The answer will depend on the anarchist you ask, the particular future they envision, and how they interpret the framing of the question. Also, it is impossible for us to know what would and wouldn't exist in an anarchist future, anarchy, at it's best, is less like a destination and more like an idea of heading in a general direction with no map.
An anarchist future I would want to be involved in would most certainly have no entertainment industry, Microsoft, or commodities. It would most likely still have books (I'm not planning on burning all the libraries, nor is that a primary target of any anarchists I know), it *might* have movies, and would certainly have some media, though which media would really depend, and might vary from place to place.
I say there would be no Microsoft because Microsoft is a capitalist business, and it is one that I imagine that it *might* become a primary target of many anarchists and other folks intent on smashing and burning and looting. That doesn't mean there might not be collectives of ex-microserfs doing programming and stuff, maybe even on what used to be the Microsoft campus. I am personally skeptical of the compatibility of information technology of the scale and sort that Microsoft or similar but anarchic endeavors would create, but who knows?
Similarly, the entertainment industry is an industry - it is the production and sale of entertainment for profit. Many anarchists critique the idea of creating distinctions between work and play, as opposed to living lives in which the things capitalism deems leisure and labor are not distinct categories. I highly suggest reading Bob Black's essay The Abolition of Work (
http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/bob-black-the-abolition-of-work) for more on this. I guess the gist of this part of what I am saying is that entertainment as a concept seems, to me, to be something (fun, relaxation, distraction...) commodified and sold to me.
Which leads me to commodities - the idea of the "commodity" (according to Webster's Unabridged: 1.something to use, advantage, or value. 2. an article of trade or commerce, esp. a product as distinguished from a service) is so inextricably linked to a capitalist world view that I don't see a way to salvage them, nor would I want to.
But people still might write stories and poems and essays, and people still might print and bind books. There still might be movies made (or, in the absence of film or digital technology, plays acted). To not have businesses or industry or commodities does not mean to not have or make things, it just means that the having and making are so very different that the words and current forms are so alien as to be almost wholly different beasts altogether.
