PDA

View Full Version : Bill Gates Transition/Retirement


Pages : [1] 2

zap2
Jun 15, 2006, 03:49 PM
Its true,, i guess his comment about wishing he was not the richest man was true

That all there is for the time being on CNN

In 2008 :(

I guess in time for Vista to come out

rkolsen
Jun 15, 2006, 03:51 PM
Its true,, i guess his comment about wishing he was not the richest man was true

That all there is for the time being on CNN

In 2008 :(

I guess in time for Vista to come out
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13348456/

zap2
Jun 15, 2006, 03:52 PM
A CNN story on it


http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/06/15/gates.ap/index.html

commonpeople
Jun 15, 2006, 03:53 PM
Let us not forget that Gates is perhaps the greatest philanthropist the world has ever known. Whether or not you like MS, you have to admit his money is saving thousands of lives. I wish him luck.

zap2
Jun 15, 2006, 03:55 PM
Let us not forget that Gates is perhaps the greatest philanthropist the world has ever known. Whether or not you like MS, you have to admit his money is saving thousands of lives. I wish him luck.


Well the reason he says for leaving is to help more people. I think its a great idea, leave MS to fail, and go save lifes, works for me.

XNine
Jun 15, 2006, 04:04 PM
Let us not forget that Gates is perhaps the greatest philanthropist the world has ever known. Whether or not you like MS, you have to admit his money is saving thousands of lives. I wish him luck.

Though his money and fame mostly comes from stolen products and monopolistic business practices. meh? who cares, he's saving lives! *smoke screen alert*

commonpeople
Jun 15, 2006, 04:09 PM
Though his money and fame mostly comes from stolen products and monopolistic business practices. meh? who cares, he's saving lives! *smoke screen alert*

It's only my opinion, but saving lives is probably more important than arguing over which OS is better. On balance, making Explorer the default browser is a sin that's probably more than compensated by spending billions on trying to eradicate third world diseases. Sense of perspective?

mcarnes
Jun 15, 2006, 04:18 PM
It's only my opinion, but saving lives is probably more important than arguing over which OS is better. On balance, making Explorer the default browser is a sin that's probably more than compensated by spending billions on trying to eradicate third world diseases. Sense of perspective?

You are so right. Nevermind the little boy he raped at his neverland ranch. It's all good.

XNine
Jun 15, 2006, 04:20 PM
It's only my opinion, but saving lives is probably more important than arguing over which OS is better. On balance, making Explorer the default browser is a sin that's probably more than compensated by spending billions on trying to eradicate third world diseases. Sense of perspective?

I didn't even mention "which OS was better," merely he's using the money that he has that he didn't earn honestly to make himself look like the good guy. That's all.

OttawaGuy
Jun 15, 2006, 04:23 PM
Bill Gates announced Thursday afternoon he will step down as CEO of Microsoft Corp. and company President Steve Ballmer will take over the CEO role. The changes were to take effect immediately. :eek:

yellow
Jun 15, 2006, 04:24 PM
Whatever I might think about the man's products, he and his wife are SERIOUS philanthropists and should be commended.

Balmer as CEO.. now THAT'S scary.

eva01
Jun 15, 2006, 04:29 PM
Ah we are talking about philanthropists right now in History.

He said Gates has basically piggy-backed on Carnegie

That he was extremely slow to donate anything

AlBDamned
Jun 15, 2006, 04:35 PM
A tenner says ol' Scoble saw this coming.

Good luck to Bill, but anyone with any sort of stake in Microsoft must be shaking - Ballmer as the top man is the death-knell for that organization.

Counterfit
Jun 15, 2006, 04:37 PM
Ballmer has been CEO for years. Gates has been only the chairman for a while now.

Also, he didn't start hemorrhaging cash in the direction of charities until he got married.

OnceUGoMac
Jun 15, 2006, 04:40 PM
He's not stepping down. He's still staying on as Chairman. He's just not going to be invloved with the daily operations. As a previous poster mentioned, Ballmer has been the head of MS for many years now.

EricNau
Jun 15, 2006, 04:42 PM
I doubt we'll notice any differences.

sushi
Jun 15, 2006, 04:43 PM
Also, he didn't start hemorrhaging cash in the direction of charities until he got married.
Marriage can change a man! :eek: :D

AlBDamned
Jun 15, 2006, 04:48 PM
Ballmer has been CEO for years. Gates has been only the chairman for a while now.

But Gates is the figurehead, the person many people associate with MS.

This announcement is intended to make Ballmer the figurehead, or at least start the ball rolling on his transition to figurehead.

SC68Cal
Jun 15, 2006, 04:52 PM
It's a modern day Carnegie

Peace
Jun 15, 2006, 04:56 PM
A Steve Ballmer figurehead is a scary visualization..

xsedrinam
Jun 15, 2006, 05:16 PM
A Steve Ballmer figurehead is a scary visualization..
Thanks, Peace. That just train wrecked a nice afternoon. :eek:

MacRumors
Jun 15, 2006, 05:22 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

The web is buzzing with the news, announced by Microsoft (http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2006/jun06/06-15CorpNewsPR.mspx) today, that Microsoft founder Bill Gates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Gates) will cease to have a day-to-day role in the company after July 2008, with a "smooth and orderly transition" between now and then.

Gates, who wants to "spend more time on his global health and education work," through the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (http://www.gatesfoundation.org/), has had much influence on the history of not only Microsoft but on the software and computer industries as a whole, including Apple's history.

After the transition period, Gates, who at age 50 is considered to be the world's richest person, will remain the company’s chairman and will be an advisor on key development projects.

Gates was sometimes criticized in the past for a late start to philanthropy, but has since devoted much time and attention, along with his wife, to health and education issues.

yankeefan24
Jun 15, 2006, 05:23 PM
he must retire some day…

mark!
Jun 15, 2006, 05:29 PM
SO confused.

wtf does a chairman do?
why is it when you think of microsoft you think of the chairman and not the CEO like we do with apple?

THIS IS ALL WTF.

OhEsTen
Jun 15, 2006, 05:34 PM
Whatever I might think about the man's products, he and his wife are SERIOUS philanthropists and should be commended.

Balmer as CEO.. now THAT'S scary.

If he was REALLY that philanthropic, he'd stop trying to cram IE down the whole worlds throat.... and create a more secure OS..... and practice fair business strategies...

There are a lot of disgusting people that do nice things once in a while....

gman71882
Jun 15, 2006, 05:36 PM
How can you have a "late start" to Philanthrophy? When is the right time to start giving away money?
As long as anyone who has gobs of money is giving it away to the right causes there isnt any "correct time" to give away money!!!
There is no Wrong way to give money to help the world.

Evan_11
Jun 15, 2006, 05:37 PM
It's pathetic reading the ragging on Gates. You use Macs, just be happy. But you're not. Why? because you have no life.

eva01
Jun 15, 2006, 05:38 PM
For the most part the best philanthropists are the ones that have the most problems.

Case in point. Carnegie had a workforce that worked 7 days a week a lot of the time 12 hour shifts even sometimes working 24hr shifts. His workers hated it.

Rockefeller created the first monopoly. ICC and Sherman Anti-Trust act were created due to Standard Oil (however not to stop the company, just to tell the public they were trying when the politicians didn't care because they were getting kickbacks)

Standard Oil was banned from Texas due to these practices however. And thus Texaco was created.

Dessert Whip
Jun 15, 2006, 05:42 PM
What does Gates have to do with MacRumors? Isn't there a WindowsRumors site where people might care about what he does with his time?

NVRsayNVR
Jun 15, 2006, 05:43 PM
Good Luck Bill!

Apple will NOW take over for the next 30 years! :D :D :D



"Think Alike... BE Different!"

Doctor Q
Jun 15, 2006, 05:44 PM
How can you have a "late start" to Philanthrophy?By amassing billions, for years, before ever considering giving any away. No law says rich people must share their wealth, but they do get criticized when they don't.

Many of Microsoft's first donations, instigated by Gates, were in the form of Microsoft software or software discounts to schools and other organizations, which brought more criticism because they didn't cost Microsoft hard cash as would direct monetary donations. And many were to schools in Washington state, where students might end up working for Microsoft, making it look further self-serving. But it's been clear in recent years that Gates did indeed have a strong interest in the work of his and Melinda's Foundation.

And saving lives through health programs is about as good a cause as you can have.

gwangung
Jun 15, 2006, 05:47 PM
Ah we are talking about philanthropists right now in History.

He said Gates has basically piggy-backed on Carnegie

That he was extremely slow to donate anything

Not true at all.

He was donating in the six figures in the 1980s.

macaddict06
Jun 15, 2006, 05:47 PM
Why? because you have no life.
Ouch, that's a popular position to have in the MacRumors Forums....but I'll bite.
There is no argument that his philanthrpy is a good thing. The argument is that ill gotten money distributed freely is not exactly philanthropic. Of course, you don't seem to follow this simple discussion, so I'll make it painfully simple for you.
Let's say that I stole a guy's wallet and give that money to the American Red Cross for hurricane relief. Does that make me a good person? Well, yes since I gave money, but more importantly, no since I gave money that was not mine in the first place.
Of course this all presupposes that Bill did steal the OS....which he did. If you want to argue otherwise, go find another place to do it, like a corner.
Finally, saying we don't have lives when the topic of discussion is Bill Gates is a bit ironic. Remember, this man learned how to do what he did by spending days on end working on a mainframe his school's PTA got access to. This was, as you may know, to the point where he would come out splattered in pizza sauce from the past several meals. So, I guess in a way saying we don't have lives is a complement, since hey who knows, you might end up working for us someday.
Have a nice day.

gwangung
Jun 15, 2006, 05:49 PM
How can you have a "late start" to Philanthrophy? When is the right time to start giving away money?

The vast majority of philanthropiss give in their fifties and sixties. That's the pattern I see as a fundraiser.

commonpeople
Jun 15, 2006, 05:50 PM
Ouch, that's a popular position to have in the MacRumors Forums....but I'll bite.
There is no argument that his philanthrpy is a good thing. The argument is that ill gotten money distributed freely is not exactly philanthropic. Of course, you don't seem to follow this simple discussion, so I'll make it painfully simple for you.
Let's say that I stole a guy's wallet and give that money to the American Red Cross for hurricane relief. Does that make me a good person? Well, yes since I gave money, but more importantly, no since I gave money that was not mine in the first place.
Of course this all presupposes that Bill did steal the OS....which he did. If you want to argue otherwise, go find another place to do it, like a corner.
Finally, saying we don't have lives when the topic of discussion is Bill Gates is a bit ironic. Remember, this man learned how to do what he did by spending days on end working on a mainframe his school's PTA got access to. This was, as you may know, to the point where he would come out splattered in pizza sauce from the past several meals. So, I guess in a way saying we don't have lives is a complement, since hey who knows, you might end up working for us someday.
Have a nice day.

Wow! Step away from your keyboard. There's a sun outside and children playing. People are talking to eachother and laughing. Cats are chasing butterflies.

Doctor Q
Jun 15, 2006, 05:53 PM
What does Gates have to do with MacRumors? Isn't there a WindowsRumors site where people might care about what he does with his time?Yes, it's www.pcrumors.com (http://www.pcrumors.com/), although the plagiarists there clearly "borrowed" liberally from our news story. ;)

As far as Apple is concerned, Bill Gates has long been the friend-or-foe that Apple has had to deal with, from the early days of graphical interfaces, the emergence of MS Office as the "standard" for business, and the competition for hearts and minds as computer companies moved into the web browser competition, the video market, the mainstream consumer market, etc.

