done a few client apps in Java on some phones and they had an API that we worked with them a little on. And we ended up writing a client app for those APIs. They would provide the back-end service. And the app we were able to write, since we’re pretty reasonable at writing apps, blows away any Google Maps client. Just blows it away. Same set of data coming off the server, but the experience you have using it is unbelievable. It’s way better than the computer. And just in a completely different league than what they’d put on phones before.
And, you know, that client is the result of a lot of technology on the client, that client application. So when we show it to them, they’re just blown away by how good it is. And you can’t do that stuff in a browser.
So people are figuring out how to do more in a browser, how to get a persistent state of things when you’re disconnected from a browser, how do you actually run apps locally using, you know, apps written in those technologies so they can be pretty transparent, whether you’re connected or not.
But it’s happening fairly slowly and there’s still a lot you can do with a rich client environment. At the same time, the hardware is progressing to where you can run a rich client environment on lower and lower cost devices, on lower and lower power devices. And so there’s some pretty cool things you can do with clients.
Walt: OK. So you’re saying rich clients still matter, but–maybe I misunderstood you, but your example was about a rich client that is not a personal computer as we have thought of a personal computer.
Steve: What I’m saying is, I think the marriage of some really great client apps with some really great cloud services is incredibly powerful and right now, can be way more powerful than just having a browser on the client.
Kara: You’re talking about a software company being a software and services company rather than a …
Steve: I’m saying the marriage of these services plus a more sophisticated client is a very powerful marriage.
Walt: Bill?
Bill: Yeah. Architecturally, the question is, do you run just in the cloud and all you have downloaded locally is the browser? And that is the same question for the phone as it is for the full-screen device. There will always be different screen sizes because these are, you know, the 5-inch screen does not really compete with the 20-inch screen, does not compete with the big living room screen. Those are things that there will be some type of computing behind all of those things, all connected to the Internet, but the idea that locally you have the responsiveness of immediate interaction without the latency or bandwidth limitations that you get if you try and do it all behind, that’s what leads to the right balance.
Kara: What does that device look like in five years? What would be your principal device? Is there one or…
Walt: I could be wrong, I think you carry a tablet with you, right?
Bill: Right.
Walt: Which has not necessarily stormed the world yet.
Bill: Yeah. This is like Windows 1992, I think. That is, I’m unrepentant on my belief.
Walt: OK. But to go back to Kara’s point, what would you each imagine that you would carry as your principal, let’s say, thing to do the Web and…
Kara: I mean, Jeff Hawkins showed a very lightweight device.
Walt: Yeah. I don’t know if you guys saw, but Jeff Hawkins showed a Linux-based, very small–I think he called it a companion to a smart phone today.
Kara: A phone companion, which sounded a little naughty.
Walt: It doesn’t matter, you weren’t there, but what would you think you each would be–I assume you carry a tablet PC. I don’t know what brand it is. Maybe you change them up, I don’t know. You obviously carry a MacBook Pro, I would guess, or a MacBook.
Steve: Yeah. Well, and an iPhone.
Walt: And an iPhone?
Kara: You have one?
Steve: I do.
Kara: Right here?
Steve: Yes.
Walt: Well, he has one. He took it out before. Really.
Kara: Sorry.
Walt: He flashed his iPhone earlier today.
Kara: Anyway, go ahead. So what is your device? What’s the device that we should be carrying?
Walt: What’s your device in five years that you rely on the most?
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.
Kara: And then at home, you’d have a setup that they all plug into?
Bill: Well, home, you’ll have your living room, which is your 10-foot experience, and that’s connected up to the Internet and there you’ll have gaming and entertainment and there’s a lot of experimentation in terms of what content looks like in that world. And then in your den, you’ll have something a lot like you have at your desk at work. You know, the view is that every horizontal and vertical surface will have a projector so you can put information, you know, your desk can be a surface that you can sit and manipulate things.
Walt: Can I please have a room in my house that doesn’t have a screen and a projector in it?
Bill: You bet.
Walt: Thanks.
Bill: The bathroom.
Walt: Well…
Kara: That’s the perfect place for it, actually.
Walt: So what’s your five-year outlook at the devices you’ll carry?
Steve: You know, it’s interesting. The PC has proved to be very resilient because, as Bill said earlier, I mean, the death of the PC has been predicted every few years.
Walt: And here when you’re saying PC, you mean personal computer in general, not just Windows PCs?
Steve: I mean, personal computer in general.
Walt: Yeah, OK.
Steve: And, you know, there was the age of productivity, if you will, you know, the spreadsheets and word processors and that kind of got the whole industry moving. And it kind of plateaued for a while and was getting a little stale and then the Internet came along and everybody needed more powerful computers to get on the Internet, browsers came along, and it was this whole Internet age that came along, access to the Internet. And then some number of years ago, you could start to see that the PC that was taken for granted, things had kind of plateaued a little bit, innovation-wise, at least. And then I think this whole notion of the PC–we called it the digital hub, but you can call it anything you want, sort of the multimedia center of the house, started to take off with digital cameras and digital camcorders and sharing things over the Internet and kind of needing a repository for all that stuff and it was reborn again as sort of the hub of your digital life.
And you can sort of see that there’s something starting again. It’s not clear exactly what it is, but 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…
Walt: You can get into trouble for using that term. I want you to know that.
Steve: What?
Walt: I’m kidding. Post-PC devices.
Steve: Why?
Walt: People write letters to the editor, they complain about it. Anyway, go ahead.
Steve: Okay. Well, anyway, 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.
Kara: Give me an example of what that would be.
Steve: Well, an iPod as a post-PC…
Kara: Well, yeah.
Steve: A phone as a post-PC device.
以下のTranscriptionは、 All Things Digitalからの引用です。
Part 4 of 7（8分15秒／83分15秒）
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? The pocket device. What would you say the core functions, like, five years out, what are the core functions of that pocket device?
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.
Walt: You know, in the very first D conference, we had these guys from E Ink here.
Kara: Yeah.
Walt: I’m sure you’ve both talked to them. They were talking about that. That was five years ago. It’s always five years out. So do you…
Bill: Yeah. There’s some advances in projection technology that are more likely to be delivered, I think, than the flexible material guys, but it’s not even on the horizon, no matter which of the two approaches are pursued.
Kara: And any kind of quality.
Bill: We have some Microsoft research people who work on [that] and there’s a lot of investment, but it’s at least in the five-year time frame.
Walt: You, five years from now, what’s going to be on that pocket device?
Steve: I don’t know. And the reason I don’t know is because I wouldn’t have thought that there would have been maps on it five years ago, but something comes along, gets really popular, people love it, get used to it, you want it on there.
So people are inventing things constantly and I think the art of it is balancing what’s on there and what’s not on there, is the editing function. And clearly, most things you carry with you are communications devices. You want to do some entertainment with them as well, but they’re primarily communications devices and that’s what they’re going to be.
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…
Kara: Again.
Steve: Again, yeah.
Kara: It’s very beautiful, I think.
Steve: There used to be a saying, isn’t it at Apple …
Walt: Going to blow us away, though, when you can talk about it.
Kara: Blow us away, wow, it’s great.
Steve: There used to be a saying at Apple, isn’t it funny, a ship that leaks from the top. So the…
Kara: That’s kind of like a sweater without sleeves is a vest. I don’t get that.
Steve: That was what they used to say about me when I was in my 20s.
Walt: OK.
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 and…
Kara: Surrounding entertainment or…
Steve: 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: You obviously have a very large Internet business with iTunes and you sell a lot of stuff in the Apple Store, but, you know, you were early with this idea that when you bought a computer from Apple, you had this kind of Internet service back end, and it was called “.Mac”. And I think a lot of people feel you haven’t developed it very much.
Steve: I couldn’t agree with you more, and we’ll make up for lost time in the near future.
Walt: And in your case, you obviously have huge things like Hotmail, for instance, which is, I guess–and Windows Messenger, which are both widely used and I don’t even know how many users.
Kara: A gazillion.
Walt: Huge numbers. But on the other hand, as Steve Ballmer was talking about today, you know, other people have much stronger positions in things like search and other parts of the Internet. So are you guys, because you are the personal computer companies that are, you know, best associated with that, not as nimble as some of these competitors at this point? Do you worry about not being as nimble, both of you? I mean, obviously, Microsoft’s a much bigger company, but you’re a big company, Steve, Apple is. Do you worry about not being as nimble as somebody sitting out there with, you know, the kind of ten employees that you guys had in 1977?
Bill: Well, there’s always going to be great new things that come out of other companies, and you want to be in a position to benefit from those, to have those inventions drive demand for Windows and personal computers and then some of those upstream things you want to participate in. I hope Steve mentioned we are going to participate in search, hopefully to a higher degree in the future than at present.
Walt: He did mention that, yeah.
Bill: So we’ll see what we can do there. A lot of the applications are more specialized so they’re not areas we’ll go into. You know, take what can happen with education now that video is mainstream and all these tools that let you do rich interactions are very mainstream. I’m very excited about that. You know, the idea of empowerment goes back to the very beginning of our industry and some of those dreams that this would be used by students or that teachers could get better and learn from each other in these new ways, we’re just at the threshold where some of those things can happen. And, yes, our companies can contribute to that, but as a whole, it’s the ecosystem jumping on and building on each other where you can finally say finally technology did something for education.
Steve: See, I look at this a little bit differently, which is, we’re not trying to do a lot of this stuff because it’s not what we do. We don’t think one company can do everything. So you’ve got to partner with people that are really good at stuff. Like, we’re not, I mean, maybe Microsoft is great at search. We’re not. We’re not trying to be great at search so we partner with people that are great at search. And we don’t know how to do maps on the back end. We know how to do the best maps client in the world, but we don’t know how to do the back end so we partner with people that know how to do the back end. And what we want to do is be that consumer’s device and that consumer’s experience wrapped around all this information and things we can deliver to them in a wonderful user interface, in a coherent product.
And so in some cases, you know, we have to do more work than others. You know, in the case of iTunes, there wasn’t a music delivery service that was any good and we had to do one, so we’ll do one. But in other cases, there’s companies doing a way better job because we’re not as good at this stuff as other people are and we’d love to partner with them and so, you know, we selectively do that. And I think it’s really hard for one company to do everything. Life’s complex.
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? The pocket device. What would you say the core functions, like, five years out, what are the core functions of that pocket device?
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.
Walt: You know, in the very first D conference, we had these guys from E Ink here.
Kara: Yeah.
Walt: I’m sure you’ve both talked to them. They were talking about that. That was five years ago. It’s always five years out. So do you…
Bill: Yeah. There’s some advances in projection technology that are more likely to be delivered, I think, than the flexible material guys, but it’s not even on the horizon, no matter which of the two approaches are pursued.
Kara: And any kind of quality.
Bill: We have some Microsoft research people who work on [that] and there’s a lot of investment, but it’s at least in the five-year time frame.
Walt: You, five years from now, what’s going to be on that pocket device?
Steve: I don’t know. And the reason I don’t know is because I wouldn’t have thought that there would have been maps on it five years ago, but something comes along, gets really popular, people love it, get used to it, you want it on there.
So people are inventing things constantly and I think the art of it is balancing what’s on there and what’s not on there, is the editing function. And clearly, most things you carry with you are communications devices. You want to do some entertainment with them as well, but they’re primarily communications devices and that’s what they’re going to be.
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…
Kara: Again.
Steve: Again, yeah.
Kara: It’s very beautiful, I think.
Steve: There used to be a saying, isn’t it at Apple …
Walt: Going to blow us away, though, when you can talk about it.
Kara: Blow us away, wow, it’s great.
Steve: There used to be a saying at Apple, isn’t it funny, a ship that leaks from the top. So the…
Kara: That’s kind of like a sweater without sleeves is a vest. I don’t get that.
Steve: That was what they used to say about me when I was in my 20s.
Walt: OK.
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 and…
Kara: Surrounding entertainment or…
Steve: 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: You obviously have a very large Internet business with iTunes and you sell a lot of stuff in the Apple Store, but, you know, you were early with this idea that when you bought a computer from Apple, you had this kind of Internet service back end, and it was called “.Mac”. And I think a lot of people feel you haven’t developed it very much.
Steve: I couldn’t agree with you more, and we’ll make up for lost time in the near future.
Walt: And in your case, you obviously have huge things like Hotmail, for instance, which is, I guess–and Windows Messenger, which are both widely used and I don’t even know how many users.
Kara: A gazillion.
Walt: Huge numbers. But on the other hand, as Steve Ballmer was talking about today, you know, other people have much stronger positions in things like search and other parts of the Internet. So are you guys, because you are the personal computer companies that are, you know, best associated with that, not as nimble as some of these competitors at this point? Do you worry about not being as nimble, both of you? I mean, obviously, Microsoft’s a much bigger company, but you’re a big company, Steve, Apple is. Do you worry about not being as nimble as somebody sitting out there with, you know, the kind of ten employees that you guys had in 1977?
Bill: Well, there’s always going to be great new things that come out of other companies, and you want to be in a position to benefit from those, to have those inventions drive demand for Windows and personal computers and then some of those upstream things you want to participate in. I hope Steve mentioned we are going to participate in search, hopefully to a higher degree in the future than at present.
Walt: He did mention that, yeah.
Bill: So we’ll see what we can do there. A lot of the applications are more specialized so they’re not areas we’ll go into. You know, take what can happen with education now that video is mainstream and all these tools that let you do rich interactions are very mainstream. I’m very excited about that. You know, the idea of empowerment goes back to the very beginning of our industry and some of those dreams that this would be used by students or that teachers could get better and learn from each other in these new ways, we’re just at the threshold where some of those things can happen. And, yes, our companies can contribute to that, but as a whole, it’s the ecosystem jumping on and building on each other where you can finally say finally technology did something for education.
Steve: See, I look at this a little bit differently, which is, we’re not trying to do a lot of this stuff because it’s not what we do. We don’t think one company can do everything. So you’ve got to partner with people that are really good at stuff. Like, we’re not, I mean, maybe Microsoft is great at search. We’re not. We’re not trying to be great at search so we partner with people that are great at search. And we don’t know how to do maps on the back end. We know how to do the best maps client in the world, but we don’t know how to do the back end so we partner with people that know how to do the back end. And what we want to do is be that consumer’s device and that consumer’s experience wrapped around all this information and things we can deliver to them in a wonderful user interface, in a coherent product.
And so in some cases, you know, we have to do more work than others. You know, in the case of iTunes, there wasn’t a music delivery service that was any good and we had to do one, so we’ll do one. But in other cases, there’s companies doing a way better job because we’re not as good at this stuff as other people are and we’d love to partner with them and so, you know, we selectively do that. And I think it’s really hard for one company to do everything. Life’s complex.
