JF: You are a longtime pioneer at Microsoft and elsewhere. What was the basic idea that made you think you needed to take a different path in software development?
CS: It came from looking at the gap between what the hardware made possible and what was achieved by the software. If you look at the growth in hardware, it has been astounding. Of course everyone knows about Moore's Law and the exponential increase in computing capacity. The increase in storage capacity joined that, and the bandwidth between the computers also followed that exponential curve. And that created some incredible improvements in our lives, but if you look at it just with cold eyes, the gap has been widening between the possibilities and the realities. You must remember, too, when 2001 came out--
JF: Yes, it would've been 1969 or '70.
CS: I was just looking at the implied use of computers and displays in that film, and it was literally quite right, especially in the sequences when they were going to the moon. The displays in the cockpit there were very much like the displays that you see in the cockpits today. Hollywood seems to be ahead of the curve of showing the capabilities.
Also, if you look at game improvement, starting with Pong and going to modern games like Halo, the detail and the excitement that you get is just tremendous. We have more memory than we can shake a stick at, which is wonderful. At home I'm moving all my DVDs to disc. And all my photos -- not only the present photos, but the past photos. And my CDs--everything is going on a disc. And the displays! Remember when Bill Gates was building his house?
CS: Of course there was this dream that he would be showing art on his walls on displays. We were kind of envious: "Oh my God. He is so rich that he can have a display just for art." And in fact, in his house, in many places, there was a double wall. You had a walkway behind the walls to accommodate the displays, which were four or five feet deep and required heating and cooling and everything else. Today, displays--I've just been to a Rolling Stones concert and they had like a 100-foot display. And go to Times Square and there are skyscrapers whose only purpose is to carry a display on their windows.
This all has to be activated by software. We have some terrific new applications, and in that I include search engines Google and Bing, and, of course, the Microsoft Office suite. The potential is much, much greater than that. And it really has to do with involving knowledge or encoding knowledge in a deeper way. That's basically the reason I thought that a different path was needed.
JF: If the potential of software had been realized the way other potentials have been realized, how would our lives be different now?
CS: I think that the basic answer is that nobody would be doing routine, repetitive things. Think of how many times you go to a new Web site, and after you've formed that intention and made the decision, the rest is routine and repetitive. Look at health care and the incredible number of repetitive and routine actions you have to take as a patient.
Amazon has been applying a sort of rationalization and organization to a wider area of retail--but the elimination of routine activities from your life is the main thing we have missed. I think what will happen is that the concept of what's routine--and therefore avoidable--will expand. For example, making appointments, maintaining your calendar. Better software will definitely get into those areas.
JF: One other backward-looking question: As you try to explain the differential rates of progress in hardware versus software, is it a failure of effort or are the problems of software intrinsically harder?
CS: It's the latter. I sometimes call software "distilled complexity." Hardware is actually quite a bit simpler. It's this fairly simple logical divide. The same thing is true for printers. For example, I often show a slide that shows the inside of a teletype from the 1960s--you know if you look at an old James Bond movie and you can see the Telex machine making the noise in the corner. And if you look at those Telex machines, how complicated they were, and you look at a modern inkjet printer and open it up and there are practically no moving parts in it, you know there's the head, and there's the band that pulls the head along, and that's about it.
The other example I use is the Merganthaler linotype machine.
JF: Yes, I actually set hot lead on the college newspaper on one of those things.
CS: These were wonderful, wonderful machines. But, you know, they were expensive. They were dirty.
JF: And because they were complex, they broke, too.
CS: They broke, and that added to the expense of having to fix them. So what we've done now is, in a way, we've swept the room. We've swept the complexity into this thing, which is the software, and then we could afford to super-optimize the hardware.