Over the coming years, Gates' "transition" may or may not affect Microsoft's stategies, products, and practices in obvious ways, but it's hard to argue that the company didn't reflect his personal goals and opinions.

gwangung
Jun 15, 2006, 05:53 PM
By amassing billions, for years, before ever considering giving any away. No law says rich people must share their wealth, but they do get criticized when they don't.

Many of Microsoft's first donations, instigated by Gates, were in the form of Microsoft software or software discounts to schools and other organizations, which brought more criticism because they didn't cost Microsoft hard cash as would direct monetary donations. And many were to schools in Washington state, where students might end up working for Microsoft, making it look further self-serving. But it's been clear in recent years that Gates did indeed have a strong interest in the work of his and Melinda's Foundation.

And saving lives through health programs is about as good a cause as you can have.

I think a lot of folks around here are not very familiar with Gates' pattern of giving.

Most high tech companies in the 1980s and 90s were very heavy into giving product, as opposed to dollars. Gates and Microsoft was no different. However, he gave extensively in Washington (in cash) in the 1980s and 1990s, which, again, is no different from most philanthropists, who give very heavily in the area where they live.

The spigots really began to turn in 1992, when the giving spring from the six figures into the seven figures. This was probably prompted by a) his marriage, and b) the death of his mother.

Peace
Jun 15, 2006, 05:53 PM
Ouch, that's a popular position to have in the MacRumors Forums....but I'll bite.
There is no argument that his philanthrpy is a good thing. The argument is that ill gotten money distributed freely is not exactly philanthropic. Of course, you don't seem to follow this simple discussion, so I'll make it painfully simple for you.
Let's say that I stole a guy's wallet and give that money to the American Red Cross for hurricane relief. Does that make me a good person? Well, yes since I gave money, but more importantly, no since I gave money that was not mine in the first place.
Of course this all presupposes that Bill did steal the OS....which he did. If you want to argue otherwise, go find another place to do it, like a corner.
Finally, saying we don't have lives when the topic of discussion is Bill Gates is a bit ironic. Remember, this man learned how to do what he did by spending days on end working on a mainframe his school's PTA got access to. This was, as you may know, to the point where he would come out splattered in pizza sauce from the past several meals. So, I guess in a way saying we don't have lives is a complement, since hey who knows, you might end up working for us someday.
Have a nice day.


Never heard of Robin Hood eh? :D

muffinman
Jun 15, 2006, 05:54 PM
Stop critizicing bill gates. he is a great man, and has contributed billions to different efforts.

mark!
Jun 15, 2006, 05:55 PM
SO confused.

wtf does a chairman do?
why is it when you think of microsoft you think of the chairman and not the CEO like we do with apple?

THIS IS ALL WTF.

Can someone answer this please. :confused: :) :D

SPinc33
Jun 15, 2006, 05:58 PM
ignoring the fact that Gates may have stolen anything...

ignoring monopolistic business practices (it's redundant)...

What peeves me the most is that the man is worth about $100 Billion. Sure he gives away 52% of that to philanthropy(according to Wikipedia), but that still leaves $48 Billion for him!

I don't think one person should be allowed to control more money than most of the governments in the world. There are roughly a billion people with no clean drinking water...where is the limit? Wouldn't $5 billion be ok? Even $500 million, for that matter?

Call me a Communist, but hell...stop being greedy and give the others a piece of your pie. Why are the poor people always the first to share what little they have?

The true measure of a man's character is not what he does once he finds wealth/power, but what he does on the way there.

iCaffeine
Jun 15, 2006, 05:59 PM
Can someone answer this please. :confused: :) :D

sure the Chairman is #1 in command and the CEO is #2, does that help :)

Philberttheduck
Jun 15, 2006, 06:00 PM
LOL, he's CONSIDERED the richest man, not IS. Steve Jobs still makes nearly 1 penny a year? I remember that quote but I didn't believe it.

Good for Bill Gates. He's really a revolutionary man in the world of technology. Good luck to him and I hope he enjoys his life. As much as I hate M$, they've provided us with some great revolutionary things. I still prefer M$ Office for Mac over iWork.. simply because Apple doesn't want to use a highschool/college format that everyone's accustomed to.

gwangung
Jun 15, 2006, 06:00 PM
sure the Chairman is #1 in command and the CEO is #2, does that help :)

And the exact duties vary from company to company. :)

EricNau
Jun 15, 2006, 06:01 PM
Can someone answer this please. :confused: :) :D
Apple and Microsoft are different companies and different companies operate differently.

Peace
Jun 15, 2006, 06:02 PM
Chairman is a defacto Chairman Of The Board Of Directors..CEO is Chief Executive Officer..

A status symbol difference..

EricNau
Jun 15, 2006, 06:05 PM
Steve Jobs still makes nearly 1 penny a year? I remember that quote but I didn't believe it.

Actually, it was $1

...but that didn't count any of the apple shares he was given or any of the very expensive luxurious gifts he received (like a private jet).

Billy Boo Bob
Jun 15, 2006, 06:07 PM
I still prefer M$ Office for Mac over iWork.. simply because Apple doesn't want to use a highschool/college format that everyone's accustomed to.
I think it's more like Apple doesn't want MS to pull office from the Mac just yet, as they would if Apple released their own equivalent. Being able to run the highly recognized brand name "Microsoft Office" on the Mac is still a selling point for Apple. If MS ever does pull Office out of the Mac market, I'm sure Apple has something waiting in the "secret building" to put in its place already.

But, alas, that discussion doesn't really apply here.

Back to topic... You think he's bailing before the Vista train wreck, or just waiting for Vista to finally ship? :)

idea_hamster
Jun 15, 2006, 06:08 PM
Well, it sounds to me that Gates is getting out of the way of the giant steaming pile that is going to hit whoever is in charge of MS when Vista explodes like a road-kill skunk on a land mine.

Brannigan: "Well, Kif. Stand by to take the blame. Steady. Steady. Now!"
Kif: "Whaaa!"
Kif & Brannigan: *screaming*

So who's the "Kif" at MS? It's a crumby job....

cazlar
Jun 15, 2006, 06:09 PM
...but has since devoted much time and attention, along with his wife, to health and education issues.

Heh, kinda tangential to the story, but I read this as he had donated his wife!

Damien
Jun 15, 2006, 06:10 PM
No matter what some people think, and lets face it it either unfair attacks and hate or its about business in which case welcome to the real world. Anyway I respect Bill Gates and think he has done a lot

SPinc33
Jun 15, 2006, 06:11 PM
In a publicly traded corporation, usually the CEO is in charge of internal operations and often a figurehead too. He/She is responsible to the Board of Directors and can be fired by them.

The Board of Directors is representative of the shareholders of the company. They exist to make sweeping decisions about the financial health of the company (like firing the CEO if they aren't making enough money). They don't typically mix in the day-to-day stuff, but they can basically overturn any CEO (or lower) decisions as they see fit (if quarterly returns aren't growing).

The Board of Directors for any given company can consist of retired CEOs from other companies, usually in the same field, like suppliers or related businesses. Their only interest is making money off the stock prices, as they hold massive amounts of stock in the company they work for.

Does this help?

Badandy
Jun 15, 2006, 06:13 PM
ignoring the fact that Gates may have stolen anything...

ignoring monopolistic business practices (it's redundant)...

What peeves me the most is that the man is worth about $100 Billion. Sure he gives away 52% of that to philanthropy(according to Wikipedia), but that still leaves $48 Billion for him!

I don't think one person should be allowed to control more money than most of the governments in the world. There are roughly a billion people with no clean drinking water...where is the limit? Wouldn't $5 billion be ok? Even $500 million, for that matter?

Call me a Communist, but hell...stop being greedy and give the others a piece of your pie. Why are the poor people always the first to share what little they have?

The true measure of a man's character is not what he does once he finds wealth/power, but what he does on the way there.

You aren't a communist. You are a disillusioned socialist who does not understand supply-side and free market economics.

AtHomeBoy_2000
Jun 15, 2006, 06:14 PM
Let us not forget that Gates is perhaps the greatest philanthropist the world has ever known. Whether or not you like MS, you have to admit his money is saving thousands of lives. I wish him luck.
I dispise the company and how he made his money, but at least he is turnign that money around for a good cause.

p0intblank
Jun 15, 2006, 06:14 PM
Wow. I certainly didn't see this coming so soon... does this really affect Microsoft in any real way? And what effect will this have on Apple's future?

AtHomeBoy_2000
Jun 15, 2006, 06:17 PM
I was watching CNBC and I heard a great idea... split the company into 3 parts: gaming (XBox), Application, and OS.

Dm84
Jun 15, 2006, 06:18 PM
Let us not forget that Gates is perhaps the greatest philanthropist the world has ever known. Whether or not you like MS, you have to admit his money is saving thousands of lives. I wish him luck.For the longest time Gates didn't donate much at all relative to what he was worth. He only started massive philanthropy after he realized that he could save money on his taxes.

It's great that he donates now though.

kresh
Jun 15, 2006, 06:28 PM
If he was REALLY that philanthropic, he'd stop trying to cram IE down the whole worlds throat.... and create a more secure OS..... and practice fair business strategies...

There are a lot of disgusting people that do nice things once in a while....

I love my Apple products as much as the next person, but what a mouthful you have said.

"he'd stop trying to cram IE down the whole worlds throat.... and create a more secure OS" I just don't get this line of reasoning. Don't you think that the people who write all this malware should bear the brunt of your hate? It's not like Bill Gates is out there developing all these wicked viri and worms. Put the blame where it should lie..... With the sorry low life scum that develope the malware.

"and practice fair business strategies..." I don't understand this either. Should they not try and be the biggest, make the most money and try to dominate every market they are in. Surely you don't think that all companies should aim to come in, say 3rd or 4th place? Heaven forbid that someone comes out on top.

If Apple had 90% marketshare, would the world be a better place? I highly doubt it. There would still be all those lowlife scum trying to interupt your computing life, and Apple would damn well be trying to hang on to their market domination! (kinda like they do with the iPod)

Doctor Q
Jun 15, 2006, 06:29 PM
It's great that he donates now, but his reasons for donating are questionable.Perhaps it doesn't matter if he's directing his wealth toward charity for unselfish reasons (concern for the good of the world), for tax reasons, to avoid bad press, because his wife told him to, or for concern about his legacy. The effect of his Foundation's work would still be the same.

Effects on Apple aren't going to be immediately apparent, but there will be no lack of speculation from the media, particularly columnists and bloggers.

dontmatter
Jun 15, 2006, 06:31 PM
I didn't even mention "which OS was better," merely he's using the money that he has that he didn't earn honestly to make himself look like the good guy. That's all.

Yes, he does look good for it. But he is doing good. this isn't a dirty corporation giving tidbits so they can advertize on TV about it, this is an individual who gives immensely, and is very thoughtful and creative in doing so in effective and beneficial ways. And doesn't seek publicity on it, either.

Here's to hoping others follow his example.

clayj
Jun 15, 2006, 06:38 PM
For those of you who weren't aware of this, Steve Ballmer IS the CEO of Microsoft and has been for six years now. Bill has been Chairman of the Board the entire time (including when he was also CEO), and Bill's current other title is Chief Software Architect.

Basically, this whole thing means that Bill's not going in to the office every day... which in the grand scheme of things means very little, IMHO.