以下のTranscriptionは、 All Things Digitalからの引用です。
Part 5 of 7（10分56秒／83分15秒）
Kara: Let’s talk about entertainment. Entertainment’s important to both your companies. For yours with music right now and as you get into Apple TV. Microsoft has been within the Hollywood era. Where do you see that going in the era of YouTube? We’ve had a couple of network people here talking about changes that are happening in Hollywood and everything else. What is happening now to entertainment delivery and where do you all play? Because you’ll be the delivery mechanism in one way or the other for most people.
Bill: Well, the big milestone is where the delivery platform is the Internet and so you bring the richness and the interactivity. I think you can get a little bit of a glimpse of the future of TV more from looking at community-type things like Xbox Live, where people are talking to each other, finding friends, you know, watching things together, talking about those things.
As you map that onto genres like educational shows or sports shows or watching the Olympics, the elections, that ability to navigate becomes very, very powerful. And we’re not in entertainment. Yes, we do Halo, which is this big video game, but by and large, we’re a platform and so it’s the tough software things, whether it’s the speech or the ink or the deep graphics, that’s where things that take 10 years to get done, the IPTV stuff, the foundation there, you know, took ten years to get it done. Now it’s finally coming to fruition and we have people like AT&T betting their company on putting that together.
So we’re just at the start of having a scale-entertainment delivery vehicle, both through PCs, unfortunately not connected up to the TV set in most cases, but that’s a point of innovation, and now things like IPTV and Xbox that are connected up in the living room.
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: Can I ask about the user interface of the personal computer for a minute? Vista has just come out, which is your best version of Windows you’ve done, has some UI improvements in it. You’re about to do yet another version of the Mac OS called Leopard in the fall, which, from what you’ve shown publicly at least so far, has some improvements. But fundamentally, these are still the kind of file icon, folder icon, drop-down menu. I know I’m minimizing. There’s a lot of other things. There’s gadgets and widgets and all kinds of other cool things in there now, but, you know, you can see that it’s still all built on what you started with, with what Xerox did research on.
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? Let’s leave cellphones and things out for a minute, but just the personal computer. Bill?
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.
Walt: And what about this multi-touch stuff? It’s really interesting. Obviously, Steve showed some of it on the iPhone when he introduced the iPhone. Steve Ballmer today showed a bunch of it with the Surface computing device. It happens, although it’s not part of our program, that HP, which is a sponsor of this conference, has a multi-touch sort of display over here out in the foyer. Will this make its way into…
Kara: Sort of the Minority Report, this kind of thing.
Walt: Yeah. Will this make its way into–maybe you call it direct manipulation of objects with your hands and your fingers. Will this make its way into mainstream, let’s say, laptop computers as a new UI or an additional part of the UI or is that just a thing for specialized devices?
Bill: Well, go beyond the laptop. Vision. 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.
Walt: Well, the Wii.
Bill: No, that’s not it. You can’t pick up your tennis racket…
Kara: Oh, your tennis racket.
Walt: Oh, I see what you mean, yeah.
Bill: And swing it.
Kara: Right.
Bill: You can’t sit there with your friends and do those natural things. That’s a 3D positional device. This is video recognition. This is a camera seeing what’s going on. And, you know, in the meetings, like you’re on a video conference, you don’t know who’s speaking, you know, they’re audio only, things like that. The camera will be ubiquitous. Now, of course, we have to design it in a way that people’s expectations about privacy are handled appropriately, but software can do vision and it can do it very, very inexpensively. And that means this stuff becomes pervasive. You don’t just talk about it being in a laptop device. You talk about it being part of the meeting room or the living room or…
Walt: But on the laptop, the way that–and, you know, maybe what we have is great and we don’t need any new big radical change, but when I turn on my laptop, whether it’s my Vista laptop or my Mac laptop, you know, there have been improvements, but it’s a lot like it was 10 years ago. It’s much better, the graphics are better and all that.
Kara: We talked about that radical change to happen for both your companies.
Walt: But, you know, you have the mouse, you have the icons, you move around, you have the–I mean, and you talked about what a big gamble it was in ‘84 to do that and then the follow on with Windows. We still essentially have that approach and I’m just wondering is that going to change.
Bill: Touch, ink, speech, vision, those things come in, but they don’t come in as a radical substitute. I think you’re also underestimating the degree of evolution. Because you’ve lived with it year by year, you know, say we’d sent you away for 10 years and you came back and you said, wow, there’s a search paradigm and that’s more at the center of how you’d find these things. There’s tagging. That’s more at the center of how you’d find these things. You know, the evolution is a very good thing. In fact, even in that evolution, the stuff we did with Office, there’s this balance you strike where, when you make a change–in that case, the ribbon–you’re going to have some users who feel like, oh, jeez, I have to spend a little bit of time to be brought along to that. You know, but there has been good evolution, but these natural interface things are the revolutionary change and they will be very revolutionary. That, together with the 3D that I talked about.
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.
Bill: Well, the big milestone is where the delivery platform is the Internet and so you bring the richness and the interactivity. I think you can get a little bit of a glimpse of the future of TV more from looking at community-type things like Xbox Live, where people are talking to each other, finding friends, you know, watching things together, talking about those things.
As you map that onto genres like educational shows or sports shows or watching the Olympics, the elections, that ability to navigate becomes very, very powerful. And we’re not in entertainment. Yes, we do Halo, which is this big video game, but by and large, we’re a platform and so it’s the tough software things, whether it’s the speech or the ink or the deep graphics, that’s where things that take 10 years to get done, the IPTV stuff, the foundation there, you know, took ten years to get it done. Now it’s finally coming to fruition and we have people like AT&T betting their company on putting that together.
So we’re just at the start of having a scale-entertainment delivery vehicle, both through PCs, unfortunately not connected up to the TV set in most cases, but that’s a point of innovation, and now things like IPTV and Xbox that are connected up in the living room.
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: Can I ask about the user interface of the personal computer for a minute? Vista has just come out, which is your best version of Windows you’ve done, has some UI improvements in it. You’re about to do yet another version of the Mac OS called Leopard in the fall, which, from what you’ve shown publicly at least so far, has some improvements. But fundamentally, these are still the kind of file icon, folder icon, drop-down menu. I know I’m minimizing. There’s a lot of other things. There’s gadgets and widgets and all kinds of other cool things in there now, but, you know, you can see that it’s still all built on what you started with, with what Xerox did research on.
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? Let’s leave cellphones and things out for a minute, but just the personal computer. Bill?
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.
Walt: And what about this multi-touch stuff? It’s really interesting. Obviously, Steve showed some of it on the iPhone when he introduced the iPhone. Steve Ballmer today showed a bunch of it with the Surface computing device. It happens, although it’s not part of our program, that HP, which is a sponsor of this conference, has a multi-touch sort of display over here out in the foyer. Will this make its way into…
Kara: Sort of the Minority Report, this kind of thing.
Walt: Yeah. Will this make its way into–maybe you call it direct manipulation of objects with your hands and your fingers. Will this make its way into mainstream, let’s say, laptop computers as a new UI or an additional part of the UI or is that just a thing for specialized devices?
Bill: Well, go beyond the laptop. Vision. 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.
Walt: Well, the Wii.
Bill: No, that’s not it. You can’t pick up your tennis racket…
Kara: Oh, your tennis racket.
Walt: Oh, I see what you mean, yeah.
Bill: And swing it.
Kara: Right.
Bill: You can’t sit there with your friends and do those natural things. That’s a 3D positional device. This is video recognition. This is a camera seeing what’s going on. And, you know, in the meetings, like you’re on a video conference, you don’t know who’s speaking, you know, they’re audio only, things like that. The camera will be ubiquitous. Now, of course, we have to design it in a way that people’s expectations about privacy are handled appropriately, but software can do vision and it can do it very, very inexpensively. And that means this stuff becomes pervasive. You don’t just talk about it being in a laptop device. You talk about it being part of the meeting room or the living room or…
Walt: But on the laptop, the way that–and, you know, maybe what we have is great and we don’t need any new big radical change, but when I turn on my laptop, whether it’s my Vista laptop or my Mac laptop, you know, there have been improvements, but it’s a lot like it was 10 years ago. It’s much better, the graphics are better and all that.
Kara: We talked about that radical change to happen for both your companies.
Walt: But, you know, you have the mouse, you have the icons, you move around, you have the–I mean, and you talked about what a big gamble it was in ‘84 to do that and then the follow on with Windows. We still essentially have that approach and I’m just wondering is that going to change.
Bill: Touch, ink, speech, vision, those things come in, but they don’t come in as a radical substitute. I think you’re also underestimating the degree of evolution. Because you’ve lived with it year by year, you know, say we’d sent you away for 10 years and you came back and you said, wow, there’s a search paradigm and that’s more at the center of how you’d find these things. There’s tagging. That’s more at the center of how you’d find these things. You know, the evolution is a very good thing. In fact, even in that evolution, the stuff we did with Office, there’s this balance you strike where, when you make a change–in that case, the ribbon–you’re going to have some users who feel like, oh, jeez, I have to spend a little bit of time to be brought along to that. You know, but there has been good evolution, but these natural interface things are the revolutionary change and they will be very revolutionary. That, together with the 3D that I talked about.
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.
以下のTranscriptionは、 All Things Digitalからの引用です。
Part 6 of 7（4分06秒／83分15秒）
Kara: I’m going to ask a more personal question. We have just a minute before we’re going to open up for questions. What’s the greatest–I’m not going to call this a Barbara Walters moment and ask you what tree you’d like to be, but…
Walt: She would love to be Barbara Walters, let me just tell you.
Kara: No, I would not. What’s the greatest misunderstanding…
Steve: Ding.
Kara: Ding, right. Thank you, Steve. About your relationship. I mean, you’re obviously going to go down in history–history books already say it kind of thing. But what’s the greatest misunderstanding in your relationship and about each other? What would you say would be–this idea of cat fight? Which one of the many?
Steve: We’ve kept our marriage secret for over a decade now.
Kara: Canada. That trip to Canada.
[Laughter and applause]
Bill: I don’t think either of us have anything to complain about, in general. And I know that the projects, like the Mac project, was just an incredible thing, a fun thing where we were taking a risk. We did look a lot younger in that video.
Steve: We did.
Kara: You looked 12 in the first one.
Bill: That’s how I try and look.
Steve: He was 12.
Bill: But, no, 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.
Walt: One last question and then we’ll go to the audience.
Kara: Oh, no, he didn’t answer us.
Walt: Sorry, what?
Steve: I haven’t answered.
Walt: Oh, I’m sorry.
Kara: He only talked about his secret gay marriage so…
Walt: Oh, I thought that was your answer.
Steve: No, that wasn’t my answer. 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.
Walt: Happy to oblige. Happy to oblige.
Steve: 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.
Kara: Oh, sweet.
Walt: Oh, you know what? I think we should end it there. Let’s just end it there.
Kara: I have a little tear right here.
Walt: Thank you. Thank you very much.
Kara: Thank you so much.
[Applause]
Walt: She would love to be Barbara Walters, let me just tell you.
Kara: No, I would not. What’s the greatest misunderstanding…
Steve: Ding.
Kara: Ding, right. Thank you, Steve. About your relationship. I mean, you’re obviously going to go down in history–history books already say it kind of thing. But what’s the greatest misunderstanding in your relationship and about each other? What would you say would be–this idea of cat fight? Which one of the many?
Steve: We’ve kept our marriage secret for over a decade now.
Kara: Canada. That trip to Canada.
[Laughter and applause]
Bill: I don’t think either of us have anything to complain about, in general. And I know that the projects, like the Mac project, was just an incredible thing, a fun thing where we were taking a risk. We did look a lot younger in that video.
Steve: We did.
Kara: You looked 12 in the first one.
Bill: That’s how I try and look.
Steve: He was 12.
Bill: But, no, 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.
Walt: One last question and then we’ll go to the audience.
Kara: Oh, no, he didn’t answer us.
Walt: Sorry, what?
Steve: I haven’t answered.
Walt: Oh, I’m sorry.
Kara: He only talked about his secret gay marriage so…
Walt: Oh, I thought that was your answer.
Steve: No, that wasn’t my answer. 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.
Walt: Happy to oblige. Happy to oblige.
Steve: 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.
Kara: Oh, sweet.
Walt: Oh, you know what? I think we should end it there. Let’s just end it there.
Kara: I have a little tear right here.
Walt: Thank you. Thank you very much.
Kara: Thank you so much.
[Applause]
以下のTranscriptionは、 All Things Digitalからの引用です。
Part 7 of 7（18分43秒／83分15秒）
Kara: Wow. Okay. So some audience questions, please.
Walt: Questions. Can we have some lights? Roger.
Roger: Roger McNamee from Elevation Partners. Hey, guys, that was incredible. Thank you very much. We’ve got a big election coming up next year and I’m curious if there are any issues that you see in Silicon Valley that we all ought to be focused on communicating effectively to the next potential president of the United States. That is, any common ground that we share. Because it’s weird, you don’t actually hear any issues that people are talking about right now and I’m curious if you guys have any in mind.
Walt: Bill?
Bill: Well, certainly, education is one that I’d put at the top of the list.
Roger: Are there technological solutions right now that they could do something about or is that just sort of, like…
Bill: No. Technology is going to be helpful and more and more, but the way that teachers are measured and made excellent, the way that the high schools are designed, the expectations they have, it’s not just a pure technology thing. It’s more an institutional practice where the opportunity is. You know, there should be a lot of debate about the different ways of doing that.
Walt: Steve?
Steve: Boy, we’ve got some pretty big problems and I think most of them are much bigger than anything Silicon Valley can contribute right now to solve. So hopefully some of those will get solved. I also think we underestimate how much all of our industry depends on stability. We’ve enjoyed, you know, a long period of stability and we’ve been able to focus on technology and growing our businesses and stuff and I think we take that for granted sometimes.
One of the more interesting areas that we all suffer from, of course, is in the area of energy dependency. And there’s a lot of work going on, I know a lot of investing going on, anyway, I don’t know if the results are there, but a lot of investing going on in alternative energy and maybe Silicon Valley can play a small role in some of that stuff, too.
Kara: Are you guys investing in that area personally or…
Bill: Some.
Kara: Which might be a lot from you.
Bill: A billion here or there.
Walt: Steve, are you investing in that area?
Steve: No.
Kara: Just a Prius?
Steve: Yeah, just appreciating.
Walt: Over there.