The sad part of it is that it means it's less likely that Bill will "return" to Microsoft, a la Steve Jobs, and "save" it from Steve Ballmer. Under Ballmer's tenure, Microsoft's once soaring stock price has stagnated, and things just aren't the same.

Sad to see Bill go, but he's doing what he wants to do. Who can blame him?

(Fair disclosure: I worked for Microsoft for 8.5 years and then worked at Microsoft for another two years as a contractor. I loved working there. I wish things just hadn't... changed the way they did.)

galstaph
Jun 15, 2006, 06:45 PM
meh... was gonna bring up Carnegie as well.... beaten to the punch

Well good luck to ol' Bill and hey, Bill, if you ever read this and if your looking to "donate" a billion (or a couple hundred million) I have a great charity case foir you....;) just pm me.....

081440
Jun 15, 2006, 06:47 PM
ignoring the fact that Gates may have stolen anything...

ignoring monopolistic business practices (it's redundant)...

What peeves me the most is that the man is worth about $100 Billion. Sure he gives away 52% of that to philanthropy(according to Wikipedia), but that still leaves $48 Billion for him!

I don't think one person should be allowed to control more money than most of the governments in the world. There are roughly a billion people with no clean drinking water...where is the limit? Wouldn't $5 billion be ok? Even $500 million, for that matter?

Call me a Communist, but hell...stop being greedy and give the others a piece of your pie. Why are the poor people always the first to share what little they have?

The true measure of a man's character is not what he does once he finds wealth/power, but what he does on the way there.


Communist....

He earned it didn't he.... (even if he stole the OS he marketed it better and earned the money) Why not let him keep what he has, to be rich you often have to be a little greedy. And don't tell lies about how the poor are the first to give.

Thanatoast
Jun 15, 2006, 06:48 PM
Hopefully he goes down to his basement and sits in front of his computer and writes some small piece of realy useful software just for kicks. It'd be nice to see him really get back into the fun of programming again.

081440
Jun 15, 2006, 06:51 PM
I was watching CNBC and I heard a great idea... split the company into 3 parts: gaming (XBox), Application, and OS.

And what would that accomplish?

orkle
Jun 15, 2006, 06:53 PM
How much has Steve Jobs donated to charity lately?

IJ Reilly
Jun 15, 2006, 06:54 PM
Perhaps it doesn't matter if he's directing his wealth toward charity for unselfish reasons (concern for the good of the world), for tax reasons, to avoid bad press, because his wife told him to, or for concern about his legacy. The effect of his Foundation's work would still be the same.

Effects on Apple aren't going to be immediately apparent, but there will be no lack of speculation from the media, particularly columnists and bloggers.

And most of it is bound to be quite silly. The obvious impacts will be felt over time at Microsoft, where Steve Ballmer will now gain more-or-less complete control of the show. If you ask me, if he hadn't been buddies with Gates at Harvard, Ballmer would be lucky to be a middle-manager at some other company today. The driving force behind Microsoft will be gone, to be replaced by, uh... Steve the Sweaty.

As for the Gates philanthropy, before we get too dewy-eyed, we should stop to consider that most of his shares in Microsoft probably have a cost basis of zero, which means every share is taxed in full when sold. But, if he transfers those shares to his foundation, he gets a tax write-off at their full market value. So it makes good economic sense for him to donate approximately as many shares as he sells in any given year.

WillMak
Jun 15, 2006, 06:55 PM
I love this steve ballmer remix music video: http://youtube.com/watch?v=8zEQhhaJsU4&search=steve%20ballmer

gwangung
Jun 15, 2006, 06:56 PM
For the longest time Gates didn't donate much at all relative to what he was worth. He only started massive philanthropy after he realized that he could save money on his taxes

This is absolutely wrong.

Talk to any planned giving officer; you can make your giving more efficient, but you will not save any money.

gwangung
Jun 15, 2006, 06:58 PM
But, if he transfers those shares to his foundation, he gets a tax write-off at their full market value. So it makes good economic sense for him to donate approximately as many shares as he sells in any given year.

Actually, no.....he has to spread those write offs over several years...at best.

Tax code is way too complicated to be making certain statements like that...

A is jump
Jun 15, 2006, 06:59 PM
You aren't a communist. You are a disillusioned socialist who does not understand supply-side and free market economics.

He's right you know... the way it works, you want to be rich, you've got to be screwing someone. usually that means the workers... but then it could be the consumer. few people make millions with clean hands.

oh and Free market economies are great!... see how well the airlines are getting along since Reagan deregulated them?

I hope I can make enough to pay my rent this month.

jaxstate
Jun 15, 2006, 07:00 PM
I see Steve Jobs making the news when it comes to giving money.
For the longest time Gates didn't donate much at all relative to what he was worth. He only started massive philanthropy after he realized that he could save money on his taxes.

It's great that he donates now though.
The thing about giving is, that you really dont have to. Who cares why he gives or when he started giving.

If you think he didn't already know he could save money on his taxes from the start, then you are misguided.

IJ Reilly
Jun 15, 2006, 07:04 PM
Actually, no.....he has to spread those write offs over several years...at best.

Tax code is way too complicated to be making certain statements like that...

I don't think so. I've made charitable donations of appreciated stock, and know many others who have as well. The only reason you'd need to carry the write-offs forward is if you don't have the income to offset. I suspect Bill has the income to offset, especially if he sells some of his Microsoft stock every year, which last I heard, he does.

longofest
Jun 15, 2006, 07:16 PM
I was watching CNBC and I heard a great idea... split the company into 3 parts: gaming (XBox), Application, and OS.

That truly is a great idea. I think it was mentioned before... during the Antitrust trial :rolleyes:

FF_productions
Jun 15, 2006, 07:19 PM
I can't wait for Balmer to take over!!! Lots of sweat, blood, and tears will be put into MS...No... just sweat.

What do you think the reaction would be if Steve Jobs was retiring??

Peterkro
Jun 15, 2006, 07:23 PM
Communist....

He earned it didn't he.... (even if he stole the OS he marketed it better and earned the money) Why not let him keep what he has, to be rich you often have to be a little greedy. And don't tell lies about how the poor are the first to give.

Great that's like being mugged for $50 and then saying the person was great because they gave you 50 cents back.Trickle down don't work.

MongoTheGeek
Jun 15, 2006, 07:32 PM
Retiring in 2008...

I wonder if he has new vacation homes in Iowa and New Hampshire.

Fabio_gsilva
Jun 15, 2006, 07:34 PM
I wish him good luck!
May he save thousands of more lives and get a nice place in Heaven.

IJ Reilly
Jun 15, 2006, 07:36 PM
I wonder if he has new vacation homes in Iowa and New Hampshire.

I suppose you could say he does. He owns both Iowa and New Hampshire.

THX1139
Jun 15, 2006, 07:39 PM
Can someone answer this please. :confused: :) :D


Too lazy to do your own research? It's called Google. Two clicks will get you your answer. I'd do it for you...but you know, teach a man to fish....

How much has Steve Jobs donated to charity lately?

He donates to Pixar on a regular basis. ;)

Since you brought up Steve. I think he will be next to retire. My best guess is within the next five years. Unlike Gates and MS, Steve's retirement will have a profound effect on Apple. For better or worse, he still makes a lot of the decisions. I wonder how many hours of sleep he gets?

mark!
Jun 15, 2006, 07:45 PM
Too lazy to do your own research? It's called Google. Two clicks will get you your answer. I'd do it for you...but you know, teach a man to fish....

It's not an answer or fact. It's an opinion. I'm not gonna google 'why people think of bill gates when they hear microsoft and then think steve jobs when they hear apple'. Nothing is gonna show up, and it isn't something that is a fact. If I look it up on wikipedia it won't show up either.

so back the fock off badass.

gwangung
Jun 15, 2006, 07:45 PM
I don't think so. I've made charitable donations of appreciated stock, and know many others who have as well. The only reason you'd need to carry the write-offs forward is if you don't have the income to offset. I suspect Bill has the income to offset, especially if he sells some of his Microsoft stock every year, which last I heard, he does.

He doesn't sell it every year (though he was more regular some years than other). And his income is often dwarfed by his stock assets and sales (I know that in a couple years, all the sales were for his foundation). It's also complicated by his other investments and assets which aren't so visible---that's why I caution against flat statements, particularly for people whose net worth is tied up in their stocks, and not income (which applies to almost every high net worth individual).

It's not an answer or fact. It's an opinion. I'm not gonna google 'why people think of bill gates when they hear microsoft and then think steve jobs when they hear apple'. Nothing is gonna show up, and it isn't something that is a fact. If I look it up on wikipedia it won't show up either.

so back the fock off badass.

As a rule, CEOs and COOs do more hands on stuff, chairmen do more global and strategic things.

But there's enough individual variation in companies to make this only a very crude approximation which may not hold true in a specific case.

cloudblood84
Jun 15, 2006, 08:04 PM
For the longest time Gates didn't donate much at all relative to what he was worth. He only started massive philanthropy after he realized that he could save money on his taxes.

It's great that he donates now though.

bill gates doesn't need to save money, are you serious?

Badandy
Jun 15, 2006, 08:14 PM
He's right you know... the way it works, you want to be rich, you've got to be screwing someone. usually that means the workers... but then it could be the consumer. few people make millions with clean hands.

oh and Free market economies are great!... see how well the airlines are getting along since Reagan deregulated them?

I hope I can make enough to pay my rent this month.

To get rich you don't have to screw people. Of course a socialist like you would twist my words to say that. Free market economies are great. If you look at the most free nations in the world with the least human rights atrocities and highest standard of living, they almost always have free or relatively free economies. And yes, I hope you can make enough to pay your rent this month. But think about it this way, if you were living under rent control, you would be undermining free market economics and the living conditions would soon deteriorate because the landlord doesn't have the incentive to make his units better because they can't be sold at market price. Soon, the units will become completely rundown, transform into ghettos, and you are now living in the projects.


Since you don't understand capitalism, I highly suggest you read "The Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith, Scottish philosopher and economist. You can also read "Freakonomics" which is a more unconventional look at economics and how competition and incentive are the only ways to improve a society's living conditions and economic affluence.



And for those who don't think there is a trickle down effect? Imagine the big developers (multi millionaires) who build shopping centers in places like Bel Air, Beverly Hills, and Rodeo Drive. You might think they are just screwing workers, but no, even though they are millionaires (who by your logic didn't come by it honestly) they are employing thousands of people who work in the shops and who supply the shops.


I mean, why don't you just run around and scream, "WORKERS OF THE WORLD UNITE!"

JGowan
Jun 15, 2006, 08:16 PM
Bill Gates announced Thursday afternoon he will step down as CEO of Microsoft Corp. and company President Steve Ballmer will take over the CEO role. The changes were to take effect immediately. :eek:I only have 4 words:

Developers, developers, developers, developers.*

:)

*I think a few will get this.

MacQuest
Jun 15, 2006, 08:28 PM
Let us not forget that Gates is perhaps the greatest philanthropist the world has ever known. Whether or not you like MS, you have to admit his money is saving thousands of lives. I wish him luck.

billy g carried on a tradition of philanthropy that his parents started. He was only able to carry on that tradition because of the money he made.

The more important issue is how did he make that money? Through legal means and fair business practices? I think not, as the 3 convictions of his criminal organization by 3 countries in less than 5 years can prove [more on the way too]. =)

As stated in the original post here on MacRumors, "Gates was sometimes criticized in the past for a late start to philanthropy".