Don: Hi. Don Eklund, Sony Pictures. My question is really, at what point is there too much diversity? It was talked about a few times in the discussion, the fact that now microprocessors are very low cost, memory’s low cost, software is ubiquitous, but, my life has been made better by standards, like coding standards, network standards. And it seems like we’re reaching a point where diversity is starting to take hold to a point where we’re not going to be able to have the kinds of convergence devices that I think everyone would really be able to appreciate. And I’m wondering, you know, is this going to be, like, health care or mass transit where you just can never put it back in the bottle again? And I’d like to get your perspective on that, if there’s still an opportunity to have some grand convergence devices that can really simplify people’s lives and enrich their lives.
Walt: Steve?
Steve: Well, I think Bill and I would agree that we can get it down to two. No, I think it’s hard to limit imagination and innovation. I think there’s always going to be a bunch of new, great things. And I think that’s part of what we put up with to get the innovation. We put up with a little bit of aggravation to get the innovation.
Bill: And I think the marketplace is awfully good at allowing diversity when it should and then getting rid of it when it shouldn’t.
Steve: And then letting it come back sometimes.
Bill: Yeah. Yeah. I mean, in terms of standards and things. I mean, the Internet standards have been incredibly powerful, you know, video formats, things like this. And so I don’t see things that are going to really hold back a convergence device. You know, sure, there’s a lot of wireless approaches, but that’s pretty healthy right now. They each have various merits. A few of them will end up overlapping the other ones and kill the other ones out, but I think the industry’s done very well at latching onto standards for the things that there were no longer any innovation in and then focusing on the places where it wasn’t clear which approach was best.
Walt: Jesse?
Jesse: 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.
Walt: Yeah.
Rob: Thanks, Steve and Bill. Rob Killion, here with my business partner. We’ve got a 100-person Internet media business. I’m wondering what would be the single most valuable piece of advice you’d give us to even attempt to create some of the value that you guys have done in both your very impressive companies.
Bill: Well, I think actually–it may be in both cases–correct me if I’m wrong–the excitement wasn’t really seeing the economic value. You know, even when we wrote down at Microsoft in 1975, “a computer on every desk and in every home,” we didn’t realize, oh, we’ll have to be a big company. Every time, I thought, “Oh, God, can we double in size?” Jeez, can we manage that many people? Will that feel fun still? You know, and so every doubling was, like, okay, this is the last one. And so the economic thing wasn’t at the forefront. The idea of being at the forefront and seeing new things and things we wanted to do and being able to bring in different people who were fun to work with eventually with a pretty broad set of skills and figuring out how to get those people those broad skills to work well together has been one of the greatest challenges. You know, I made more of my mistakes in that area maybe than anywhere, but, you know, eventually getting some of those teams to work very well together. So, you know, I think it’s a lot about the people and the passion. And it’s amazing that the business worked out the way that it did.
Steve: Yeah. People say you have to have a lot of passion for what you’re doing and it’s totally true. And the reason is because it’s so hard that if you don’t, any rational person would give up. It’s really hard. And you have to do it over a sustained period of time. So if you don’t love it, if you’re not having fun doing it, you don’t really love it, you’re going to give up. And that’s what happens to most people, actually. If you really look at the ones that ended up, you know, being “successful” in the eyes of society and the ones that didn’t, oftentimes, it’s the ones [who] were successful loved what they did so they could persevere, you know, when it got really tough. And the ones that didn’t love it quit because they’re sane, right? Who would want to put up with this stuff if you don’t love it?
So it’s a lot of hard work and it’s a lot of worrying constantly and if you don’t love it, you’re going to fail. So you’ve got to love it and you’ve got to have passion and I think that’s the high-order bit.
The second thing is, you’ve got to be a really good talent scout because no matter how smart you are, you need a team of great people and you’ve got to figure out how to size people up fairly quickly, make decisions without knowing people too well and hire them and, you know, see how you do and refine your intuition and be able to help, you know, build an organization that can eventually just, you know, build itself because you need great people around you.
Walt: Lise.
Lise: Lise Buyer. Question, I guess it’s historical curiosity. You approached the same opportunity so very differently. What did you learn about running your own business that you wished you had thought of sooner or thought of first by watching the other guy?
Bill: Well, I’d give a lot to have Steve’s taste. [laughter] He has natural–it’s not a joke at all. I think in terms of intuitive taste, both for people and products, you know, we sat in Mac product reviews where there were questions about software choices, how things would be done that I viewed as an engineering question, you know, and that’s just how my mind works. And I’d see Steve make the decision based on a sense of people and product that, you know, is even hard for me to explain. The way he does things is just different and, you know, I think it’s magical. And in that case, wow.
Steve: You know, because Woz and I started the company based on doing the whole banana, we weren’t so good at partnering with people. And, you know, actually, the funny thing is, Microsoft’s one of the few companies we were able to partner with that actually worked for both companies. And we weren’t so good at that, where Bill and Microsoft were really good at it because they didn’t make the whole thing in the early days and they learned how to partner with people really well.
And I think if Apple could have had a little more of that in its DNA, it would have served it extremely well. And I don’t think Apple learned that until, you know, a few decades later.
Walt: Over here.
Charlie: Yeah, hi. Charlie Brenner from Fidelity Investments. In our financial services industry, we are focusing very strongly on aging and retiring baby boomers, a huge demographic.
Steve: We’re not that old yet.
Charlie: No, I wasn’t– The question is different from what it sounds like it’s going to be here. But most of the innovation that we see coming from computer and Internet companies is kind of youth-oriented. And I’m just wondering if there are activities going on in your companies acknowledging what’s going to be happening generationally.
Steve: Oh, not true. I’ll give you one example. So we started building in video cameras into almost all our computers a few years ago. And the response by people of all ages, but in particular seniors, has been off the charts because they’re buying these things now and they’re buying them for their grandkids, their sons and daughters with their grandkids so they can stay in touch with their grandkids. And they’re videoconferencing more than younger people are. And it’s incredible what this has done. So that’s just one simple example, but there’s, like, dozens of them that have clicked with, you know, seniors that are living independently that want to stay in touch with extended families and do other things like that.
Bill: Yeah, I think it’s a very good point, when you look at the size of the market. And that’s partly why it’s great that there are all these companies out there who can see, okay, what would you do for seniors? I think natural user interface is particularly applicable here because the keyboard, you know, we’re sort of warped in that we grew up using the keyboard and so it’s extremely natural to us, but things like–and that’s partly why when we showed the Surface computer, I showed it privately to a bunch of CEOs a couple weeks ago, I was kind of stunned by how blown away they were. But their ease of navigation is just not the same. And when they saw that, the idea that they could organize their photo album, it meant more to them than it did to me.
Steve: I’ll give you another example. We’ve got a little shy of 200 retail stores now. And one of the things that stores are doing is personal training now. It’s called one-to-one. And we are up to now a run rate of a million personal training sessions–they last an hour–per year. A million per year.
Walt: You only started a little while ago, right?
Steve: Yeah, we started about a year ago and we’re up to a million training sessions per year run rate now. And a lot of those folks–some of them, anyway, many of them–are seniors. And they’re coming in and they’re spending an hour learning how to use Office and they’re spending an hour learning how to video-conference. They can basically come in as much as they want and they can schedule these things throughout a year and they pay $99, I think, a year for it. And it’s been great.
Kara: Last question.
Walt: Now the last question over there.
Unidentified male:We all share our common science-fiction experience of, you know, the metaverse or the matrix where we all could communicate without being in the same place. And by the way, thank you both for providing us the best platforms so far to go to chat rooms or to all go to a MySpace. It’s a far cry from these things that we see on Star Trek at the holodeck. What kinds of things can you imagine that are partway there that could be much better than the three-window iChat that we might see in the next five or 10 years?
Bill: Well, I think Steve’s going to announce his transporter.
Steve: I want Star Trek. Just give me Star Trek.
Bill: No, I think short of the transporter, most things you see in science fiction are, in the next decade, the kinds of things you’ll see. The virtual presence, the virtual worlds that both represent what’s going on in the real world and represent whatever people are interested in. This movement in space as a way of interacting with the machine. I think the deep investments that have been made at the research level will pay off with these things in the next 10 years.
Walt: Steve?
Steve: I don’t know. And that’s what makes it exciting to go into work every day, because there’s–as we talked about earlier, this is an extraordinarily exciting time in the industry, and lots of new stuff happening. So, you know, I can’t even begin to think what it’s going to be like 10 years from now.
Walt: Thank you so much.
Kara: Thank you so much.
[Applause]
Kara: Thank you so much. That was great.
Walt: That’s great. Thank you for being here.
Walt: Questions. Can we have some lights? Roger.
Roger: Roger McNamee from Elevation Partners. Hey, guys, that was incredible. Thank you very much. We’ve got a big election coming up next year and I’m curious if there are any issues that you see in Silicon Valley that we all ought to be focused on communicating effectively to the next potential president of the United States. That is, any common ground that we share. Because it’s weird, you don’t actually hear any issues that people are talking about right now and I’m curious if you guys have any in mind.
Walt: Bill?
Bill: Well, certainly, education is one that I’d put at the top of the list.
Roger: Are there technological solutions right now that they could do something about or is that just sort of, like…
Bill: No. Technology is going to be helpful and more and more, but the way that teachers are measured and made excellent, the way that the high schools are designed, the expectations they have, it’s not just a pure technology thing. It’s more an institutional practice where the opportunity is. You know, there should be a lot of debate about the different ways of doing that.
Walt: Steve?
Steve: Boy, we’ve got some pretty big problems and I think most of them are much bigger than anything Silicon Valley can contribute right now to solve. So hopefully some of those will get solved. I also think we underestimate how much all of our industry depends on stability. We’ve enjoyed, you know, a long period of stability and we’ve been able to focus on technology and growing our businesses and stuff and I think we take that for granted sometimes.
One of the more interesting areas that we all suffer from, of course, is in the area of energy dependency. And there’s a lot of work going on, I know a lot of investing going on, anyway, I don’t know if the results are there, but a lot of investing going on in alternative energy and maybe Silicon Valley can play a small role in some of that stuff, too.
Kara: Are you guys investing in that area personally or…
Bill: Some.
Kara: Which might be a lot from you.
Bill: A billion here or there.
Walt: Steve, are you investing in that area?
Steve: No.
Kara: Just a Prius?
Steve: Yeah, just appreciating.
Walt: Over there.
Don: Hi. Don Eklund, Sony Pictures. My question is really, at what point is there too much diversity? It was talked about a few times in the discussion, the fact that now microprocessors are very low cost, memory’s low cost, software is ubiquitous, but, my life has been made better by standards, like coding standards, network standards. And it seems like we’re reaching a point where diversity is starting to take hold to a point where we’re not going to be able to have the kinds of convergence devices that I think everyone would really be able to appreciate. And I’m wondering, you know, is this going to be, like, health care or mass transit where you just can never put it back in the bottle again? And I’d like to get your perspective on that, if there’s still an opportunity to have some grand convergence devices that can really simplify people’s lives and enrich their lives.
Walt: Steve?
Steve: Well, I think Bill and I would agree that we can get it down to two. No, I think it’s hard to limit imagination and innovation. I think there’s always going to be a bunch of new, great things. And I think that’s part of what we put up with to get the innovation. We put up with a little bit of aggravation to get the innovation.
Bill: And I think the marketplace is awfully good at allowing diversity when it should and then getting rid of it when it shouldn’t.
Steve: And then letting it come back sometimes.
Bill: Yeah. Yeah. I mean, in terms of standards and things. I mean, the Internet standards have been incredibly powerful, you know, video formats, things like this. And so I don’t see things that are going to really hold back a convergence device. You know, sure, there’s a lot of wireless approaches, but that’s pretty healthy right now. They each have various merits. A few of them will end up overlapping the other ones and kill the other ones out, but I think the industry’s done very well at latching onto standards for the things that there were no longer any innovation in and then focusing on the places where it wasn’t clear which approach was best.
Walt: Jesse?
Jesse: 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.
Walt: Yeah.
Rob: Thanks, Steve and Bill. Rob Killion, here with my business partner. We’ve got a 100-person Internet media business. I’m wondering what would be the single most valuable piece of advice you’d give us to even attempt to create some of the value that you guys have done in both your very impressive companies.
Bill: Well, I think actually–it may be in both cases–correct me if I’m wrong–the excitement wasn’t really seeing the economic value. You know, even when we wrote down at Microsoft in 1975, “a computer on every desk and in every home,” we didn’t realize, oh, we’ll have to be a big company. Every time, I thought, “Oh, God, can we double in size?” Jeez, can we manage that many people? Will that feel fun still? You know, and so every doubling was, like, okay, this is the last one. And so the economic thing wasn’t at the forefront. The idea of being at the forefront and seeing new things and things we wanted to do and being able to bring in different people who were fun to work with eventually with a pretty broad set of skills and figuring out how to get those people those broad skills to work well together has been one of the greatest challenges. You know, I made more of my mistakes in that area maybe than anywhere, but, you know, eventually getting some of those teams to work very well together. So, you know, I think it’s a lot about the people and the passion. And it’s amazing that the business worked out the way that it did.
Steve: Yeah. People say you have to have a lot of passion for what you’re doing and it’s totally true. And the reason is because it’s so hard that if you don’t, any rational person would give up. It’s really hard. And you have to do it over a sustained period of time. So if you don’t love it, if you’re not having fun doing it, you don’t really love it, you’re going to give up. And that’s what happens to most people, actually. If you really look at the ones that ended up, you know, being “successful” in the eyes of society and the ones that didn’t, oftentimes, it’s the ones [who] were successful loved what they did so they could persevere, you know, when it got really tough. And the ones that didn’t love it quit because they’re sane, right? Who would want to put up with this stuff if you don’t love it?
So it’s a lot of hard work and it’s a lot of worrying constantly and if you don’t love it, you’re going to fail. So you’ve got to love it and you’ve got to have passion and I think that’s the high-order bit.
The second thing is, you’ve got to be a really good talent scout because no matter how smart you are, you need a team of great people and you’ve got to figure out how to size people up fairly quickly, make decisions without knowing people too well and hire them and, you know, see how you do and refine your intuition and be able to help, you know, build an organization that can eventually just, you know, build itself because you need great people around you.
Walt: Lise.
Lise: Lise Buyer. Question, I guess it’s historical curiosity. You approached the same opportunity so very differently. What did you learn about running your own business that you wished you had thought of sooner or thought of first by watching the other guy?
Bill: Well, I’d give a lot to have Steve’s taste. [laughter] He has natural–it’s not a joke at all. I think in terms of intuitive taste, both for people and products, you know, we sat in Mac product reviews where there were questions about software choices, how things would be done that I viewed as an engineering question, you know, and that’s just how my mind works. And I’d see Steve make the decision based on a sense of people and product that, you know, is even hard for me to explain. The way he does things is just different and, you know, I think it’s magical. And in that case, wow.