People forget that although he had been involved in philanthropic activity [again, carrying on his parents' tradition] prior to the 2001 US Department of Justice anti-trust conviction, his involvement and investment was minimal in proportion to the amount of money that he had acquired through illegal means. It wasn't until during those legal proceedings and after that conviction, and only because of the insistance of his legal counsel and public relations consultants who were advising him to do something to put a friendlier, likeable, and more trustworthy face on himself and his company, that he then took on a much more PUBLIC role in the philanthropic community.

It's like that old saying, "You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig". billy is wearing lipstick.

Now, I'm not playing down nor denying that what he is currently doing is good, even great. I respect the fact that he has, in very recent years, given back not only at least as much as he should, but even more to the needy, plagued, and dying.

What I despise is when people use the "bill gates is a philanthropist" excuse to obscure his, and his companies, criminal activity and the fact that he was forced into the level of philanthropy that he is currently in. A true philanthropist would have taken these actions a lot earlier and without having to have his arm twisted to take them.

I would never "look up to" or "praise" any criminal, just because he righted his wrongs. I may forgive, but I never forget. Especially if that criminal and his organization is still doing non-publicized wrong activities and just trying to cover it up with publicized good activities. He and microsoft always bankrolled innovative companies and organizations only long enough for microsoft to be able to "reverse engineer", aka steal, their innovations, then cut them off financially, inevitably driving them into bankruptcy and killing them off, and then introducing that innovation as "microsoft's own" innovation.

Don't be a naive fool by taking this perspective and accepting spoon fed, media hyped activity. Pull back the curtain in Oz and see the man for the deceptive weakling that he is.

FF_productions
Jun 15, 2006, 08:34 PM
I only have 4 words:

Developers, developers, developers, developers.*

:)

*I think a few will get this.

I got it.:)

commonpeople
Jun 15, 2006, 08:39 PM
billy g carried on a tradition of philanthropy that his parents started. He was only able to carry on that tradition because of the money he made.

The more important issue is how did he make that money? Through legal means and fair business practices? I think not, as the 3 convictions of his criminal organization by 3 countries in less than 5 years can prove [more on the way too]. =)

As stated in the original post here on MacRumors, "Gates was sometimes criticized in the past for a late start to philanthropy".

People forget that although he had been involved in philanthropic activity [again, carrying on his parents' tradition] prior to the 2001 US Department of Justice anti-trust conviction, his involvement and investment was minimal in proportion to the amount of money that he had acquired through illegal means. It wasn't until during those legal proceedings and after that conviction, and only because of the insistance of his legal counsel and public relations consultants who were advising him to do something to put a friendlier, likeable, and more trustworthy face on himself and his company, that he then took on a much more PUBLIC role in the philanthropic community.

It's like that old saying, "You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig". billy is wearing lipstick.

Now, I'm not playing down nor denying that what he is currently doing is good, even great. I respect the fact that he has, in very recent years, given back not only at least as much as he should, but even more to the needy, plagued, and dying.

What I despise is when people use the "bill gates is a philanthropist" excuse to obscure his, and his companies, criminal activity and the fact that he was forced into the level of philanthropy that he is currently in. A true philanthropist would have taken these actions a lot earlier and without having to have his arm twisted to take them.

I would never "look up to" or "praise" any criminal, just because he righted his wrongs. Especially of that criminal and his organization is still doing wrong and just trying to cover it up with the good.

Don't be a naive fool by taking this perspective and accepting spoon fed, media hyped activity. Pull back the curtain in Oz and see the man for the deceptive weakling that he is.

Again...

On the minus side: MS did bundle IE unfairly into their OS.
On the plus side: He is using his money to save thousands of lives.

On balance: Well- why don't you ask people suffering from malaria
in 3rd world countries which OS they prefer?

lanray
Jun 15, 2006, 08:41 PM
So, if I had, say $50 billion, I could lose/give away, say, $49 and still not really notice it. Meaning: my life wouldn't really change. There's a part of myself that can't think of it as philanthropy. I know, it's philosophical, blah blah, and certainly flamable, but it's no real sacrifice, and so I can't really admire it all that much. Certainly nice of him to do it, but not admirable. Does anyone else think of it this way?

macaddict06
Jun 15, 2006, 08:59 PM
Does anyone else think of it this way?
Yes, sort of. My Jesuit education is speaking from here on out:
The ultimate purpose of being a philanthropist is an association with the poor. When someone still is living extravagantly, they are not truly in identification with the poor and the underprivileged. So yes, you are right.
However, the Keynsian side of me says, well he earned it and he gave away more than was demanded of him. True, he may have been a better thief, but in order to have 95% market share, you need to be a better salesman. Which he was (pseudo, anyway).

In the end, it's like what Carnegie said - It's ok to have great sums of money so long as you give it away before you die. Which, he did. So, if Billy G would promptly give his money away and complete the circle, I would be the happier. Yeah, I don't really mean that, but come on, the guy is a crook. Damn DoJ Justices screwing up (the guy gave indications of his ruling before hand, and therefore it was a mistrial....sonuva!)

ezekielrage_99
Jun 15, 2006, 09:02 PM
So he is retiring from Microsoft to take over hell :D

MacQuest
Jun 15, 2006, 09:03 PM
One more thing... =)

I've been telling people since March about the March '06 MiniMSFT Blog entry titled "Vista 2007. Fire the leadership now!"
http://minimsft.blogspot.com/2006/03/vista-2007-fire-leadership-now.html#comments

I've been telling them to go there and see the posts in that blog by microsoft employees talkingabout the horrid state of Vista, microsoft as a company and it's work conditions, the calls for the firing of Steve Ballmer, but more importantly, the RESIGNATION OF BILL GATES because of his proven incompetence.

Life is good! =D

P.S.
To anyone who will inevitably reply to this post by saying "Bill gates is RESIGNING", then I suppose you would also be one of the people who believe that US republican tom delay "resigned" last week as well. He is a criminal and was INDICTED. He had NO other option.

Michael Eisner "chose" to "resign" from Disney early... um, no. He was kicked out early before he could damage Disney any further.

bill gates has NO other option than to GET OUT before he causes any further damage to microsoft. He may or may not stay until 2008, and it doesn't matter. He is clueless and inneffective there now, the same way he has been for years, as can be seen by microsoft's employees' entries in that blog I linked above.

Again, LIFE IS GOOD!!! =D =D

MikeAtari
Jun 15, 2006, 09:09 PM
Well the reason he says for leaving is to help more people. I think its a great idea, leave MS to fail, and go save lifes, works for me.


Great news for anyone in IT.
Now, finally, new leadership at microsoft can bring in some real Quality Control. This could ultimately be bad news for Apple.

MacQuest
Jun 15, 2006, 09:31 PM
Again...

On the minus side: MS did bundle IE unfairly into their OS.

That is one of the many illegal things they did. And I like the way you try to simplify that actions' more sinister motive.

They did that not only to ensure the destruction of Netscape Navigator as an option on windows boxes then, but they were also taking steps to ensure that IE would remain on those windows boxes even if better alternatives arose in the future, which obviously would be the case since IE has always been junk anyways.

Did you ever see the video of the microsoft employee showing how to un-install IE from windows '98? If you did, then you probably also saw the judge and prosecutors ridiculing that employee and microsoft for attempting to pass an obviously EDITED video as a genuine piece of evidence of something that couldn't be done... in a FEDERAL trial.

One of microsoft's shining moments of stupidity, and criminality.

On the plus side: He is using his money to save thousands of lives.

From my previous post:
"Now, I'm not playing down nor denying that what he is currently doing is good, even great. I respect the fact that he has, in very recent years, given back not only at least as much as he should, but even more to the needy, plagued, and dying.

What I despise is when people use the "bill gates is a philanthropist" excuse to obscure his, and his companies, criminal activity and the fact that he was forced into the level of philanthropy that he is currently in. A true philanthropist would have taken these actions a lot earlier and without having to have his arm twisted to take them."

On balance: Well- why don't you ask people suffering from malaria in 3rd world countries which OS they prefer?

Do they have a choice? Because when given a choice, well, that's why I average 2-4 windows users switching to Mac a day, 5x a week, and have done so for 4 years. Do you know how many Mac users swich back in my pre-dominantly windows environment? Draw an O with your finger and change that to a numeral.

Yes, windows is great until you've tried anything else.

You call your last statement "On Balance?". I know those people don't have access to Mac OS X, much less Macs. I also was not aware that Malaria sufferers were yuckin' it up on peecees.

But do you not see the obvious historical path that billy has taken in supplying people with his "dope" [I'll give you the first "hit"/demo for free, but after you're addicted, you gotta pay].

Even the US Army caught on to his dope dealer like operation back in 2004:

"Army to Gates: Halt the free software"
http://news.com.com/2100-1012_3-5171976.html

"Microsoft has been mailing free copies of its pricey Office productivity software to government employees, but CNET News.com has learned that at least two federal agencies are warning recipients to return the gifts or risk violating federal ethics policies."

Then again the US Army has options. Unlike those infected by Malaria.

commonpeople
Jun 15, 2006, 09:35 PM
That is one of the many illegal things they did. And I like the way you try to simplify that actions' more sinister motive.

They did that not only to ensure the destruction of Netscape Navigator as an option on windows boxes then, but they were also taking steps to ensure that IE would remain on those windows boxes even if better alternatives arose in the future, which obviously would be the case since IE has always been junk anyways.

Did you ever see the video of the microsoft employee showing how to un-install IE from windows '98? If you did, then you probably also saw the judge and prosecutors ridiculing that employee and microsoft for attempting to pass an obviously EDITED video as a genuine piece of evidence of something that couldn't be done... in a FEDERAL trial.

One of microsoft's shining moments of stupidity, and criminality.



From my previous post:
"Now, I'm not playing down nor denying that what he is currently doing is good, even great. I respect the fact that he has, in very recent years, given back not only at least as much as he should, but even more to the needy, plagued, and dying.

What I despise is when people use the "bill gates is a philanthropist" excuse to obscure his, and his companies, criminal activity and the fact that he was forced into the level of philanthropy that he is currently in. A true philanthropist would have taken these actions a lot earlier and without having to have his arm twisted to take them."



Do they have a choice? Because when given a choice, well, that's why I average 2-4 windows users switching to Mac a day, 5x a week, and have done so for 4 years.

Yes, windows is great until you've tried anything else.

You call your last statement "On Balance?". I know those people don't have access to Mac OS X, much less Macs. I also was not aware that Malaria sufferers were yuckin' it up on peecees.

But do you not see the obvious historical path that billy has taken in supplying people with his "dope" [I'll give you the first "hit"/demo for free, but after you're addicted, you gotta pay].

Even the US Army caught on to his dope dealer like operation back in 2004:

"Army to Gates: Halt the free software"
http://news.com.com/2100-1012_3-5171976.html

But then again the US Army has options. Unlike those infected by Malaria.

I was being sarcastic when I asked which OS people in the 3rd world suffering from malaria prefer. I suspect they have other things on their minds than mac vs pc. Just guessing.

MacQuest
Jun 15, 2006, 09:44 PM
Great news for anyone in IT.
Now, finally, new leadership at microsoft can bring in some real Quality Control. This could ultimately be bad news for Apple.

microsoft will only achieve Apple's level of quality control if they start making their own computers AND build a new OS from the ground up with security in mind.

The problem is, the minute that microsoft starts making it's own peecee's, it loses it's distributors [HP, Toshiba, Dell, etc].

They'll drop windows in a heartbeat and do what they are already doing, asking Apple to license Mac OS X.

"Dell Wants to Sell OSX PCs"
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1957355,00.asp

Or start using Linux which still doesn't compare to Apple's level of quality control.

If they build an OS from the ground up and dump legacy support which is the only thing that helps them maintain their current marketshare [installed base is more important, but that's another story], that would be like re-starting the OS race from scratch.

BRING IT ON miCrapsoft!!! =D

ObsidianIce
Jun 15, 2006, 09:51 PM
It's $1

LOL, he's CONSIDERED the richest man, not IS. Steve Jobs still makes nearly 1 penny a year? I remember that quote but I didn't believe it.

Good for Bill Gates. He's really a revolutionary man in the world of technology. Good luck to him and I hope he enjoys his life. As much as I hate M$, they've provided us with some great revolutionary things. I still prefer M$ Office for Mac over iWork.. simply because Apple doesn't want to use a highschool/college format that everyone's accustomed to.

pilzbury
Jun 15, 2006, 09:53 PM
I hear this is the new release date for Vista! Haha....when is that thing supposed to be released again?

coffey7
Jun 15, 2006, 10:01 PM
At least bill didn't have a baby with a young woman and then when it was born, leave the girl and baby to live in a shack and pretend like it didn't happen. Then years later say "oh yes that is my baby, need some money for it"

DeathChill
Jun 15, 2006, 10:12 PM
I find it hilarious how a thread about him retiring turned into a thread about how he's secretly evil for not donating enough money to charity. I don't know how any one of you can judge him for HELPING PEOPLE. The funny thing is that 99% of the people complaining about his donation habits probably don't donate ever, and it's certainly not a monetary problem because if you can afford a connection to the 'net I'm sure you could swing a few dollars here and there.


It's good that he helps people, regardless of how he got his money, which isn't as evil as everyone tries to make it out as.

MacQuest
Jun 15, 2006, 10:14 PM
At least bill didn't have a baby with a young woman and then when it was born, leave the girl and baby to live in a shack and pretend like it didn't happen. Then years later say "oh yes that is my baby, need some money for it"

At least Steve Jobs isn't an untalentd, ignorant, white collar criminal that rides off the success' of others, reaps their rewards, uses those rewards to give back to the people... actually, cover up criminal activity... and whom is responsible for ruining thousands of lives in business, as opposed to one questionable instance of whom he believed to be an illegitimate daughter, but was man enough to own up to it regardless.

FFTT
Jun 15, 2006, 10:17 PM
Bill Gates still maintains the position of chief software architect for Microsoft.

I have a feeling that his goal now is to get Vista out the door, then leave
the fallout and chaos behind.

He should have scrapped XP completely and started Vista from scratch the way Jobs did with Mac OS X.
By trying to please everyone with backwards compatibility and fear of
meaningful change, Vista is not looking good.

For obvious reasons, Gates doesn't need to work another day of his life on anything that does not please him.

My guess is that he's burnt out and fed up, so he's decided to do something
that gives him pleasure.

If he can help save lives and give hope to the hopeless, I can't find fault with that.

DeathChill
Jun 15, 2006, 10:18 PM
At least Steve Jobs isn't an untalentd, ignorant, white collar criminal that rides off the success' of others, reaps their rewards,uses those rewards to "give back"/cover up, and whom is responsible for ruining thousands of lives in business, as opposed to one questionable instance.
"[Steve Jobs] returned to his previous job at Atari, and was given the task of creating a circuit board for the game Breakout. According to Atari Founder Nolan Bushnell, Atari had offered $100 for each chip that was reduced in the machine. Jobs had little interest or knowledge in circuit board design, and made a deal with Wozniak to split the bonus evenly between them if Wozniak could minimize the number of chips. Much to the amazement of Atari, Wozniak reduced the number of chips by 50, a design so tight that it was impossible to reproduce on an assembly line. At the time, Jobs told Wozniak that Atari had only given them $500 (rather than $5000), and that Wozniak's share was thus $250."

Uh, what were you saying?


That's from Wikipedia, by the way.


EDIT: Now I'm not saying Job's is evil, but he's not the saint you all try and make him out to be. Don't flame me for it.

AtHomeBoy_2000
Jun 15, 2006, 10:18 PM
This is absolutely wrong.

Talk to any planned giving officer; you can make your giving more efficient, but you will not save any money.

I think you can only tax ddduct up to 10%. Anything over that does nothing with your taxes.

beatle888
Jun 15, 2006, 10:20 PM
that poll is a bit childish...."to hide previous sins"? what is that suppose to mean? maybe for tax reasons but to hide sins? whatever.

EDIT: Now I'm not saying Job's is evil, but he's not the saint you all try and make him out to be. Don't flame me for it.


i wouldn't disagree.

longofest
Jun 15, 2006, 10:28 PM
that poll is a bit childish...."to hide previous sins"? what is that suppose to mean? maybe for tax reasons but to hide sins? whatever.

Apparently 34% of the respondants so far don't agree and have voted for that one.

The poll is designed to resonnate with different people. And yes, it is also designed to be a little bit "looser" of wording than we put on the news stories or in general "macpolls" polls.

In this case, you don't necessarily need to take the word "sin" as being all that literal. In general, if you feel as though Gates was just trying to do a little good in order to cover up having cheated his way to the top, then vote for that one. Other people of course might take "sins" to mean stealing the MacOS interface (which of course Apple stole from Xerox, etc...).

s10
Jun 15, 2006, 10:33 PM
Yeah Gates did a lot of good.. although be careful with that too.. I am not saying he's part of.. but there is a lot of dirty politics in charity.. most of it actually.. it's just business.. look at what became Greenpeace.. used to be a wonderful organisation.. now it's just business.. with plush headquarters..choosing the "protests" with care.. the ones that make the most money for Greenpeace...

But what about you, me, us? what have we done or what are we going to do?

MacQuest
Jun 15, 2006, 10:41 PM
But what about you, me, us? what have we done or what are we going to do?

Turning people away from evil, and helping them see the err of their ways so that they can help others see the same.

In other words, switching people away from microsoft, helping them see the err of being windows users, and then watching them switch people to Mac as well.

:p

MacQuest
Jun 15, 2006, 10:49 PM
that poll is a bit childish...."to hide previous sins"? what is that suppose to mean?

Monopolies are illegal. Legal dominance is not.

Microsoft has been convicted 3 times in less than 5 years in 3 trials internationally for illegal, MONOPOLISTIC/ANTI-TRUST business practices [2001 - US, 2004 - EU, 2005 - South Korea].

It doesn't matter if you don't see that for what it is. Those 3 countries [more to come] do, and that means a lot more.

DannyBoye
Jun 15, 2006, 10:52 PM
Keep in mind, I am working on a 17" Imac right now, one that I paid $1,500 after everything was said and done. A computer that I could have paid HALF that amount for, had I not wanted to support a company that I belived in, and as such, I have a REAL copy of WIN XP SP2 running on, again to support a company that I belive in. I belive in both companys. Apple has for a LONG TIME, thought outside of the box that has made the computer world what it is, Microsoft has since day one, taken ideas from others and made them available to everyone with just a few clicks. So in respect to both companys they have both done a GREAT job in making a difference. BUT what lies at the bottom of EVERYTHING. Both comapanys need to make money, that is that simple. Companys need to make money, that simple.


I do not believe in ither company to a point that I would argue ither companys point of view, becuase to me both companys put people with little money in a fu**ed position. Ither pay up, or you don't get what should, in this day and time, be a givin. Access to things that make your daily life, work.

At least one person is making a HUGE difference in the daily lifes of people that can not afford the very fiber of what makes us human. The simple idea that we deserve to be healthy, nothing more. When a person, a sinlge person, can give more to global AIDS funding and prevention than the richest goverment in the world can, that to me is a good person. I don't care if that's by the RobinHood concept or not. The fact that he's doing ALOT OF GOOD, FOR ALOT OF PEOPLE says all it needs to say.

zap2
Jun 15, 2006, 11:27 PM
I voted i was mad at him for the Apple thing in 1997, but i do think he gives cash to people because he cares(wish i could have voted 2x)


I know Apple need the cash but i think the could have made it through, and how it help MS in the end,well it bothers me

millsy
Jun 15, 2006, 11:30 PM
Both comapanys need to make money, that is that simple. Companys need to make money, that simple.

I do not believe in ither company to a point that I would argue ither companys point of view, becuase to me both companys put people with little money in a fu**ed position. Ither pay up, or you don't get what should, in this day and time, be a givin.

You just contradicted yourself there. Yes, at the bottom all companies need to make money. Like the old Bob Dylan lyric, "he not busy bein born is busy dying." In the very competive world of consumer electronics you have to maximize profits and offering an iMac for a price substantially lower compared to what the price tag is now wouldn't work for Apple unless you can find people to buy them in such mass numbers that Apple has never seen before.

At least one person is making a HUGE difference in the daily lifes of people that can not afford the very fiber of what makes us human. The simple idea that we deserve to be healthy, nothing more. When a person, a sinlge person, can give more to global AIDS funding and prevention than the richest goverment in the world can, that to me is a good person. I don't care if that's by the RobinHood concept or not. The fact that he's doing ALOT OF GOOD, FOR ALOT OF PEOPLE says all it needs to say

Exactly, I applaud his vast giving to such causes like to that of AIDS and such. I personally believe that all philanthropy should be done privately and anonymous UNLESS the notoriety of a celebrity helps get the ball rolling for such charitable works. I don't think he's giving it all out of some feeling of guilt or out of atonement, but I have never met the guy nor do I know how the thinks and feels so therefore its just like the rest of the forum...its just rumors and speculation.

This thread shouldn't turn into a Steve Jobs vs Bill Gates debate. Its your opinions on what Bill Gates is doing in the future with his relations to Microsoft and his own charitable organization.

MacQuest
Jun 15, 2006, 11:38 PM
I don't care if that's by the RobinHood concept or not. The fact that he's doing ALOT OF GOOD, FOR ALOT OF PEOPLE says all it needs to say.

I bet you would care if you were one of the people that was being stolen from by Robin Hood.

fblack
Jun 15, 2006, 11:51 PM
He only started philantropy after Ted Turner pointed him and others out for not being involved,basically he embarassed them into it...Some of it has also been selfserving PR for him and microsoft to help soften the "evil" rep they have.

Am I happy that his contributions will help people? Yes, I am. But that doesn't change who he is and what he's done. He's no Jesus.:mad:

IJ Reilly
Jun 16, 2006, 12:10 AM
Monopolies are illegal.

Actually no, they're not, at least not under US antitrust law. What is illegal is using market power to restrain competition. These are substantially different concepts.

IJ Reilly
Jun 16, 2006, 12:16 AM
Apparently 34% of the respondants so far don't agree and have voted for that one.

The poll is designed to resonnate with different people. And yes, it is also designed to be a little bit "looser" of wording than we put on the news stories or in general "macpolls" polls.

In this case, you don't necessarily need to take the word "sin" as being all that literal. In general, if you feel as though Gates was just trying to do a little good in order to cover up having cheated his way to the top, then vote for that one. Other people of course might take "sins" to mean stealing the MacOS interface (which of course Apple stole from Xerox, etc...).

The biggest problem with the poll are the last two choices. Neither of these are accurate portrayals of what actually happened in 1997. The investment neither kept Apple afloat nor protected Microsoft from antitrust investigation. The investment had nothing to do with either.

MacQuest
Jun 16, 2006, 12:24 AM
Actually no, they're not, at least not under US antitrust law. What is illegal is using market power to restrain competition. These are substantially different concepts.