Steve: You know, because Woz and I started the company based on doing the whole banana, we weren’t so good at partnering with people. And, you know, actually, the funny thing is, Microsoft’s one of the few companies we were able to partner with that actually worked for both companies. And we weren’t so good at that, where Bill and Microsoft were really good at it because they didn’t make the whole thing in the early days and they learned how to partner with people really well.
And I think if Apple could have had a little more of that in its DNA, it would have served it extremely well. And I don’t think Apple learned that until, you know, a few decades later.
Walt: Over here.
Charlie: Yeah, hi. Charlie Brenner from Fidelity Investments. In our financial services industry, we are focusing very strongly on aging and retiring baby boomers, a huge demographic.
Steve: We’re not that old yet.
Charlie: No, I wasn’t– The question is different from what it sounds like it’s going to be here. But most of the innovation that we see coming from computer and Internet companies is kind of youth-oriented. And I’m just wondering if there are activities going on in your companies acknowledging what’s going to be happening generationally.
Steve: Oh, not true. I’ll give you one example. So we started building in video cameras into almost all our computers a few years ago. And the response by people of all ages, but in particular seniors, has been off the charts because they’re buying these things now and they’re buying them for their grandkids, their sons and daughters with their grandkids so they can stay in touch with their grandkids. And they’re videoconferencing more than younger people are. And it’s incredible what this has done. So that’s just one simple example, but there’s, like, dozens of them that have clicked with, you know, seniors that are living independently that want to stay in touch with extended families and do other things like that.
Bill: Yeah, I think it’s a very good point, when you look at the size of the market. And that’s partly why it’s great that there are all these companies out there who can see, okay, what would you do for seniors? I think natural user interface is particularly applicable here because the keyboard, you know, we’re sort of warped in that we grew up using the keyboard and so it’s extremely natural to us, but things like–and that’s partly why when we showed the Surface computer, I showed it privately to a bunch of CEOs a couple weeks ago, I was kind of stunned by how blown away they were. But their ease of navigation is just not the same. And when they saw that, the idea that they could organize their photo album, it meant more to them than it did to me.
Steve: I’ll give you another example. We’ve got a little shy of 200 retail stores now. And one of the things that stores are doing is personal training now. It’s called one-to-one. And we are up to now a run rate of a million personal training sessions–they last an hour–per year. A million per year.
Walt: You only started a little while ago, right?
Steve: Yeah, we started about a year ago and we’re up to a million training sessions per year run rate now. And a lot of those folks–some of them, anyway, many of them–are seniors. And they’re coming in and they’re spending an hour learning how to use Office and they’re spending an hour learning how to video-conference. They can basically come in as much as they want and they can schedule these things throughout a year and they pay $99, I think, a year for it. And it’s been great.
Kara: Last question.
Walt: Now the last question over there.
Unidentified male:We all share our common science-fiction experience of, you know, the metaverse or the matrix where we all could communicate without being in the same place. And by the way, thank you both for providing us the best platforms so far to go to chat rooms or to all go to a MySpace. It’s a far cry from these things that we see on Star Trek at the holodeck. What kinds of things can you imagine that are partway there that could be much better than the three-window iChat that we might see in the next five or 10 years?
Bill: Well, I think Steve’s going to announce his transporter.
Steve: I want Star Trek. Just give me Star Trek.
Bill: No, I think short of the transporter, most things you see in science fiction are, in the next decade, the kinds of things you’ll see. The virtual presence, the virtual worlds that both represent what’s going on in the real world and represent whatever people are interested in. This movement in space as a way of interacting with the machine. I think the deep investments that have been made at the research level will pay off with these things in the next 10 years.
Walt: Steve?
Steve: I don’t know. And that’s what makes it exciting to go into work every day, because there’s–as we talked about earlier, this is an extraordinarily exciting time in the industry, and lots of new stuff happening. So, you know, I can’t even begin to think what it’s going to be like 10 years from now.
Walt: Thank you so much.
Kara: Thank you so much.
[Applause]
Kara: Thank you so much. That was great.
Walt: That’s great. Thank you for being here.
!! byOJiM
ryuukaiさん
こんにちは！
よくこんなの見つけましたねえ！
私もスティーブジョブスに関する動向などよくチェックしているんですが、全くしりませんでした。この2人の組み合わせは貴重ですよ。
最初の方だけさらっと観ましたが、しっかりと全部みないと。
良い情報共有ありがとうございました。
こんにちは！
よくこんなの見つけましたねえ！
私もスティーブジョブスに関する動向などよくチェックしているんですが、全くしりませんでした。この2人の組み合わせは貴重ですよ。
最初の方だけさらっと観ましたが、しっかりと全部みないと。
良い情報共有ありがとうございました。
OJiMさん byRyuukai
OJiMさん、こんばんは。
コメント有難う御座います。
色々なキーワードで検索をしていたら、偶然にも見つけたんですよ。仕事での達成感とは違って、嬉しかったです。
スティーブ・ジョブスとビル・ケイツは、とても貴重で、夢の競演のようです。
ジョブスのスタンフォード大学の卒業式でのスピーチは有名ですが、クラウン リーディング（平成２１年度改訂版）にその全内容が掲載されているようです。
http://tb.sanseido.co.jp/english/h-english/textbooks/crown_r_new-edition.html#05
勢いで、ワンクリック注文してしまいました(^^)今の高校生は、良質な素材で学習出来て羨ましいです。
今後とも宜しくお願いします。
コメント有難う御座います。
色々なキーワードで検索をしていたら、偶然にも見つけたんですよ。仕事での達成感とは違って、嬉しかったです。
スティーブ・ジョブスとビル・ケイツは、とても貴重で、夢の競演のようです。
ジョブスのスタンフォード大学の卒業式でのスピーチは有名ですが、クラウン リーディング（平成２１年度改訂版）にその全内容が掲載されているようです。
http://tb.sanseido.co.jp/english/h-english/textbooks/crown_r_new-edition.html#05
勢いで、ワンクリック注文してしまいました(^^)今の高校生は、良質な素材で学習出来て羨ましいです。
今後とも宜しくお願いします。
はじめまして byYuta
ryuukaiさん、はじめまして。
永久保存版のクリップを拝見させていただきました。2人の話は、本当に刺激的ですね。観客とのやり取りも当意即妙で感心しきりです。貴重な情報心から感謝いたします。
Steveは休養に専念、Billは慈善団体に専念と時代が大きく変わりつつあるのですかね。GoogleとFacebookの若者たち（といってもGoogleの2人は同世代ですね。僕も30代です）が今後はひっぱっていくのでしょうか。
永久保存版のクリップを拝見させていただきました。2人の話は、本当に刺激的ですね。観客とのやり取りも当意即妙で感心しきりです。貴重な情報心から感謝いたします。
Steveは休養に専念、Billは慈善団体に専念と時代が大きく変わりつつあるのですかね。GoogleとFacebookの若者たち（といってもGoogleの2人は同世代ですね。僕も30代です）が今後はひっぱっていくのでしょうか。
Yutaさん byRyuukai
Yutaさん、はじめまして。
私のブログ訪問及びコメント有難う御座います。
偶然見つけた産物ですから、そんなに感謝されると、こちらが恐縮してしまいます。私は、ﾊﾞｯｸｸﾞﾗｳﾝﾄﾞがあったりシンプルな言葉で話される時は、内容の理解は出来るのですが、それを外れるとさっぱりです。最終的には、このような内容の物が理解出来たらなぁ〜と思っていますが、まだまだ時間が必要です。なので、私の目標の物として記事にしました。でも、皆さんにとって有益であるものだったとコメントを頂いて、本当に記事にして良かったと思っています。
また、細切れのVideoを記事に載せたのですが、後々フルセッションのリンクを見つけたので、良かったら見てみてください。
http://video.allthingsd.com?bcpid=716692140&bclid=909803988&bctid=1111441513
私は、ものづくりに近い方なので、色々なコンテンツに携わっている方々よりは、ものづくり出身の方々に時代を導いて欲しいのですが。現実は、ちょっと違うようです。
私のブログ訪問及びコメント有難う御座います。
偶然見つけた産物ですから、そんなに感謝されると、こちらが恐縮してしまいます。私は、ﾊﾞｯｸｸﾞﾗｳﾝﾄﾞがあったりシンプルな言葉で話される時は、内容の理解は出来るのですが、それを外れるとさっぱりです。最終的には、このような内容の物が理解出来たらなぁ〜と思っていますが、まだまだ時間が必要です。なので、私の目標の物として記事にしました。でも、皆さんにとって有益であるものだったとコメントを頂いて、本当に記事にして良かったと思っています。
また、細切れのVideoを記事に載せたのですが、後々フルセッションのリンクを見つけたので、良かったら見てみてください。
http://video.allthingsd.com?bcpid=716692140&bclid=909803988&bctid=1111441513
私は、ものづくりに近い方なので、色々なコンテンツに携わっている方々よりは、ものづくり出身の方々に時代を導いて欲しいのですが。現実は、ちょっと違うようです。
イチロー選手（本名：鈴木一朗）は、16日（現地時間）についに張本勲氏の持つ日本最多安打記録（3085本）を塗り替えました。復帰後、2試合で日本記録を塗り替えた事は、素晴らしいですね。張本氏も現地で観戦していたようで、色々なプレッシャーがあった中での今回の出来事だったようなので、イチロー選手もホッとしたのではないでしょうか。
1992年にオリックスに入団してからアメリカに渡って18年目での快挙ですので、喜びもひとしおでしょう。今後もヒットを量産し、ピート・ローズ氏のメジャー記録の４２５６ を目指して今後も頑張ってほしいです。
以下は、イチロー選手が日本最多安打を記録した時の映像です。また、 MLB.com上にも記事としてありますので、お好きな方をご覧下さい。
以下の映像は、今年からヤンキースタジアムが新しくなり、その球場内の紹介の映像です。
先日は byつんつるてん
Ryuukaiさん
先日はどうもありがとうございました。あっという間の４時間でしたね。
お互いにまだまだ自己更新を目指しましょうね。
また、お会いしましょう。
ところで今日の記事のテーマが同じですね。
つんつん
先日はどうもありがとうございました。あっという間の４時間でしたね。
お互いにまだまだ自己更新を目指しましょうね。
また、お会いしましょう。
ところで今日の記事のテーマが同じですね。
つんつん
つんつるてんさん byRyuukai
つんつるてん(つんつん)さん、コメント有難う御座います。
こちらこそ、先日は有難うございました。
色々興味深い話を伺えて、刺激になりました。今後の英語学習の取り組みへのヒントみたいなものが見えてきた気が致します。
また、自分のペースを保ちつつ、皆さんのレベルに早く到達できるよう頑張りたいですね。
今後とも、宜しくお願いします。
こちらこそ、先日は有難うございました。
色々興味深い話を伺えて、刺激になりました。今後の英語学習の取り組みへのヒントみたいなものが見えてきた気が致します。
また、自分のペースを保ちつつ、皆さんのレベルに早く到達できるよう頑張りたいですね。
今後とも、宜しくお願いします。
相互リンクのご依頼 byhikaku
サイト運営し始めた者なんですが、相互リンクしていただきたくて、コメントさせていただきました。
http://hikaku-lin.com/link/register.html
こちらより、相互リンクしていただけると嬉しいです。
まだまだ、未熟なサイトですが、少しずつコンテンツを充実させていきたいと思ってます。
突然、失礼しました。
h8egvRCk
http://hikaku-lin.com/link/register.html
こちらより、相互リンクしていただけると嬉しいです。
まだまだ、未熟なサイトですが、少しずつコンテンツを充実させていきたいと思ってます。
突然、失礼しました。
h8egvRCk
先に宣言しておきます。携帯から訪れて頂いている方は、PCからご覧になった方が良いと思います。
6月1日にGeneral Motorは、Chapter11 （連邦破産法11条）を申請しました。私もこの業界に近い事をしているので、他人事ではない気がしています。まあ、まだこの業界は、底の状態なので、我慢の状態が続くと思いますが、今後も頑張らなくては・・・・。
この記事は、個人的な勉強の為の資料及び教材という扱いと思って頂ければと思います。
以下のTranscriptionは、NPRからの引用です。
President Obama's comments for American automobile company.
（14分39秒／161.6WPM）
Just over two months ago, I spoke with you in the same spot about the challenges facing our auto industry, and I laid out what needed to be done to save two of America's most storied automakers, General Motors and Chrysler. These companies were facing a crisis decades in the making and, having relied on loans from the previous administration, were asking for more.
From the beginning, I made it clear that I would not put any more tax dollars on the line if it meant perpetuating the bad business decisions that had led these companies to seek help in the first place. I refuse to let these companies become permanent wards of the state, kept afloat on an endless supply of taxpayer money. In other words, I refuse to kick the can down the road.
But I also recognize the importance of a viable auto industry to the well-being of families and communities across our industrial Midwest and across the United States. In the midst of a deep recession and financial crisis, the collapse of these companies would have been devastating for countless Americans and done enormous damage to our economy beyond the auto industry.
It was also clear that if GM and Chrysler remade and retooled themselves for the 21st century, it would be good for American workers, good for American manufacturing and good for America's economy.
I decided then that if GM and Chrysler and their stakeholders were willing to sacrifice for their companies' survival and success, if they were willing to take the difficult but necessary steps to restructure and make themselves stronger, leaner and more competitive, then the United States government would stand behind them.
The original restructuring plan submitted by GM and Chrysler earlier this year did not call for the sweeping changes these companies needed to survive, and I couldn't in good conscience proceed on that basis. So we gave them a chance to develop a stronger plan that would put them on a path toward long-term viability.
The 60 days GM had to submit its revised plans have now elapsed. And I want to say a few words about where we are and what steps will be taken going forward, but before I do, I want to give you an update on where things stand with Chrysler.
When my administration took office and began going over Chrysler's books, the future of this great American car company was uncertain. In fact, it was not clear whether it had any future at all. But after consulting with my auto task force, industry experts and financial advisers, and after asking many tough questions, I became convinced that if Chrysler were willing to undergo a restructuring and if it were able to form a partnership with a viable global car company, then Chrysler could get a new lease on life.
Well, that more promising scenario has now come to pass. Today, after taking a number of painful steps and moving through a quick, efficient and fair bankruptcy process, a new, stronger Chrysler is poised to complete its alliance with Fiat. Just 31 days after Chrysler's Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing, a court has approved the Chrysler-Fiat alliance, paving the way for a new Chrysler to emerge from bankruptcy in the next few days.
What happens next is in the hands of their executives, managers and workers, as it is for any private company. But what the completion of this alliance means is that tens of thousands of jobs that would have been lost if Chrysler had liquidated will now be saved. And the consumers have no reason at all to worry about a restructuring, even one as painful as what Chrysler underwent.