"Microsoft has been convicted of monopolistic business practices—the U.S. Justice Department, among others, has sued Microsoft for antitrust violations and software bundling."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/microsoft

For more fun debate on the many definitions of "Monopoly":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly

Of course, there is a link to microsoft in Wikipedia's definition of Monopoly.

If however, you like board games:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_%28game%29

Demoman
Jun 16, 2006, 12:30 AM
I have been reading the posts and as always they have an informed, diverse scattering of opinions. Personally, I do not like the company MS has become and quite frankly, I doubt if the founders could see it in time perspective, they would probably feel similar.

I have been a part of the PC world since it began. I remember rejoicing when the 5 1/4" floppy went double-sided and you now had 360K to work with (along with your 128K of memory). Those of you who did not enter into PC's until the late 80's do not realize what a significant contribution MS made.

Gates made the deal of the century when he got IBM to give him ownership of the OS they ran on their PC's. IBM's leadership viewed the PC as a 'novelty' and completely missed the boat on how the market would develop. The $50 royalty paid to MS was a pittance of the ~$3000 MSRP for their PC. In 1984-1986, there was a boom in the number of companies entering the PC market. But, many had some small OS/hardware issue. Anyone who could afford to drop the bucks for a PC did not want to find out it would not work with their favorite SW (I remember a long impassioned speech I had to make in order to buy a Compaq).

Thus was born the marketing slogan, '100% IBM Compatible'. However, this was very misleading. The true meaning was '100% PCDOS Compatible'. It was at this time that an incredible number of peripheral manufacturers finally had a standard they could develop for. IMHO, this was MS's great contribution.

One only has to look at the Unix world to see how difficult it is to get a group of competitors to agree on standards. I was a Sun Solaris developer/Sysadmin for five years. The closest Unix has ever come to unification is with the emergence on Linux. Yet, they cannot agree adopting basic standards (like a common desktop).

One could speculate for hours on end of what computing would be like today without MS. But, I think latter day historians will see their contribution as huge. And Bill Gates was the guiding force behind it.

bwanac
Jun 16, 2006, 12:30 AM
I like Bill Gates a lot. I just dont like his products.

He is a genius. There is no way around it. He is good with people and has the smarts. It is a winning combination. And he used it well. I also wholely believe he is great for wanting to switch towards working more on his foundation. I dont see why anyone can really hate him other than jealousy and his awesome OS monopoly! :p

IJ Reilly
Jun 16, 2006, 12:50 AM
"Microsoft has been convicted of monopolistic business practices—the U.S. Justice Department, among others, has sued Microsoft for antitrust violations and software bundling."

With all due respect, I don't need to read wikipedia articles on this subject -- I spent a lot of time reading and writing about it when it was happening. The word "monopoly" gets thrown around an awful lot, as shorthand for antitrust violations, but this is unfortunate, as they really are separate concepts. I've had a tremendous number of people over the years tell me that Microsoft could not possibly be a "monopoly" because they have competitors (leading to the conclusion that "the government should leave Bill alone"). Of course this totally misses the point, which is that monopolies aren't illegal, it's restraining competition which is -- and you don't need one of the former to be accused of doing the latter.

Thus was born the marketing slogan, '100% IBM Compatible'. However, this was very misleading. The true meaning was '100% PCDOS Compatible'. It was at this time that an incredible number of peripheral manufacturers finally had a standard they could develop for. IMHO, this was MS's great contribution.

I'm not sure what part of this you think was Microsoft's contribution. Surely, not the hardware, which was designed by IBM, or the clones, which were first developed by Compaq.

Performa
Jun 16, 2006, 01:02 AM
Whatever I might think about the man's products, he and his wife are SERIOUS philanthropists and should be commended.

Balmer as CEO.. now THAT'S scary.




I wonder how much they have donated, percentage wise, in relation to their total net worth?

Gates donating a million dollars is probably the equivilent of the average person tossing a quarter into a panhandlers cup.

reflex
Jun 16, 2006, 01:27 AM
By amassing billions, for years, before ever considering giving any away. No law says rich people must share their wealth, but they do get criticized when they don't.

They get criticized whether they do or not :)

dextertangocci
Jun 16, 2006, 02:21 AM
He's The Leader Of The Evil Empire:d

dextertangocci
Jun 16, 2006, 02:22 AM
I wonder how much they have donated, percentage wise, in relation to their total net worth?

Gates donating a million dollars is probably the equivilent of the average person tossing a quarter into a panhandlers cup.

Exactly. So he can throw a couple of million my way.....:D ;) :cool: :) :p

dextertangocci
Jun 16, 2006, 02:24 AM
You are so right. Nevermind the little boy he raped at his neverland ranch. It's all good.

????:confused: :confused:

sushi
Jun 16, 2006, 02:52 AM
Surely, not the hardware, which was designed by IBM, or the clones, which were first developed by Compaq.
Thanks for saying this.

I find it interesting that many folks seem forget about Compaq and the wonderful contribution they gave to the PC community.

If it weren't for them, we would have not had the clones and IBM would have retained their lock on the PC world.

iRepublican
Jun 16, 2006, 03:00 AM
????:confused: :confused:

I think he has Gates confused with Michael Jackson.

atezun
Jun 16, 2006, 03:06 AM
ignoring the fact that Gates may have stolen anything...

ignoring monopolistic business practices (it's redundant)...

What peeves me the most is that the man is worth about $100 Billion. Sure he gives away 52% of that to philanthropy(according to Wikipedia), but that still leaves $48 Billion for him!

I don't think one person should be allowed to control more money than most of the governments in the world. There are roughly a billion people with no clean drinking water...where is the limit? Wouldn't $5 billion be ok? Even $500 million, for that matter?

Call me a Communist, but hell...stop being greedy and give the others a piece of your pie. Why are the poor people always the first to share what little they have?

The true measure of a man's character is not what he does once he finds wealth/power, but what he does on the way there.

Okay, well Mr. Communist for starters have you given away 52% of your net worth away to charity? I know I certainly haven't and I'd say more than half of us in first world countries haven't either.The attitude that a rich man should have to give away everything he has is pathetically ridiculous. Mr. Gates is by no means greedy, he has given away billion of dollars to improve the lives of millions around the world and deserves some acknowledgement for his contributions.

bigandy
Jun 16, 2006, 03:16 AM
i've just read through all six pages and am quite annoyed to have skimmed over the exact same conversation several times.

why don't people read the threads before posting? :(

Clive At Five
Jun 16, 2006, 03:34 AM
So the real question is this:

What's getting out of the gate first: Vista or Bill?

My money's on Bill.

-Clive

ictiosapiens
Jun 16, 2006, 04:35 AM
Okay, well Mr. Communist for starters have you given away 52% of your net worth away to charity? I know I certainly haven't and I'd say more than half of us in first world countries haven't either.The attitude that a rich man should have to give away everything he has is pathetically ridiculous. Mr. Gates is by no means greedy, he has given away billion of dollars to improve the lives of millions around the world and deserves some acknowledgement for his contributions.

I don't give it to charity, I give it to the inland revenue every year... Well, a bit less, 40% :D :D

mikes63737
Jun 16, 2006, 05:11 AM
I think that they're eventually gonna die too (people will be afraid of Steve Ballmer)... and that's OK once Apple fixes Pages to be more "wordy" and adds a spreadsheet program.

shyataroo
Jun 16, 2006, 05:37 AM
Bill gates is not inheriently evil (feels dirty) he greenlighted the xbox and the 360 which, like it or not, have changed the gaming world forever. (although the xbox was a code name for microsoft and segas next venture after the dreamcast) His philantropy (aka rich billionare gets bored helps people) is not evil on the surface until you realise that by helping them he is just prolonging thier suffering, increasing the worlds population is something we do not need 7billion people is enough. and what about the poor? or the homless? why not focus on the country that gave you birth instead of rhubadubdubastan (sure most of his workers are from that country but thats a different story) and why not try to influence the gov't to not go to war or lock the internet? (which passed so soon we will have ATT's internet or WOW!'s internet not the internet)
Its clear to me that while bill gates meant well, he is not going about it in the right areas. He is the worlds richest man and he regrets it because people are jealous of his money and his power, he is giving his kids 10 million out of his 50+ billion when he dies because he wants them to be able to work and not just be spoiled rotten (admirable) so, instead of curing cancer or aids or the west nile virus, or sars, or the bird flu, or mad cow disease why not work on making the country that you were born in better first?

-hh
Jun 16, 2006, 05:46 AM
Also, he didn't start hemorrhaging cash in the direction of charities until he got married.

Afterall, it is the "...and Melinda..." Foundation.

Overall, I suspect she has more influence than many people suspect. Good for her, and they are for good causes.


And humorously along those lines, I do have to wonder how long she's been whispering in his ear at night while he sleeps:

"Get OUT before VISTA ships!"
"Get OUT before VISTA ships!"
"Get OUT before VISTA ships!"


Last week's ship of the latest public beta might have been the deciding factor ;)


-hh

ictiosapiens
Jun 16, 2006, 05:55 AM
Bill gates is not inheriently evil (feels dirty) he greenlighted the xbox and the 360 which, like it or not, have changed the gaming world forever. (although the xbox was a code name for microsoft and segas next venture after the dreamcast) His philantropy (aka rich billionare gets bored helps people) is not evil on the surface until you realise that by helping them he is just prolonging thier suffering, increasing the worlds population is something we do not need 7billion people is enough. and what about the poor? or the homless? why not focus on the country that gave you birth instead of rhubadubdubastan (sure most of his workers are from that country but thats a different story) and why not try to influence the gov't to not go to war or lock the internet? (which passed so soon we will have ATT's internet or WOW!'s internet not the internet)
Its clear to me that while bill gates meant well, he is not going about it in the right areas. He is the worlds richest man and he regrets it because people are jealous of his money and his power, he is giving his kids 10 million out of his 50+ billion when he dies because he wants them to be able to work and not just be spoiled rotten (admirable) so, instead of curing cancer or aids or the west nile virus, or sars, or the bird flu, or mad cow disease why not work on making the country that you were born in better first?


Fair enough, but putting things into perspective, the US with all its problems is far from having people dying of hunger or of diseases that have been erradicated from the 1st world decades ago. I'm with Billy on this one, I would rather use my money in saving actual lives. Besides, to help your country is beyond his reach being what he represents(a massive goverment controlling corporation) one of the main problems the US faces...

fixyourthinking
Jun 16, 2006, 06:20 AM
Gates was sometimes criticized in the past for a late start to philanthropy, but has since devoted much time and attention, along with his wife, to health and education issues.

And I'll second that ...

EVERY charitable thing he does is a tax writeoff, has a Microsoft tie in ( to sell Windows or other MS products ), or is a means to another end (ie, pleasing politicians, paying off angry competitors, etc etc)

"The attitude that a rich man should have to give away everything he has is pathetically ridiculous. Mr. Gates is by no means greedy, he has given away billion of dollars to improve the lives of millions around the world and deserves some acknowledgement for his contributions."

No he doesn't deserve recognition ... and I do pay for EVERY single charitable act Bill Gates donates to because he takes tax writeoffs that is less money he is paying in to the federal government and therefore places a higher tax burden on me.

And for the record ... with shoddy products, semi waning marketshare, and questionable business ethic he should have been ashamed to take such a high salary.

I don't doubt the generosity, I do doubt the motive.

He and Paul Allen have helped perpetrate a HUGE tax increase in Washington State. Anyone ever paid "the Seattle Dome fee"?