Keep in mind, many experts said that a quick, surgical bankruptcy was impossible. They were wrong. Others predicted that Chrysler's decision to enter bankruptcy would lead to an immediate collapse in consumer confidence that would send car sales over a cliff. They were wrong as well.
In fact, Chrysler sold more cars in May than it did in April, in part because consumers were comforted by our extraordinary commitment to stand behind a quick bankruptcy process. All in all, it's a dramatic — an outcome dramatically better than what appeared likely when this process began.
The situation we found at General Motors was very different from what we found at Chrysler, largely because GM is a different kind of company. It is much larger and much more complex, with operations all over the globe.
In this context, GM's management team — including its new CEO, Fritz Henderson, its interim chairman, Kent Kresa, and all of their colleagues — has — have worked — has worked tirelessly to produce a plan that meets the strict standards I laid out at the beginning: to streamline GM's brands, clean up GM's balance sheet, and make it possible for GM to compete and succeed.
Working with my auto task force, GM and its stakeholders have produced a viable, achievable plan that will give this iconic American company a chance to rise again. It's a plan tailored to the realities of today's auto market, a plan that positions GM to move toward profitability, even if it takes longer than expected for our economy to fully recover. And it's a plan that builds on GM's recent progress in making better cars.
As this plan takes effect, GM will start building a larger share of its cars here at home, including fuel-efficient cars. In fact, if all goes according to plan, the share of GM cars sold in the United States that are made here will actually grow, for the first time in three decades.
Now, any time a business as large as General Motors goes through a restructuring, it is extremely difficult to find common ground among all of the company's stakeholders. While the deal that has been worked out is tough, it is also fair.
It will require the United Auto Workers to make further cuts in compensation and retiree health care benefits, painful sacrifices, on top of all that they've already done. It will require GM shareholders to give up the remaining value of their shares, just as they would have had to do in any private restructuring of this kind.
And it will also provide unsecured bondholders with an equitable outcome, an outcome that will let them recover more than the current value of their claims and substantially more than they would have recovered, if the government had not intervened and GM had liquidated.
That's why a majority of GM's bondholders already support this deal.
Throughout this process, I wanted to ensure that none of GM's stakeholders receive special treatment because of our government's involvement. That's why I instructed by auto task force to treat all of GM's stakeholders fairly and to ensure that this restructuring was carried out in a way that was consistent with past precedent. And it was.
What we have, then, is a credible plan that is full of promise. But GM can't put this plan into effect on its own. Executing this plan will require a substantial amount of money that only a government can provide. Considering GM's extensive operations within their borders, the governments of Canada and Ontario have agreed to do their part with an investment in GM's future, and I want to thank them for doing so.
I also want to thank the government of Germany for working diligently to reach a memorandum of understanding on the sale of a major stake in GM's European division and for providing interim funding that will make it possible for that transaction to be finalized.
But of course, GM is an American company, with tens of thousands of employees in this country, and responsibility for its future ultimately rests with us. That's why our government will be making a significant additional investment of about $30 billion in GM, an investment that will entitle American taxpayers to ownership of about 60 percent of the new GM.
Now, let me talk about this. I recognize that this may give some Americans pause. Let me explain as clearly as possible why we are making this investment. We inherited a financial crisis unlike any that we've seen in our time. This crisis crippled private capital markets and forced us to take steps in our financial system and with our auto companies that we would not have otherwise even considered.
These steps have put our government in the unwelcome position of owning large stakes in private companies, for the simple and compelling reason that their survival and the success of our overall economy depend on it.
Understand we're making these investments not because I want to spend the American people's tax dollars, but because I want to protect them.
Instead of taking so much stock in GM, we could have simply offered the company more loans. But for years GM has been buried under an unsustainable mountain of debt, and piling an irresponsibly large debt on top of the new GM would mean simply repeating the mistakes of the past. So we are acting as reluctant shareholders, because that is the only way to help GM succeed.
What we are not doing, what I have no interest in doing, is running GM. GM will be run by a private board of directors and management team with a track record in American manufacturing that reflects a commitment to innovation and quality. They, and not the government, will call the shots and make the decisions about how to turn this company around.
The federal government will refrain from exercising its rights as a shareholder in all but the most fundamental corporate decisions. When a difficult decision has to be made on matters like where to open a new plant or what type of new car to make, the new GM, not the United States government, will make that decision. In short, our goal is to get GM back on its feet, take a hands-off approach and get out quickly.
Exiting a restructuring of this scale, however, requires not only new investments, it also requires giving GM a chance to start anew by clearing away the massive past debts that are weighing the company down. And that's why earlier today GM did what Chrysler has successfully done, and filed for a Chapter 11 bankruptcy, with the support of its key stakeholders and the United States government. In all likelihood, this process will take more time for GM than it did for Chrysler, because GM is a bigger, more complex company. But Chrysler's extraordinary success reaffirms my confidence that GM will emerge from its bankruptcy process quickly and as a stronger and more competitive company.
And I want to remind everyone that if you are considering buying a GM car during this period of restructuring, your warranties will be safe and government-backed.
So I'm confident that the steps I'm announcing today will mark the end of an old GM and the beginning of a new GM, a new GM that can produce the high-quality, safe and fuel-efficient cars of tomorrow, that can lead America towards an energy-independent future, and that is once more a symbol of America's success.
But I want to be honest with you: Building a leaner GM will come at a cost. It will take a painful toll on many Americans who have relied on General Motors throughout the generations. So I want to say a word directly to all the men and women watching today, wondering what all this will mean as far as their own lives are concerned.
I know you've already seen more than your fair share of hard times. We saw 400,000 jobs lost in the auto industry in the year before this restructuring even began.
I will not pretend the hard times are over. Difficult days lie ahead. More jobs will be lost. More plants will close. More dealerships will shut their doors, and so will many parts suppliers.
But I want you to know that what you're doing is making a sacrifice for the next generation, a sacrifice you may not have chose to make but a sacrifice you were nevertheless called to make so that your children and all of our children can grow up in an America that still makes things, that still builds cars, that still strives for a better future.
As our auto workers and auto communities pass through these difficult times, we as a nation must do our part. That's why in March I appointed Ed Montgomery director of recovery for auto communities and workers. That's why two weeks ago Ed announced a green jobs training program for auto workers in hard-hit communities. And that's why last week Ed and Karen Mills, my Small Business Administration chief, traveled to Indiana to announce a new plan to provide loans to auto, RV and boat dealers to help finance floor plans.
That's why we are accelerating the purchase of a federal fleet of cars to jump-start demand and give the industry a boost at a time when it needs one. And that's why I'm calling on Congress to pass fleet modernization legislation that can provide a credit to consumers who turn in old cars and purchase cleaner, more fuel-efficient cars.
These are important steps on the long road to overcoming a problem that didn't happen overnight and will not be solved overnight. I recognize that today's news carries a particular importance because it's not just any company we're talking about; it's GM. It's a company that's not only been a source of income but a source of pride for generations of auto workers and generations of Americans.
But while the GM of the future will be different from the GM of past, I am absolutely confident that if well managed, a new GM will emerge that can provide a new generation of Americans with the chance to live out their dreams, that can out-compete automakers around the world, and they can once again be an integral part of America's economic future. And when that happens, we can truly say that what is good for General Motors and all who work there is good for the United States of America.
Thank you, everybody.
From the beginning, I made it clear that I would not put any more tax dollars on the line if it meant perpetuating the bad business decisions that had led these companies to seek help in the first place. I refuse to let these companies become permanent wards of the state, kept afloat on an endless supply of taxpayer money. In other words, I refuse to kick the can down the road.
But I also recognize the importance of a viable auto industry to the well-being of families and communities across our industrial Midwest and across the United States. In the midst of a deep recession and financial crisis, the collapse of these companies would have been devastating for countless Americans and done enormous damage to our economy beyond the auto industry.
It was also clear that if GM and Chrysler remade and retooled themselves for the 21st century, it would be good for American workers, good for American manufacturing and good for America's economy.
I decided then that if GM and Chrysler and their stakeholders were willing to sacrifice for their companies' survival and success, if they were willing to take the difficult but necessary steps to restructure and make themselves stronger, leaner and more competitive, then the United States government would stand behind them.
The original restructuring plan submitted by GM and Chrysler earlier this year did not call for the sweeping changes these companies needed to survive, and I couldn't in good conscience proceed on that basis. So we gave them a chance to develop a stronger plan that would put them on a path toward long-term viability.
The 60 days GM had to submit its revised plans have now elapsed. And I want to say a few words about where we are and what steps will be taken going forward, but before I do, I want to give you an update on where things stand with Chrysler.
When my administration took office and began going over Chrysler's books, the future of this great American car company was uncertain. In fact, it was not clear whether it had any future at all. But after consulting with my auto task force, industry experts and financial advisers, and after asking many tough questions, I became convinced that if Chrysler were willing to undergo a restructuring and if it were able to form a partnership with a viable global car company, then Chrysler could get a new lease on life.
Well, that more promising scenario has now come to pass. Today, after taking a number of painful steps and moving through a quick, efficient and fair bankruptcy process, a new, stronger Chrysler is poised to complete its alliance with Fiat. Just 31 days after Chrysler's Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing, a court has approved the Chrysler-Fiat alliance, paving the way for a new Chrysler to emerge from bankruptcy in the next few days.
What happens next is in the hands of their executives, managers and workers, as it is for any private company. But what the completion of this alliance means is that tens of thousands of jobs that would have been lost if Chrysler had liquidated will now be saved. And the consumers have no reason at all to worry about a restructuring, even one as painful as what Chrysler underwent.
Keep in mind, many experts said that a quick, surgical bankruptcy was impossible. They were wrong. Others predicted that Chrysler's decision to enter bankruptcy would lead to an immediate collapse in consumer confidence that would send car sales over a cliff. They were wrong as well.
In fact, Chrysler sold more cars in May than it did in April, in part because consumers were comforted by our extraordinary commitment to stand behind a quick bankruptcy process. All in all, it's a dramatic — an outcome dramatically better than what appeared likely when this process began.
The situation we found at General Motors was very different from what we found at Chrysler, largely because GM is a different kind of company. It is much larger and much more complex, with operations all over the globe.
In this context, GM's management team — including its new CEO, Fritz Henderson, its interim chairman, Kent Kresa, and all of their colleagues — has — have worked — has worked tirelessly to produce a plan that meets the strict standards I laid out at the beginning: to streamline GM's brands, clean up GM's balance sheet, and make it possible for GM to compete and succeed.
Working with my auto task force, GM and its stakeholders have produced a viable, achievable plan that will give this iconic American company a chance to rise again. It's a plan tailored to the realities of today's auto market, a plan that positions GM to move toward profitability, even if it takes longer than expected for our economy to fully recover. And it's a plan that builds on GM's recent progress in making better cars.
As this plan takes effect, GM will start building a larger share of its cars here at home, including fuel-efficient cars. In fact, if all goes according to plan, the share of GM cars sold in the United States that are made here will actually grow, for the first time in three decades.
Now, any time a business as large as General Motors goes through a restructuring, it is extremely difficult to find common ground among all of the company's stakeholders. While the deal that has been worked out is tough, it is also fair.
It will require the United Auto Workers to make further cuts in compensation and retiree health care benefits, painful sacrifices, on top of all that they've already done. It will require GM shareholders to give up the remaining value of their shares, just as they would have had to do in any private restructuring of this kind.
And it will also provide unsecured bondholders with an equitable outcome, an outcome that will let them recover more than the current value of their claims and substantially more than they would have recovered, if the government had not intervened and GM had liquidated.
That's why a majority of GM's bondholders already support this deal.
Throughout this process, I wanted to ensure that none of GM's stakeholders receive special treatment because of our government's involvement. That's why I instructed by auto task force to treat all of GM's stakeholders fairly and to ensure that this restructuring was carried out in a way that was consistent with past precedent. And it was.
What we have, then, is a credible plan that is full of promise. But GM can't put this plan into effect on its own. Executing this plan will require a substantial amount of money that only a government can provide. Considering GM's extensive operations within their borders, the governments of Canada and Ontario have agreed to do their part with an investment in GM's future, and I want to thank them for doing so.
I also want to thank the government of Germany for working diligently to reach a memorandum of understanding on the sale of a major stake in GM's European division and for providing interim funding that will make it possible for that transaction to be finalized.
But of course, GM is an American company, with tens of thousands of employees in this country, and responsibility for its future ultimately rests with us. That's why our government will be making a significant additional investment of about $30 billion in GM, an investment that will entitle American taxpayers to ownership of about 60 percent of the new GM.
Now, let me talk about this. I recognize that this may give some Americans pause. Let me explain as clearly as possible why we are making this investment. We inherited a financial crisis unlike any that we've seen in our time. This crisis crippled private capital markets and forced us to take steps in our financial system and with our auto companies that we would not have otherwise even considered.
These steps have put our government in the unwelcome position of owning large stakes in private companies, for the simple and compelling reason that their survival and the success of our overall economy depend on it.
Understand we're making these investments not because I want to spend the American people's tax dollars, but because I want to protect them.
Instead of taking so much stock in GM, we could have simply offered the company more loans. But for years GM has been buried under an unsustainable mountain of debt, and piling an irresponsibly large debt on top of the new GM would mean simply repeating the mistakes of the past. So we are acting as reluctant shareholders, because that is the only way to help GM succeed.
What we are not doing, what I have no interest in doing, is running GM. GM will be run by a private board of directors and management team with a track record in American manufacturing that reflects a commitment to innovation and quality. They, and not the government, will call the shots and make the decisions about how to turn this company around.
The federal government will refrain from exercising its rights as a shareholder in all but the most fundamental corporate decisions. When a difficult decision has to be made on matters like where to open a new plant or what type of new car to make, the new GM, not the United States government, will make that decision. In short, our goal is to get GM back on its feet, take a hands-off approach and get out quickly.
Exiting a restructuring of this scale, however, requires not only new investments, it also requires giving GM a chance to start anew by clearing away the massive past debts that are weighing the company down. And that's why earlier today GM did what Chrysler has successfully done, and filed for a Chapter 11 bankruptcy, with the support of its key stakeholders and the United States government. In all likelihood, this process will take more time for GM than it did for Chrysler, because GM is a bigger, more complex company. But Chrysler's extraordinary success reaffirms my confidence that GM will emerge from its bankruptcy process quickly and as a stronger and more competitive company.
And I want to remind everyone that if you are considering buying a GM car during this period of restructuring, your warranties will be safe and government-backed.
So I'm confident that the steps I'm announcing today will mark the end of an old GM and the beginning of a new GM, a new GM that can produce the high-quality, safe and fuel-efficient cars of tomorrow, that can lead America towards an energy-independent future, and that is once more a symbol of America's success.
But I want to be honest with you: Building a leaner GM will come at a cost. It will take a painful toll on many Americans who have relied on General Motors throughout the generations. So I want to say a word directly to all the men and women watching today, wondering what all this will mean as far as their own lives are concerned.
I know you've already seen more than your fair share of hard times. We saw 400,000 jobs lost in the auto industry in the year before this restructuring even began.
I will not pretend the hard times are over. Difficult days lie ahead. More jobs will be lost. More plants will close. More dealerships will shut their doors, and so will many parts suppliers.
But I want you to know that what you're doing is making a sacrifice for the next generation, a sacrifice you may not have chose to make but a sacrifice you were nevertheless called to make so that your children and all of our children can grow up in an America that still makes things, that still builds cars, that still strives for a better future.
As our auto workers and auto communities pass through these difficult times, we as a nation must do our part. That's why in March I appointed Ed Montgomery director of recovery for auto communities and workers. That's why two weeks ago Ed announced a green jobs training program for auto workers in hard-hit communities. And that's why last week Ed and Karen Mills, my Small Business Administration chief, traveled to Indiana to announce a new plan to provide loans to auto, RV and boat dealers to help finance floor plans.
That's why we are accelerating the purchase of a federal fleet of cars to jump-start demand and give the industry a boost at a time when it needs one. And that's why I'm calling on Congress to pass fleet modernization legislation that can provide a credit to consumers who turn in old cars and purchase cleaner, more fuel-efficient cars.
These are important steps on the long road to overcoming a problem that didn't happen overnight and will not be solved overnight. I recognize that today's news carries a particular importance because it's not just any company we're talking about; it's GM. It's a company that's not only been a source of income but a source of pride for generations of auto workers and generations of Americans.
But while the GM of the future will be different from the GM of past, I am absolutely confident that if well managed, a new GM will emerge that can provide a new generation of Americans with the chance to live out their dreams, that can out-compete automakers around the world, and they can once again be an integral part of America's economic future. And when that happens, we can truly say that what is good for General Motors and all who work there is good for the United States of America.
Thank you, everybody.
以下のTranscriptionは、 GMのホームページからの引用です。
GM CEO Fritz Henderson made a brief speech.
（9分09秒／145.6WPM [GM CEO Fritz Henderson氏のみのスピーチのカウントです。]）
Our agreement with the U.S. Treasury and the government of Canada and Ontario provide a fast track plan to form a leaner, quicker, more customer, completely product-focused Company. One that's more cost competitive and has a competitive balance sheet. The plan incorporates the terms of our recent agreements with the UAW and the CAW, as well as has received the support of a substantial portion of GM's unsecured bondholders.
This New GM will be built from the strongest parts of our business, including our best brands, and our very finest products. We will have far less debt, fully competitive labor costs, and the ability to generate sustained and positive bottom line performance. The New GM will have a significantly stronger and healthier balance sheet, which will allow us to better support our brands and products through investment, increase our investment in new technology, and be able to weather difficult times.
Initially, the New GM will be owned primarily by the U.S. Department of the Treasury, the governments of Canada and Ontario, the UAW's post retirement healthcare VEBA trust, and the unsecured creditors, largely the bondholders, of the old General Motors. To implement these agreements and formally launch the New General Motors, it was necessary to enter a court supervised process, which we did earlier this morning, with the full support of the U.S. and Canadian governments, the UAW, the CAW, and with the support of a majority of GM's unsecured bondholders. While our preference was to create a New GM through other paths, and you heard me say this many times, what was and is the most important thing to do is to get to our destination, restructure General Motors permanently, and get there fast.
The 363 sale we're pursuing provides a powerful tool. In fact, an array of tools to accelerate and complete the job of reinventing General Motors Corporation. The court supervised process also offers strong safeguards to our customers and our business, until GM or the New GM, is launched as an independent Company, which we expect to happen in 60 to 90 days.
The actions we need to take to launch the New General Motors also include a number of extraordinarily difficult steps. Especially tough are the actions to close additional plants and further reduce our U.S. hourly and salaried employment. I want to express my sincere and heart-felt appreciation and thanks to all who have sacrificed so much in this regard, who have sacrificed in the past and will sacrifice in the future, including our dealers, suppliers, retirees, plant communities, as well as those who will continue to invest and in fact share the sacrifice in the future and in the days ahead.
This includes very serious sacrifices -- and the other unsecured creditors of General Motors Corporation, whose recovery will come in the form of stock and warrants and reminds us of the importance of delivering in the future, so that they get a recovery on their investment, and they're able to reduce the amount of damage that they've sustained. It's the job of management to maximize the return on our stock by producing the results, including generating cash as soon as possible to invest in our business, to grow, to be product-focused and in fact to reward the confidence of the taxpayers of the U.S. and Canada, but of the very parties that we're asking to sacrifice so that there can be a New General Motors.
In the meantime, GM remains open for business. In addition to marketing and selling our cars and trucks, we will continue to honor our warranties, service our products, and support our customers. Importantly, our product launches and technology programs remain on track. In fact, a key part of our new agreement with the UAW, for example, is our intention for the New General Motors to build a new small car here in the United States, and to do so profitably.
Also, all of our business operations are continuing without interruption in Europe, Latin America, Africa and the Middle East, and in Asia-Pacific. In fact, none of our operations outside the United States are included in the U.S. court filings or court supervised process, and these filings have no impact on our plans and operations, again, outside the U.S.
Today, GM Europe announced that it has secured a Memorandum of Understanding with Magna International and has received the support for a bridge financing package of 1.5 billion Euro from the German government, and we're very appreciative of the professionalism and the dedication and support of the Magna team, and we're extraordinarily grateful for the support we've received from the German government. This action, the series of actions, isolates our European operations from the court supervised process in the U.S., and GM Europe will continue to operate as normal as it will in the U.S., as it completes its restructuring, and we complete the negotiations of the definitive agreement with Magna International. Those negotiations are ongoing, but in the end, we anticipate that the New General Motors will maintain a substantial but still minority stake in the assets and the businesses that we commonly refer to as our Opel and Vauxhall business in Europe.
To our customers: we appreciate the confidence that many of you have placed in us over the years. Going forward, we intend to offer you nothing less than best-in-class cars and trucks and even better service than before. And to those of you who have never tried a GM vehicle, or who have tried one and given up on us, we look forward to the chance to win your business and earn back your trust. Give us another chance. The GM that many of you knew, the GM that in fact had let too many of you down, is history.
Today marks the beginning of what will be a new company, a New GM, dedicated to building the very best cars and trucks, highly fuel efficient, world class quality, green technology development, and with truly outstanding design. And above all, the New GM will be rededicated in our entirety as a leadership team to our customers. A number of our cars and trucks from the Chevy Volt, the Buick LaCrosse, the Chevrolet Camaro and Equinox, the GMC Terrain and the Cadillac SRX, amongst others, are already world-class or in the case of advanced technology, are breaking new ground. We need to make sure that all of our products are world-class and that will be our focus going forward. The days when General Motors would have 15 launches of which we would count on five or six of them being hits and the rest of them being okay are history. We need to make sure every single one of our vehicle launches is an outstanding car or truck.
Finally, on behalf of the entire GM team, some sincere thanks are in order starting with President Obama and his automotive task force of the U.S. Department of the Treasury, and especially the American and Canadian taxpayers, for the opportunity that's being provided to us to reinvent General Motors. We know we need to prove ourselves and to do it every day and we will. And we will do it right and we will do it once. From here on, we move up. This is not the end of General Motors but the start of a new and better chapter, one that needed to happen and one that begins today.
As we move forward, I want to continue to put a high priority on making sure we are open and transparent. One way we'll do that is through increased use of web chats and other information sources, and you'll be seeing and hearing a lot of me. I'll kick things off later this week on Thursday, followed by a steady stream of GM leaders available to answer questions and talk about our progress.
Thank you very much for your time. With that, let's open it up for questions. Thank you.
Steve Harris - GM VP - Global Communications
We're going to start over here on the right with a question from [TV Group] from Mexico. Can we get the microphone to this young lady right there? Right behind you is the microphone.
Unidentified Audience Member
Yes, sir. I would like to ask you. You say you're not going to close plants abroad, but what will be the impact on -- just is going to be temporary for these 60 days that you guys are going to be restructuring the Company? How will this affect Mexico who has 13,000 employees from GM and four plants?
Fritz Henderson - GM President, CEO
Buenos tardes.
Unidentified Audience Member
Buenos tardes.
Fritz Henderson - GM President, CEO
Our Mexico operation is not included in the U.S. filing. Our Mexico operations like our operations in the U.S. and Canada are being affected today by substantially reduced levels of demand. And so, therefore, as we've reduced the level of capacity and reduced our level of production to equate with the level of demand, we've seen an impact obviously in Mexico as well as in Canada and the U.S. That's been a function of the market. Let me just reinforce, our Mexico operations are not part of the U.S. bankruptcy process, are not intended to be, and they are a part of the new General Motors going forward.
Steve Harris - GM VP - Global Communications
Let's go over to Phil LeBeau on the other side.
Phil LeBeau - CNBC
Hi, Fritz. Right now, people around the country and around the world are watching this press conference, and a lot of people are probably saying, we've heard this from General Motors in the past. We've heard about the plant closings, the restructurings, that there's a new day approaching for GM. How should the American public look at this today and say, we have confidence that this is, finally GM's getting it right? How can you convince people that this is the last time GM will have to restructure?
Fritz Henderson - GM President, CEO
Well, I'll say at the beginning, that the only way to convince people is to produce results. Let me at least try to answer your question sitting here today. If I think about this business and being successful in the business, there's never been a successful turnaround done in the automotive business in its history without having success on both the product and the revenue side of the business, and getting your costs right. Nobody ever gets to do a turnaround with one or the other. You get to do both. If I think about the situation we found ourselves in, the work being done on restructuring the business, the work that has been done, and the work that we have done recently with our partners and the sacrifices that are being made, we find ourselves in the position where we feel confident that we are competitive and we will be competitive from a cost perspective.
The second is the impact on our balance sheet, the leverage, the various claims on the Company really were to a point were just untenable. We're solving that problem. So getting the issues and the operations behind us, we're getting the issues within the balance sheet behind us, so that the leadership team can spend the time where it needs to spend the time which is on products and on customers. Share of mind, share of time in a day is an extremely important thing for a leadership group, and I think what this does is allow us to permanently address problems that we have not been able to permanently address until today. And so I think we can say that when we exit this process and the New GM comes forward, we will have taken some of these historic problems, addressed them in a permanent way, to allow us to spend our time on where we should be spending our time, products, customers, reinventing the technology, and then we have to prove that the investment and the confidence and the sacrifice of people are worth it. So I do think that there is a very different approach here and one that addresses some of these traditional chronic problems in a permanent way and, frankly, frees us up to focus on exactly what we need to do to win.
This New GM will be built from the strongest parts of our business, including our best brands, and our very finest products. We will have far less debt, fully competitive labor costs, and the ability to generate sustained and positive bottom line performance. The New GM will have a significantly stronger and healthier balance sheet, which will allow us to better support our brands and products through investment, increase our investment in new technology, and be able to weather difficult times.
Initially, the New GM will be owned primarily by the U.S. Department of the Treasury, the governments of Canada and Ontario, the UAW's post retirement healthcare VEBA trust, and the unsecured creditors, largely the bondholders, of the old General Motors. To implement these agreements and formally launch the New General Motors, it was necessary to enter a court supervised process, which we did earlier this morning, with the full support of the U.S. and Canadian governments, the UAW, the CAW, and with the support of a majority of GM's unsecured bondholders. While our preference was to create a New GM through other paths, and you heard me say this many times, what was and is the most important thing to do is to get to our destination, restructure General Motors permanently, and get there fast.
The 363 sale we're pursuing provides a powerful tool. In fact, an array of tools to accelerate and complete the job of reinventing General Motors Corporation. The court supervised process also offers strong safeguards to our customers and our business, until GM or the New GM, is launched as an independent Company, which we expect to happen in 60 to 90 days.
The actions we need to take to launch the New General Motors also include a number of extraordinarily difficult steps. Especially tough are the actions to close additional plants and further reduce our U.S. hourly and salaried employment. I want to express my sincere and heart-felt appreciation and thanks to all who have sacrificed so much in this regard, who have sacrificed in the past and will sacrifice in the future, including our dealers, suppliers, retirees, plant communities, as well as those who will continue to invest and in fact share the sacrifice in the future and in the days ahead.
This includes very serious sacrifices -- and the other unsecured creditors of General Motors Corporation, whose recovery will come in the form of stock and warrants and reminds us of the importance of delivering in the future, so that they get a recovery on their investment, and they're able to reduce the amount of damage that they've sustained. It's the job of management to maximize the return on our stock by producing the results, including generating cash as soon as possible to invest in our business, to grow, to be product-focused and in fact to reward the confidence of the taxpayers of the U.S. and Canada, but of the very parties that we're asking to sacrifice so that there can be a New General Motors.
In the meantime, GM remains open for business. In addition to marketing and selling our cars and trucks, we will continue to honor our warranties, service our products, and support our customers. Importantly, our product launches and technology programs remain on track. In fact, a key part of our new agreement with the UAW, for example, is our intention for the New General Motors to build a new small car here in the United States, and to do so profitably.
Also, all of our business operations are continuing without interruption in Europe, Latin America, Africa and the Middle East, and in Asia-Pacific. In fact, none of our operations outside the United States are included in the U.S. court filings or court supervised process, and these filings have no impact on our plans and operations, again, outside the U.S.
Today, GM Europe announced that it has secured a Memorandum of Understanding with Magna International and has received the support for a bridge financing package of 1.5 billion Euro from the German government, and we're very appreciative of the professionalism and the dedication and support of the Magna team, and we're extraordinarily grateful for the support we've received from the German government. This action, the series of actions, isolates our European operations from the court supervised process in the U.S., and GM Europe will continue to operate as normal as it will in the U.S., as it completes its restructuring, and we complete the negotiations of the definitive agreement with Magna International. Those negotiations are ongoing, but in the end, we anticipate that the New General Motors will maintain a substantial but still minority stake in the assets and the businesses that we commonly refer to as our Opel and Vauxhall business in Europe.
To our customers: we appreciate the confidence that many of you have placed in us over the years. Going forward, we intend to offer you nothing less than best-in-class cars and trucks and even better service than before. And to those of you who have never tried a GM vehicle, or who have tried one and given up on us, we look forward to the chance to win your business and earn back your trust. Give us another chance. The GM that many of you knew, the GM that in fact had let too many of you down, is history.