-hh
Jun 16, 2006, 06:31 AM
Yeah Gates did a lot of good.. although be careful with that too.. I am not saying he's part of.. but there is a lot of dirty politics in charity..

But what about you, me, us? what have we done or what are we going to do?

Agreed. The answer is that we give what we can, as a percentage of our income.

It is interesting to see the apologist claims here that his charitables were "from six figures to seven figures in 1992", because while it sounds like a lot, the reality is that when your annualized income is ten digits, its a very small percentage.

Luke 21:1-3 comes to mind, as mathematically, there are no "six digits divided by ten digits" permutations that result in a percentage greater than 0.1% ($1M / $1B = 0.1%).

If the Average American ($44K/year household income), were to donate to charities at only a 0.1% rate, it would be less than $50/year.


And while Bill has put a third of his worth into his Foundation, he still ultimately controls how that money's spent. YMMV on what are "good" causes and so forth, but to donate $10M for the development of a new Polio vaccine is IMO questionable: Polio is back in Africa, but not because of the current vaccine doesn't work - - its because the people refuse the innoculation, which means that the problem is the lack of an effective public acceptance education program.


-hh

scibry
Jun 16, 2006, 07:11 AM
Money talks. He gives money out. That's it. What you see about the person is what you get. There is no grand plan. Watch carefully how he retires 20 years from now. His choice of gear and fun should be cool and interesting. Yes cool.

Panu
Jun 16, 2006, 07:25 AM
I think it is a fair statement that Bill Gates never had an original idea (about software) in his life. Microsoft has bought most of its technology, even the code underlying MS-DOS. A man of his wealth doesn't have to work. He even said some years ago that he would only work at Microsoft as long as it was fun. He could put his fortune off-shore and change his residence, but he hasn't done that. There are other ways he could use his fortune and there are other tax write-offs he could use. There is no necessity propelling him into philanthropy, so it must be part of his character.

So I'd say that Gates is a philanthropist at heart. He certainly doesn't know how to run a huge business without looking ruthless.

Steve Jobs is the inverse: he does have original ideas. He not only knows computer software and hardware inside out, he knows how to run a business well, and how to evoke customer loyalty. The Apple stores are a stroke of genius. But he does not seem to be a philanthropist. Maybe he is even more virtuous than Gates by doing it in secret, but I'd feel even better about Apple if I knew that Jobs--or Apple at the behest of Jobs--was donating money to charities.

thejadedmonkey
Jun 16, 2006, 07:44 AM
Goodbye, William Gates.

janstett
Jun 16, 2006, 07:45 AM
Though his money and fame mostly comes from stolen products and monopolistic business practices. meh? who cares, he's saving lives! *smoke screen alert*

Oh, the hate, just because he destroyed the Mac in the OS wars... Bill Gates isn't as evil as you'd like to think.

He has always been a philanthropist, and if you've ever read any biographical information about him whatsoever, he has always been interested in microbiology, genetics, and biotech, for the purpose of curing diseases.

Steve Jobs, on the other hand, doesn't make any visible philantrhopic contributions and keeps his mouth shut on social issues.

Remember this comparison of the two from Wired:
http://www.wired.com/news/columns/0,70072-0.html?tw=rss.technology

Steve Jobs is all about AAPL (remember that the next time Apple comes up with a Lance Armstrong cancer iPod). Bill Gates became a human being a long time ago.

If you want to hate someone, Steve Ballmer is a good, if easy, target.

Chrispy
Jun 16, 2006, 08:09 AM
Remember this comparison of the two from Wired:
http://www.wired.com/news/columns/0,70072-0.html?tw=rss.technology

Steve Jobs is all about AAPL (remember that the next time Apple comes up with a Lance Armstrong cancer iPod). Bill Gates became a human being a long time ago.

If you want to hate someone, Steve Ballmer is a good, if easy, target.

Well stated. Not only does Jobs only focus on Apple, but his dedication to his customers is lacking in my opinion as well. He lets products out the door that have flaws and fails to address them because it might cost him and AAPL shareholders some money. However, customers who spent hard earned money on expensive Apple products have to almost beg a genius or Apple Care to let them have a working machine. And you can say these situations are rare, but they are still too common regardless.

I commend Bill Gates for his success. He was a good businessman even if he was ruthless. Gates took control in an era were an industry was being born. It was a heated battle and if you could not take the heat then you lost. Jobs became self-centered and screwed his own company. Gates kept a cool head and did what he knew he had to in order to dominate the industry. He deserves the success he achieved and I'm glad to see he is doing something good with his money. Yes Windows could be more secure but when most of the computers in the world are running the same OS it is quite a task to keep things under control. I'm sure if OSX had that kind of a user base there would be problems too... keep things in perspective.

whatever
Jun 16, 2006, 08:11 AM
I didn't even mention "which OS was better," merely he's using the money that he has that he didn't earn honestly to make himself look like the good guy. That's all.
How the hell can you say that he never earned the money!

If I bought a house for $125,000.00, saw some potential, fixed it up a little and then flipped it for $500,000.00 would you claim that I wasn't honest too?

Or better yet, if I saw a piece of technology, let's say an input tool that reminded me of a mouse and a cool concept of using graphics instead of word and the company that owns allows me to use the technology that they feel is useless, would I be considered dishonest too?

Get a life!

Savage Henry
Jun 16, 2006, 08:22 AM
i've just read through all six pages and am quite annoyed to have skimmed over the exact same conversation several times.

why don't people read the threads before posting? :(
You're so right there. Although there are some occasional good points and discussions occurring, a lot seems to be just poor posting etiquette with very little being brought to the table.

Such is the nature of forums I spose.

BackInTheSaddle
Jun 16, 2006, 09:19 AM
Best wishes to Bill Gates.

I don't admire him for his business practices (ruthless, but legal). However, he has shown the intent to try to do a lot of good with his wealth, and has already done so. There are a lot of rich folks who never figure out that there are only so many mansions, cars, boats, etc. that you can use. I don't begrudge them their money, and everyone is entitled to spend their own money however they choose. Mr. Gates has decided to put his dinero into service for the betterment of society and I think that is commendable.

Platform
Jun 16, 2006, 09:29 AM
I have to give him some credit, well actually a lot, big fan of Office...have used Windows 3.1, 95, 98, Me, 2000 and XP, so he did get the ball rolling :p

kingtj
Jun 16, 2006, 09:55 AM
....the most painful thing about using and supporting them is constantly being grouped in with the camp that's convinced that "Microsoft/Bill Gates are evil!"

Windows "steals" from others' ideas in the exact same manner that practically all products built today borrow ideas from their competitors. As long as you can make something just different enough to avoid a patent lawsuit (or successfully defend against one), you're "in the clear". Heck... look at the firestorm over Apple's "Dashboard" addition to Tiger. They were accused of the exact same thing... stealing an idea from a shareware author without giving him any credit.

In this industry, it's gonna happen....

And yes, some of Microsoft's business practices are questionable, but it wouldn't take too long to find just as many questionable policies in Apple's portfolio. It's just more popular to pick on Microsoft. Everyone wants to topple the man at the top of the heap, so to speak.

Here are a few bad deals coming from Apple's side of the fence:

1. Nothing comes with more than a 1 year warranty without paying hundreds extra for Applecare - and only *90 days* of phone support allowed! That's one of the weakest warranties in the industry.

2. Apple retail stores charge restocking fees on returns. What if Best Buy or Circuit City started telling you "Sorry. We're keeping 10% of your money on this return. Restocking fee, you know." How well do you think that would go over?

3. As iPods sold more and more, Apple saw fit to strip them of extras that used to be included. My iPod Video didn't even come with a wall charger, and included the world's flimsiest excuse for a case/sleeve! My 3rd. gen. iPod 40GB included a nice belt-clip case, by contrast.

4. iSight cameras suffered the same fate, with earlier purchased units including a variety of mounting brackets - but now, customers are expected to pay $30 for them seperately! Ridiculous on a $150 web-cam.


Though his money and fame mostly comes from stolen products and monopolistic business practices. meh? who cares, he's saving lives! *smoke screen alert*

photomaniac
Jun 16, 2006, 10:05 AM
A Steve Ballmer figurehead is a scary visualization..

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1763276956369539218&q=steve+ballmer

http://www.flamingmailbox.com/maccomedy/movies/balmer.html

Play Ultimate
Jun 16, 2006, 10:08 AM
I have often heard that the first third of your life is to learn.
The second third is to earn
The final third is to give back

Gates is just following this pattern.

Mal
Jun 16, 2006, 10:09 AM
kingtj: Questionable business practices doesn't mean not giving people a better warranty or more accessories. Not sure where you got that idea. :confused:

What people mean when they talk about questionable business practices is all the small companies they've bankrupted to prevent any competition from rising up, usually by sidling up to them, claiming to be there to help, then waltzing away with their ideas and leaving the little guys in the dust. Not only is it downright dirty, but it's illegal too, they've just gotten away with it most of the time because bankrupt companies can't afford the same level of legal counsel that Microsoft can.

jW

electronboy
Jun 16, 2006, 10:13 AM
Isn't this site MACrumors? Just more noise.

AppleJustWorks
Jun 16, 2006, 10:15 AM
Ouch, that's a popular position to have in the MacRumors Forums....but I'll bite.
There is no argument that his philanthrpy is a good thing. The argument is that ill gotten money distributed freely is not exactly philanthropic. Of course, you don't seem to follow this simple discussion, so I'll make it painfully simple for you.
Let's say that I stole a guy's wallet and give that money to the American Red Cross for hurricane relief. Does that make me a good person? Well, yes since I gave money, but more importantly, no since I gave money that was not mine in the first place.
Of course this all presupposes that Bill did steal the OS....which he did. If you want to argue otherwise, go find another place to do it, like a corner.
Finally, saying we don't have lives when the topic of discussion is Bill Gates is a bit ironic. Remember, this man learned how to do what he did by spending days on end working on a mainframe his school's PTA got access to. This was, as you may know, to the point where he would come out splattered in pizza sauce from the past several meals. So, I guess in a way saying we don't have lives is a complement, since hey who knows, you might end up working for us someday.
Have a nice day.
That. was. awesome. :D

whatever
Jun 16, 2006, 10:22 AM
ignoring the fact that Gates may have stolen anything...

ignoring monopolistic business practices (it's redundant)...

What peeves me the most is that the man is worth about $100 Billion. Sure he gives away 52% of that to philanthropy(according to Wikipedia), but that still leaves $48 Billion for him!

I don't think one person should be allowed to control more money than most of the governments in the world. There are roughly a billion people with no clean drinking water...where is the limit? Wouldn't $5 billion be ok? Even $500 million, for that matter?

Call me a Communist, but hell...stop being greedy and give the others a piece of your pie. Why are the poor people always the first to share what little they have?

The true measure of a man's character is not what he does once he finds wealth/power, but what he does on the way there.
Yeah communism, a great concept, except for that one tragic flaw....Human Nature!

Who the hell are you to say that the poor are the first to share what little they have....that statement makes no difference.

Being worth XXX billions does not translate into having XXX billions in disposable cash!

I'm sure is net worth included accounts and trusts which will continue to generate cash and fund different charities long after he is gone.

Both he and his wife have stated that they plan to donate all of their fortune to charities.

Stop hating the man because he is rich and sucessful.