Today marks the beginning of what will be a new company, a New GM, dedicated to building the very best cars and trucks, highly fuel efficient, world class quality, green technology development, and with truly outstanding design. And above all, the New GM will be rededicated in our entirety as a leadership team to our customers. A number of our cars and trucks from the Chevy Volt, the Buick LaCrosse, the Chevrolet Camaro and Equinox, the GMC Terrain and the Cadillac SRX, amongst others, are already world-class or in the case of advanced technology, are breaking new ground. We need to make sure that all of our products are world-class and that will be our focus going forward. The days when General Motors would have 15 launches of which we would count on five or six of them being hits and the rest of them being okay are history. We need to make sure every single one of our vehicle launches is an outstanding car or truck.
Finally, on behalf of the entire GM team, some sincere thanks are in order starting with President Obama and his automotive task force of the U.S. Department of the Treasury, and especially the American and Canadian taxpayers, for the opportunity that's being provided to us to reinvent General Motors. We know we need to prove ourselves and to do it every day and we will. And we will do it right and we will do it once. From here on, we move up. This is not the end of General Motors but the start of a new and better chapter, one that needed to happen and one that begins today.
As we move forward, I want to continue to put a high priority on making sure we are open and transparent. One way we'll do that is through increased use of web chats and other information sources, and you'll be seeing and hearing a lot of me. I'll kick things off later this week on Thursday, followed by a steady stream of GM leaders available to answer questions and talk about our progress.
Thank you very much for your time. With that, let's open it up for questions. Thank you.
Steve Harris - GM VP - Global Communications
We're going to start over here on the right with a question from [TV Group] from Mexico. Can we get the microphone to this young lady right there? Right behind you is the microphone.
Unidentified Audience Member
Yes, sir. I would like to ask you. You say you're not going to close plants abroad, but what will be the impact on -- just is going to be temporary for these 60 days that you guys are going to be restructuring the Company? How will this affect Mexico who has 13,000 employees from GM and four plants?
Fritz Henderson - GM President, CEO
Buenos tardes.
Unidentified Audience Member
Buenos tardes.
Fritz Henderson - GM President, CEO
Our Mexico operation is not included in the U.S. filing. Our Mexico operations like our operations in the U.S. and Canada are being affected today by substantially reduced levels of demand. And so, therefore, as we've reduced the level of capacity and reduced our level of production to equate with the level of demand, we've seen an impact obviously in Mexico as well as in Canada and the U.S. That's been a function of the market. Let me just reinforce, our Mexico operations are not part of the U.S. bankruptcy process, are not intended to be, and they are a part of the new General Motors going forward.
Steve Harris - GM VP - Global Communications
Let's go over to Phil LeBeau on the other side.
Phil LeBeau - CNBC
Hi, Fritz. Right now, people around the country and around the world are watching this press conference, and a lot of people are probably saying, we've heard this from General Motors in the past. We've heard about the plant closings, the restructurings, that there's a new day approaching for GM. How should the American public look at this today and say, we have confidence that this is, finally GM's getting it right? How can you convince people that this is the last time GM will have to restructure?
Fritz Henderson - GM President, CEO
Well, I'll say at the beginning, that the only way to convince people is to produce results. Let me at least try to answer your question sitting here today. If I think about this business and being successful in the business, there's never been a successful turnaround done in the automotive business in its history without having success on both the product and the revenue side of the business, and getting your costs right. Nobody ever gets to do a turnaround with one or the other. You get to do both. If I think about the situation we found ourselves in, the work being done on restructuring the business, the work that has been done, and the work that we have done recently with our partners and the sacrifices that are being made, we find ourselves in the position where we feel confident that we are competitive and we will be competitive from a cost perspective.
The second is the impact on our balance sheet, the leverage, the various claims on the Company really were to a point were just untenable. We're solving that problem. So getting the issues and the operations behind us, we're getting the issues within the balance sheet behind us, so that the leadership team can spend the time where it needs to spend the time which is on products and on customers. Share of mind, share of time in a day is an extremely important thing for a leadership group, and I think what this does is allow us to permanently address problems that we have not been able to permanently address until today. And so I think we can say that when we exit this process and the New GM comes forward, we will have taken some of these historic problems, addressed them in a permanent way, to allow us to spend our time on where we should be spending our time, products, customers, reinventing the technology, and then we have to prove that the investment and the confidence and the sacrifice of people are worth it. So I do think that there is a very different approach here and one that addresses some of these traditional chronic problems in a permanent way and, frankly, frees us up to focus on exactly what we need to do to win.
GMのChapter11に関するサイトが開かれていて、主要な書類などをこちらからご覧になれますので、宜しかったらどうぞ。
また、Bankruptcy・Chapter7・Chapter11等に関する語彙の動画をyoutubeで見つけたので、興味があればどうぞ。また、学習の終わりにreviewテストようなものがありますので、試してみてください。
相互リンクお願い bysirube
突然のコメント失礼致します。
失礼ながら、相互リンクしていただきたくて、コメントさせていただきました。
http://sirube-note.com/english/
もしよろしければ、こちらのページから相互リンク登録していただけましたら幸いです。
http://sirube-note.com/english/link/register/
今後ともよろしくお願い致します。
2FKcamGA
失礼ながら、相互リンクしていただきたくて、コメントさせていただきました。
http://sirube-note.com/english/
もしよろしければ、こちらのページから相互リンク登録していただけましたら幸いです。
http://sirube-note.com/english/link/register/
今後ともよろしくお願い致します。
2FKcamGA
sirubeさん byRyuukai
sirubeさん、コメント有難うございます。
現在のリンクは、サイトURLからRSSのURLを抽出するようになっており、幾度と試したのですが、設定が出来ませんでした。従って、私方ではリンクを張る事ができません。sirubeさんのサイトを拝見する限り、相互リンクでの登録が条件のようですので、今回は見送りさせていただきます。
また、私のブログリンクをsirubeさんのサイトにリンクして頂くことについては、問題ありません。
今後とも宜しくお願い致します。
現在のリンクは、サイトURLからRSSのURLを抽出するようになっており、幾度と試したのですが、設定が出来ませんでした。従って、私方ではリンクを張る事ができません。sirubeさんのサイトを拝見する限り、相互リンクでの登録が条件のようですので、今回は見送りさせていただきます。
また、私のブログリンクをsirubeさんのサイトにリンクして頂くことについては、問題ありません。
今後とも宜しくお願い致します。
2009-07-04-Sat
CATEGORY: 英語関連
>
先に宣言しておきます。携帯から訪れて頂いている方は、PCからご覧になった方が良いと思います。
今週の金曜日（７月３日）にアラスカ州知事のサラ・ペイリン氏は、自宅で今月以内に知事職を辞任する旨を発表しました。主な理由としては、”行政府の外からでも確固とした変革を実現できる”と言う事ですが、憶測で色々な噂があるようなので、どうなんでしょうっと言ったところです。
辞職を発表した際の全内容ではないですが、 見つける事が出来たので、宜しければどうぞ。
(全ストリーを見たい人は、こちらからどうぞ。Transcriptionは、下記リンクのPage1から見ると、全て確認する事が出来ると思います。)
また、ヒラリー・クリントン氏等のスピーチに比べると、明らかに早いです。私にとっては、右耳から左耳に抜けてる感じがします。まだまだ、英語に限らず、色々な努力が必要だという事ですね。
以下のTranscriptionはThe New York Timesからの引用です。
Governor. Sarah Palin of Alaska announced Resignation
（7分07秒／175.6WPM）
I will not seek re-election as governor. And so as I thought about this announcement, that I wouldn’t run for re-election and what that means for Alaska, I thought about, well, how much fun some governors have as lame ducks. They maybe travel around their state, travel to other states, maybe take their overseas international trade missions. So many politicians do that. And then I thought, that’s what wrong. Many just accept that lame duck status and they hit the road, they draw a paycheck, they kind of milk it, and I’m not going to put Alaskans through that.
I promised efficiencies and effectiveness. That’s not how I’m wired. I’m not wired to operate under the same old politics as usual. I promised that four years ago and I meant it. That’s not what is best for Alaska at this time. I’m determined to take the right path for Alaska, even though it is unconventional and it’s not so comfortable.
With this announcement that I’m not seeking re-election, I’ve determined it’s best to transfer the authority of governor to Lieutenant Governor Parnell. And I am willing to do this so that this administration with its positive agenda and its accomplishments and its successful road to an incredible future for Alaska so that it can continue without interruption and with great administrative and legislative success.
My choice is to take a stand and effect change and not just hit our head against the wall and watch valuable state time and money, millions of your dollars, go down the drain in this new political environment. Rather we know we can effect positive change outside government at this moment in time, on another scale, and actually make a difference for our priorities — and so we will, for Alaskans and for Americans.
Let me go back quickly to a comfortable analogy for me — sports, basketball. And I use it because you are naïve if you don’t see a full-court press from the national level picking away right now. A good point guard, here’s what she does. She drives through a full court press, protecting the ball, keeping her head up because she needs to keep her eye on the basket. And she knows exactly when to pass the ball so that the team can win. And that is what I’m doing — keeping our eye on the ball that represents sound priorities — you remember they include energy independence and smaller government and national security and freedom! And I know when it’s time to pass the ball for victory.
And I’ve given my reasons now, very candidly, truthfully. And my last day won’t be for another few weeks so the transition will be very smooth. In fact, we look forward to swearing in Sean Parnell up there in Fairbanks at the conclusion of our governor’s picnic at the end of the month.
And I really don’t want to disappoint anyone with this announcement, not with the decision that I have made. my decision. All I can ask is that you trust me with this decision and know that it is no more politics as usual.
And some Alaskans it seemed today, maybe they don’t mind wasting public dollars and state time but I do. And I cannot stand here as your governor and allow the millions of dollars and all that time go to waste just so that I can hold the title of governor. And I don’t know if my children are going to allow it anyway.
Some are going to question the timing of this. And let me must say that this decision has been in the works for a while. In fact, this decision comes after much consideration, prayer and consideration. And finally I polled the most important people in my life, my kids, where the count was unanimous. Well, in response to asking: “Do you want me to make a positive difference and fight for all our children’s future from outside the governor’s office?” It was four yeses and one “hell yeah!” And the “hell yeah” sealed it — and someday I’ll talk about the details of that.
I think, though, much of it for the kids had to do with recently seeing their baby brother Trig mocked and ridiculed by some pretty mean-spirited adults recently. And by the way, I sure wish folks could ever understand all that we can learn, all of us, from someone like Trig. I know he needs me, but I know I need him even more. And what a child can offer to set priorities right — know that time is precious. The world needs more Trigs, not fewer.
My decision was also fortified during this most recent trip to Kosovo and Landstuhl to visit our wounded soldiers overseas, those who truly sacrifice themselves in war for our freedom and our security. And we can all learn from our selfless, selfless troops. They’re bold and they don’t give up and they take a stand and they know that life is short so they choose not to waste time. They choose to be productive and to serve something greater than self and to build up their families and their states and our great country. These troops and their important missions now, there is where truly the worthy causes are in this world and that’s where our public resources should be our public priority with time and resources spent on that, not on this superficial, wasteful political bloodsport. So may we all learn from them.
Really, we’ve just got to put first things first. And first things first as governor, I love my job and I love Alaska. And it hurts to make this choice but I’m doing what’s best for Alaska, and I have explained why. Though I think of the saying on my parents’ refrigerator, a little magnet that says, “Don’t explain: your friends don’t need it and your enemies won’t believe you anyway.”
But I’ve given my reasons. It’s no more politics as usual and I’m taking my fight for what’s right for Alaska in a new direction.
Now, despite this, I sure don’t want anyone, any Alaskan dissuaded from entering politics after seeing this real climate change that began in August. No, we need hardworking, average Americans fighting for what’s right. And I will support you because we need you and you can effect change, and I can too on the outside.
We need those who will respect our Constitution where government’s supposed to serve from the bottom up, and not move toward this top down, big government takeover but rather will be protectors of individual rights — who also have enough common sense to acknowledge when conditions have drastically changed and are willing to call an audible and pass the ball when it’s time so the team can win. And that’s what I’m doing.
Remember Alaska, America is now, more than ever, looking north to the future. And it’ll be good. So God bless you, and from me and from my family to all Alaska, you have my heart.
And we’re going to be in really great hands, the capable hands of our lieutenant governor, Sean Parnell. And Lt. Gen. Craig Campbell then will assume the role of lieutenant governor. And it is my promise to you that I will always be standing by, ready to assist. We have a good, positive agenda for Alaska.
Take the words of General MacArthur. He said: “We are not retreating. We are advancing in another direction.”
I promised efficiencies and effectiveness. That’s not how I’m wired. I’m not wired to operate under the same old politics as usual. I promised that four years ago and I meant it. That’s not what is best for Alaska at this time. I’m determined to take the right path for Alaska, even though it is unconventional and it’s not so comfortable.
With this announcement that I’m not seeking re-election, I’ve determined it’s best to transfer the authority of governor to Lieutenant Governor Parnell. And I am willing to do this so that this administration with its positive agenda and its accomplishments and its successful road to an incredible future for Alaska so that it can continue without interruption and with great administrative and legislative success.
My choice is to take a stand and effect change and not just hit our head against the wall and watch valuable state time and money, millions of your dollars, go down the drain in this new political environment. Rather we know we can effect positive change outside government at this moment in time, on another scale, and actually make a difference for our priorities — and so we will, for Alaskans and for Americans.
Let me go back quickly to a comfortable analogy for me — sports, basketball. And I use it because you are naïve if you don’t see a full-court press from the national level picking away right now. A good point guard, here’s what she does. She drives through a full court press, protecting the ball, keeping her head up because she needs to keep her eye on the basket. And she knows exactly when to pass the ball so that the team can win. And that is what I’m doing — keeping our eye on the ball that represents sound priorities — you remember they include energy independence and smaller government and national security and freedom! And I know when it’s time to pass the ball for victory.
And I’ve given my reasons now, very candidly, truthfully. And my last day won’t be for another few weeks so the transition will be very smooth. In fact, we look forward to swearing in Sean Parnell up there in Fairbanks at the conclusion of our governor’s picnic at the end of the month.
And I really don’t want to disappoint anyone with this announcement, not with the decision that I have made. my decision. All I can ask is that you trust me with this decision and know that it is no more politics as usual.
And some Alaskans it seemed today, maybe they don’t mind wasting public dollars and state time but I do. And I cannot stand here as your governor and allow the millions of dollars and all that time go to waste just so that I can hold the title of governor. And I don’t know if my children are going to allow it anyway.
Some are going to question the timing of this. And let me must say that this decision has been in the works for a while. In fact, this decision comes after much consideration, prayer and consideration. And finally I polled the most important people in my life, my kids, where the count was unanimous. Well, in response to asking: “Do you want me to make a positive difference and fight for all our children’s future from outside the governor’s office?” It was four yeses and one “hell yeah!” And the “hell yeah” sealed it — and someday I’ll talk about the details of that.
I think, though, much of it for the kids had to do with recently seeing their baby brother Trig mocked and ridiculed by some pretty mean-spirited adults recently. And by the way, I sure wish folks could ever understand all that we can learn, all of us, from someone like Trig. I know he needs me, but I know I need him even more. And what a child can offer to set priorities right — know that time is precious. The world needs more Trigs, not fewer.
My decision was also fortified during this most recent trip to Kosovo and Landstuhl to visit our wounded soldiers overseas, those who truly sacrifice themselves in war for our freedom and our security. And we can all learn from our selfless, selfless troops. They’re bold and they don’t give up and they take a stand and they know that life is short so they choose not to waste time. They choose to be productive and to serve something greater than self and to build up their families and their states and our great country. These troops and their important missions now, there is where truly the worthy causes are in this world and that’s where our public resources should be our public priority with time and resources spent on that, not on this superficial, wasteful political bloodsport. So may we all learn from them.
Really, we’ve just got to put first things first. And first things first as governor, I love my job and I love Alaska. And it hurts to make this choice but I’m doing what’s best for Alaska, and I have explained why. Though I think of the saying on my parents’ refrigerator, a little magnet that says, “Don’t explain: your friends don’t need it and your enemies won’t believe you anyway.”
But I’ve given my reasons. It’s no more politics as usual and I’m taking my fight for what’s right for Alaska in a new direction.
Now, despite this, I sure don’t want anyone, any Alaskan dissuaded from entering politics after seeing this real climate change that began in August. No, we need hardworking, average Americans fighting for what’s right. And I will support you because we need you and you can effect change, and I can too on the outside.
We need those who will respect our Constitution where government’s supposed to serve from the bottom up, and not move toward this top down, big government takeover but rather will be protectors of individual rights — who also have enough common sense to acknowledge when conditions have drastically changed and are willing to call an audible and pass the ball when it’s time so the team can win. And that’s what I’m doing.
Remember Alaska, America is now, more than ever, looking north to the future. And it’ll be good. So God bless you, and from me and from my family to all Alaska, you have my heart.
And we’re going to be in really great hands, the capable hands of our lieutenant governor, Sean Parnell. And Lt. Gen. Craig Campbell then will assume the role of lieutenant governor. And it is my promise to you that I will always be standing by, ready to assist. We have a good, positive agenda for Alaska.
Take the words of General MacArthur. He said: “We are not retreating. We are advancing in another direction.”
個人的にはおもしろかったです。 byOおじさん
今日はどうもありがとうございました。
また、お会いできることを楽しみにしております。お互い仕事で色々ありますが負けずに頑張りましょう。でも、どうしようもないときはどうしようもないです。リアルももっとおもろい人を目指します！本当にありがとうございました。
また、お会いできることを楽しみにしております。お互い仕事で色々ありますが負けずに頑張りましょう。でも、どうしようもないときはどうしようもないです。リアルももっとおもろい人を目指します！本当にありがとうございました。
管理人のみ閲覧できます by-
byM
はじめまして. Mです
昨日は 楽しい時間をありがとうございました
今 ｒyuukaiさんのブログを拝見して 「スゴい人とお会いしてたんだ…」
と 一人 赤面しております
これから よろしくお願いします
昨日は 楽しい時間をありがとうございました
今 ｒyuukaiさんのブログを拝見して 「スゴい人とお会いしてたんだ…」
と 一人 赤面しております
これから よろしくお願いします
Oおじさん-san byRyuukai
Oおじさん-san、
先日は、有難うございました。
コメント有難うございます＆お会い出来てとても嬉しかったです。
あの面白いブロガーさんは、一体どんな人なんだろうと思っていましたが、それ以上に面白い人である事が、実際にお会いして、分かりましたよ＾＾
私には、そういうセンスが無いので、尊敬します。
また、近いうちにお会い出来ると思いますので、その際は宜しくお願い致します。７月のTOEICは残りわずかですが、お互い良い結果が残せるように頑張りましょう！
先日は、有難うございました。
コメント有難うございます＆お会い出来てとても嬉しかったです。
あの面白いブロガーさんは、一体どんな人なんだろうと思っていましたが、それ以上に面白い人である事が、実際にお会いして、分かりましたよ＾＾
私には、そういうセンスが無いので、尊敬します。
また、近いうちにお会い出来ると思いますので、その際は宜しくお願い致します。７月のTOEICは残りわずかですが、お互い良い結果が残せるように頑張りましょう！
管理人のみ閲覧できます by-
隠しコメントさん byRyuukai
隠しコメントさん、２度のコメント有難うございます。
１回目：正解（理由は、それだけですか???）
２回目：５０％正解・５０％不正解です。
typoの指摘ありがとうございます。全く気付きませんでした＾＾；
隠しコメントさんのような高得点者さんに頑張りましょうなんて気安く言えませんが、今の英語力を発揮できればと思います。でも、私は、TOEIC特化（模試本を解くなど）の学習はしませんよ、私にとって物差しにすぎないので。
１回目：正解（理由は、それだけですか???）
２回目：５０％正解・５０％不正解です。
typoの指摘ありがとうございます。全く気付きませんでした＾＾；
隠しコメントさんのような高得点者さんに頑張りましょうなんて気安く言えませんが、今の英語力を発揮できればと思います。でも、私は、TOEIC特化（模試本を解くなど）の学習はしませんよ、私にとって物差しにすぎないので。
Ｍさん byRyuukai
Ｍさん、コメント有難うございます。
ここでは、初めてなので、はじめまして。先日は、色々と有難うございました。
私がＯおじさん-sanを国際ブックフェアに誘いをしなかったら、あんな形で偶然会うような事は無かったと思うと、不思議に思います。
>今 ｒyuukaiさんのブログを拝見して
>「スゴい人とお会いしてたんだ…」
>と 一人 赤面しております
私は、英語学習の端くれですので、そんな事は無いです。私以上にスゴイ人は、世の中にたくさんいます。なので、私のような者は、人以上に努力するしかないのです。でも、仕事を持っていると、色々な壁がありますけど。
あちらに行った際、時間があったら遊びに行きますね。
では、今後とも宜しくお願いいたします。
ここでは、初めてなので、はじめまして。先日は、色々と有難うございました。
私がＯおじさん-sanを国際ブックフェアに誘いをしなかったら、あんな形で偶然会うような事は無かったと思うと、不思議に思います。
>今 ｒyuukaiさんのブログを拝見して
>「スゴい人とお会いしてたんだ…」
>と 一人 赤面しております
私は、英語学習の端くれですので、そんな事は無いです。私以上にスゴイ人は、世の中にたくさんいます。なので、私のような者は、人以上に努力するしかないのです。でも、仕事を持っていると、色々な壁がありますけど。
あちらに行った際、時間があったら遊びに行きますね。
では、今後とも宜しくお願いいたします。
2009-09-10-Thu
CATEGORY: 英語関連
>
先に宣言しておきます。携帯から訪れて頂いている方は、PCからご覧になった方が良いと思います。
オバマ米大統領は、現地時間9日（日本時間：10日）にノーベル平和賞受賞が決まった事を受けてのホワイトハウスで、声明を発表しました。その模様を見つけましたので、興味がある方はどうぞ。
また、オバマ大統領は、来月の11月12日から19日にかけて、日本・シンガポール・中国・韓国のアジア4カ国を歴訪するようですが、中国に3泊４日の滞在で、他は、1泊2日と言った形で、オバマ大統領の中国重要視は、さらに鮮明に。
色々な心配事が増えていきそうな予感がいたします。日中関係とか・・・・。
以下のTranscriptionは、The New York Timesからの引用です。
The U.S. President Obama’s Nobel Reaction
（5分55秒／145.7WPM）
Good morning.
Well, this is not how I expected to wake up this morning.
After I received the news, Malia walked in and said, "Daddy, you won the Nobel Peace Prize, and it is Bo's birthday."
And then Sasha added, "Plus, we have a three-day weekend coming up."
So it's -- it's good to have kids to keep things in perspective.
I am both surprised and deeply humbled by the decision of the Nobel Committee.
Let me be clear, I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments, but rather as an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations.
To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize, men and women who've inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace.
But I also know that this prize reflects the kind of world that those men and women and all Americans want to build, a world that gives life to the promise of our founding documents.
And I know that throughout history the Nobel Peace Prize has not just been used to honor specific achievement; it's also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes.
And that is why I will accept this award as a call to action, a call for all nations to confront the common challenges of the 21st century.
Now, these challenges can't be met by any one leader or any one nation. And that's why my administration's worked to establish a new era of engagement in which all nations must take responsibility for the world we seek.
We cannot tolerate a world in which nuclear weapons spread to more nations and in which the terror of a nuclear holocaust endangers more people.
And that's why we've begun to take concrete steps to pursue a world without nuclear weapons: because all nations have the right to pursue peaceful nuclear power, but all nations have the responsibility to demonstrate their peaceful intentions.
We cannot accept the growing threat posed by climate change, which could forever damage the world that we pass on to our children, sowing conflict and famine, destroying coastlines and emptying cities.
And that's why all nations must now accept their share of responsibility for transforming the way that we use energy.
We can't allow the differences between peoples to define the way that we see one another. And that's why we must pursue a new beginning among people of different faiths and races and religions, one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect.
And we must all do our part to resolve those conflicts that have caused so much pain and hardship over so many years. And that effort must include an unwavering commitment to finally realize that -- the rights of all Israelis and Palestinians to live in peace and security in nations of their own.
We can't accept a world in which more people are denied opportunity and dignity that all people yearn for: the ability to get an education and make a decent living, the security that you won't have to live in fear of disease or violence without hope for the future.
And even as we strive to seek a world in which conflicts are resolved peacefully and prosperity is widely shared, we have to confront the world as we know it today.
I am the commander in chief of a country that's responsible for ending a war and working in another theater to confront a ruthless adversary that directly threatens the American people and our allies. I'm also aware that we are dealing with the impact of a global economic crisis that has left millions of Americans looking for work.
These are concerns that I confront every day on behalf of the American people.
Some of the work confronting us will not be completed during my presidency. Some, like the elimination of nuclear weapons, may not be completed in my lifetime.
But I know these challenges can be met, so long as it's recognized that they will not be met by one person or one nation alone.
This award is not simply about the efforts of my administration; it's about the courageous efforts of people around the world.
And that's why this award must be shared with everyone who strives for justice and dignity; for the young woman who marches silently in the streets on behalf of her right to be heard, even in the face of beatings and bullets; for the leader imprisoned in her own home because she refuses to abandon her commitment to democracy; for the soldier who sacrificed through tour after tour of duty on behalf of someone half a world away; and for all those men and women across the world who sacrifice their safety and their freedom and sometime their lives for the cause of peace.
That has always been the cause of America. That's why the world has always looked to America. And that's why I believe America will continue to lead.
Thank you very much.
Well, this is not how I expected to wake up this morning.
After I received the news, Malia walked in and said, "Daddy, you won the Nobel Peace Prize, and it is Bo's birthday."
And then Sasha added, "Plus, we have a three-day weekend coming up."
So it's -- it's good to have kids to keep things in perspective.
I am both surprised and deeply humbled by the decision of the Nobel Committee.
Let me be clear, I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments, but rather as an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations.
To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize, men and women who've inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace.
But I also know that this prize reflects the kind of world that those men and women and all Americans want to build, a world that gives life to the promise of our founding documents.
And I know that throughout history the Nobel Peace Prize has not just been used to honor specific achievement; it's also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes.
And that is why I will accept this award as a call to action, a call for all nations to confront the common challenges of the 21st century.
Now, these challenges can't be met by any one leader or any one nation. And that's why my administration's worked to establish a new era of engagement in which all nations must take responsibility for the world we seek.
We cannot tolerate a world in which nuclear weapons spread to more nations and in which the terror of a nuclear holocaust endangers more people.
And that's why we've begun to take concrete steps to pursue a world without nuclear weapons: because all nations have the right to pursue peaceful nuclear power, but all nations have the responsibility to demonstrate their peaceful intentions.
We cannot accept the growing threat posed by climate change, which could forever damage the world that we pass on to our children, sowing conflict and famine, destroying coastlines and emptying cities.
And that's why all nations must now accept their share of responsibility for transforming the way that we use energy.
We can't allow the differences between peoples to define the way that we see one another. And that's why we must pursue a new beginning among people of different faiths and races and religions, one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect.
And we must all do our part to resolve those conflicts that have caused so much pain and hardship over so many years. And that effort must include an unwavering commitment to finally realize that -- the rights of all Israelis and Palestinians to live in peace and security in nations of their own.
We can't accept a world in which more people are denied opportunity and dignity that all people yearn for: the ability to get an education and make a decent living, the security that you won't have to live in fear of disease or violence without hope for the future.
And even as we strive to seek a world in which conflicts are resolved peacefully and prosperity is widely shared, we have to confront the world as we know it today.
I am the commander in chief of a country that's responsible for ending a war and working in another theater to confront a ruthless adversary that directly threatens the American people and our allies. I'm also aware that we are dealing with the impact of a global economic crisis that has left millions of Americans looking for work.
These are concerns that I confront every day on behalf of the American people.
Some of the work confronting us will not be completed during my presidency. Some, like the elimination of nuclear weapons, may not be completed in my lifetime.
But I know these challenges can be met, so long as it's recognized that they will not be met by one person or one nation alone.
This award is not simply about the efforts of my administration; it's about the courageous efforts of people around the world.
And that's why this award must be shared with everyone who strives for justice and dignity; for the young woman who marches silently in the streets on behalf of her right to be heard, even in the face of beatings and bullets; for the leader imprisoned in her own home because she refuses to abandon her commitment to democracy; for the soldier who sacrificed through tour after tour of duty on behalf of someone half a world away; and for all those men and women across the world who sacrifice their safety and their freedom and sometime their lives for the cause of peace.
That has always been the cause of America. That's why the world has always looked to America. And that's why I believe America will continue to lead.
Thank you very much.
| ホーム |
![英会話ペラペラビジネス100 − ビジネスコミュニケーションを成功させる知的な大人の会話術 [CD2枚付]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51KZQQT259L._SL75_.jpg)
![英検Pass単熟語2級 改訂新版[CD]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51RI7oM1aBL._SL75_.jpg)
![NEW・山口英文法講義の実況中継(下) [改訂新版]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51QTFFSV9HL._SL75_.jpg)
![新TOEIC TEST ウルトラ語彙力主義 [CD付]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41a8kl8pyKL._SL75_.jpg)