Griffindor73
Jun 16, 2006, 10:28 AM
I just think its very easy to be that generous when you have that amount of money- I think an old lady giving £10 out of her pension is more an act of generousity because she will feel the pinch of it, you wouldn't even notice it has gone when you have that much money.

erikamsterdam
Jun 16, 2006, 10:31 AM
I just hope the same will happen to Micro$oft as what happened to Apple when Steve Jobs left.
And really hope Billy won't come back to resque them.

IJ Reilly
Jun 16, 2006, 10:36 AM
Thanks for saying this.

I find it interesting that many folks seem forget about Compaq and the wonderful contribution they gave to the PC community.

If it weren't for them, we would have not had the clones and IBM would have retained their lock on the PC world.

But only the IBM-PC world, which would have been a much, much smaller place and allowed more room for competition from other PC designs, such as the Mac. To my way of thinking, cloning was a disaster -- it artificially froze PC architecture evolution at a very primitive state. Just look at how long it's taken for the PC to shake ROM-BIOS, a piece of early 1980s technology that still lives at the heart of virtually every PC made today. Cloning also handed Bill Gates an empire on a silver platter. Tough for me to find anything good about it.

IJ Reilly
Jun 16, 2006, 10:49 AM
He has always been a philanthropist, and if you've ever read any biographical information about him whatsoever, he has always been interested in microbiology, genetics, and biotech, for the purpose of curing diseases.

I have read quite a bit about Gates, and this is not so. He came to philanthropy very late in amassing his fortune, which is why he is often compared to Andrew Carnegie. Word now is that he's told friends that he's after a Nobel Prize. I've never heard of anyone pursuing the Nobel, but it surprises me not at all that Bill would break that unwritten rule. This would be entirely consistent with this personalty. As anyone who's read biographical information about him would know, he's all about winning. Always has been, and presumably, always will be.

gwangung
Jun 16, 2006, 10:56 AM
I have read quite a bit about Gates, and this is not so. He came to philanthropy very late in amassing his fortune, which is why he is often compared to Andrew Carnegie. Word now is that he's told friends that he's after a Nobel Prize. I've never heard of anyone pursuing the Nobel, but it surprises me not at all that Bill would break that unwritten rule. This would be entirely consistent with this personalty. As anyone who's read biographical information about him would know, he's all about winning. Always has been, and presumably, always will be.

This is dead wrong.

Gates has been known to be a giver since the mid 1980s.

And most givers tend to give later in life, in the fifties and sixties. Gates is hardly late to philanthropy.

Chrispy
Jun 16, 2006, 11:06 AM
As anyone who's read biographical information about him would know, he's all about winning. Always has been, and presumably, always will be.

More power to him I say. Nothing wrong with wanting to win.. that is how success is achieved in this world.

IJ Reilly
Jun 16, 2006, 11:08 AM
This is dead wrong.

Gates has been known to be a giver since the mid 1980s.

And most givers tend to give later in life, in the fifties and sixties. Gates is hardly late to philanthropy.

I have three Gates biographies on my shelf. So show me something I don't already know.

I did not say "late in life," I deliberately said "late in amassing his fortune." Few people have become as wealthy as Gates at such an early age. He's been sitting on billions for decades.

Rustus Maximus
Jun 16, 2006, 11:11 AM
This is dead wrong.

Gates has been known to be a giver since the mid 1980s.

And most givers tend to give later in life, in the fifties and sixties. Gates is hardly late to philanthropy.

Well...a man will do many things...ANY thing sometimes to help ease a stained and guilty conscience.

"Bill...enjoy your retirement...you evil genius, you."

(Rustus wipes away a lonely, sad little tear)

gwangung
Jun 16, 2006, 11:14 AM
I have three Gates biographies on my shelf. So show me something I don't already know.

I did not say "late in life," I deliberately said "late in amassing his fortune." Few people have become as wealthy as Gates at such an early age. He's been sitting on billions for decades.

And very, very few people give significant amounts of their wealth when they are active in business.

Moreover, when his fortune started to get into large number of billions, he began to give larger, billion dollar chunks of stock to his foundation. He was NOT sitting on billions for decades. And he WAS making eight figure gifts in the early 1990s (when his net worth wasn't in the multibillion dollar range).

If you're saying that's not good enough for you, that's fine and dandy. But it's just not correct to say that he was late to philanthropy, nor was it correct to say that he was sitting on billions for decades. He's enough suis generis that it's hard to make generalizations.

andylane
Jun 16, 2006, 11:15 AM
Not to be too picky (I'm in a grumpy mood today), but shouldn't the title of this post be "Bill Gates' Transition/Retirement" (note the apostraphe)?

cloudblood84
Jun 16, 2006, 11:16 AM
I just think its very easy to be that generous when you have that amount of money- I think an old lady giving £10 out of her pension is more an act of generousity because she will feel the pinch of it, you wouldn't even notice it has gone when you have that much money.

charity isnt about the giver, its about the receivers, who cares if the money he gave away is frivolous to him if it cures AIDS, etc. and saves MILLIONS of lives, its all about the impact on the people, sheesh some of you guys are off the wall, i dont understand how the bottom line of saving lives has ANYTHING to do with any stupid OS wars, when its clearly important only to us privledged citizens of the world. meh

DMann
Jun 16, 2006, 11:18 AM
And very, very few people give significant amounts of their wealth when they are active in business.

Moreover, when his fortune started to get into large number of billions, he began to give larger, billion dollar chunks of stock to his foundation. He was NOT sitting on billions for decades. And he WAS making eight figure gifts in the early 1990s (when his net worth wasn't in the billion dollar range).

If you're saying that's not good enough for you, that's fine and dandy. But it's just not correct to say that he was late to philanthropy, nor was it correct to say that he was sitting on billions for decades. He's enough suis generis that it's hard to make generalizations.

For this I commend him - tax-breaks not withstanding......

IJ Reilly
Jun 16, 2006, 11:21 AM
More power to him I say. Nothing wrong with wanting to win.. that is how success is achieved in this world.

Short of starting a long philosophical discussion about the nature of winning, I'd say yes something can be wrong with wanting to win, if it takes throwing ethics out the window to get there. As for the Nobel, it's awarded to people who make selfless contributions to humanity. Pursuing the prize is contrary to its purpose.

s10
Jun 16, 2006, 11:42 AM
charity isnt about the giver, its about the receivers, who cares if the money he gave away is frivolous to him if it cures AIDS, etc. and saves MILLIONS of lives, its all about the impact on the people, sheesh some of you guys are off the wall, i dont understand how the bottom line of saving lives has ANYTHING to do with any stupid OS wars, when its clearly important only to us privledged citizens of the world. meh

Amen.

Charity "can" be as dirty as "rebuilding" a country form an evil, but handy, dictatorship... especially if you choose the country to your personal needs.

When there is money involved, politics and power are involved.

Look at Foster Parents Plan ... they don't help all the children in the world, but only the ones in certain countries...

Charity SHOULD be about the receivers.. we focus on who gives the most, not so much on who gives the least, like the USA who, as a country, give an extremely low % to 3rd world countries compared to other countries like the Netherlands..
...and we rather not focus at all on the receivers... because we don't want to realise it's all because of us.

sigamy
Jun 16, 2006, 11:44 AM
I've heard that Gates is going to join the Hanso Foundation for some top secret research into electromagnetic enegry and life extension for primates and humans.

More info at http://www.thehansofoundation.org

Gasu E.
Jun 16, 2006, 11:45 AM
I don't think one person should be allowed to control more money than most of the governments in the world. There are roughly a billion people with no clean drinking water...where is the limit? Wouldn't $5 billion be ok? Even $500 million, for that matter?



There's a misconception that "Bill Gates is worth $100 Billion" means that he actually has 100 billion dollars. They are not the same thing at all. What "Bill Gates is worth $100 Billion" really means is that he owns a zillion MS shares, and a single MS share is worth 1 zillionth os $100 Billion. This distinction is important for two reasons: first, because if Bill dumped his stock on the market all at once it wouldn't be worth close to $100 Billion; and second, because all that stock gives him control of MS, something which is extremely important to him-- it makes him Chairman and provides his identity.

IJ Reilly
Jun 16, 2006, 11:45 AM
And very, very few people give significant amounts of their wealth when they are active in business.

Moreover, when his fortune started to get into large number of billions, he began to give larger, billion dollar chunks of stock to his foundation. He was NOT sitting on billions for decades. And he WAS making eight figure gifts in the early 1990s (when his net worth wasn't in the multibillion dollar range).

If you're saying that's not good enough for you, that's fine and dandy. But it's just not correct to say that he was late to philanthropy, nor was it correct to say that he was sitting on billions for decades. He's enough suis generis that it's hard to make generalizations.

Gates became a billionaire in 1987, the youngest person to achieve this in history. I can provide a precise source for this information, if you think you need it. Multiple billions came very soon afterwards.

He started to make some gifts in the 1990s, but considering the size of his personal fortune by that time, they were regarded by many as not commensurate. In fact, during the early '90s, in response to frequent questions about what charitable works he intended to pursue with his billions, he said that his "contribution" at that time was running Microsoft, and that he'd decide later in life which charities were worthy of his support. Again, source and precise quote available on request.

Gasu E.
Jun 16, 2006, 11:47 AM
I've heard that Gates is going to join the Hanso Foundation for some top secret research into electromagnetic enegry and life extension for primates and humans.

More info at http://www.thehansofoundation.org

You've "lost" me there.

IJ Reilly
Jun 16, 2006, 11:51 AM
Not to be too picky (I'm in a grumpy mood today), but shouldn't the title of this post be "Bill Gates' Transition/Retirement" (note the apostraphe)?

Probably, but in this case it could be read either way, e.g., "A Bill Gates Transition," or "Bill Gates' Transition."

sigamy
Jun 16, 2006, 11:55 AM
This is dead wrong.

Gates has been known to be a giver since the mid 1980s.

And most givers tend to give later in life, in the fifties and sixties. Gates is hardly late to philanthropy.

Exactly. The guy made his money so early in life, there is no one to compare him against. He really needs to be given a break on this.

I still remember the NBC Today show interviewing Gates years ago when Gates first started giving. He donated some PCs and software to inter-city schools. Matt Laurer said, "People say you haven't given enough. And why computers, aren't you just creating future Microsoft customers?"

Gates answered it well. He said that he was still a working man, still very much involved in his career. He said there would come a point when that would change and he would focus on givin. He said he would give away all his fortune throughout his life. This will be his second career.

Give the man time to make the right decisions. Billions of dollars doesn't mean you can just go out and cure cancer. Big pharma companies have been trying that for years...

I'd love to see solutions to the world's health issues, poverty, education and homeless. Hopefully Gates will make a nice dent.

Gasu E.
Jun 16, 2006, 11:57 AM
But only the IBM-PC world, which would have been a much, much smaller place and allowed more room for competition from other PC designs, such as the Mac. To my way of thinking, cloning was a disaster -- it artificially froze PC architecture evolution at a very primitive state. .

And PCs today would cost $10K. Through commodization of system products, Gates drove almost all of the profit out of the hands of PC makers. He took a sliver for himself (and another slice went to Intel), but most ended up in the pockets of the customer.

gwangung
Jun 16, 2006, 11:58 AM
Gates became a billionaire in 1987, the youngest person to achieve this in history. I can provide a precise source for this information, if you think you need it. Multiple billions came very soon afterwards.

He started to make some gifts in the 1990s, but considering the size of his personal fortune by that time, they were regarded by many as not commensurate. In fact, during the early '90s, in response to frequent questions about what charitable works he intended to pursue with his billions, he said that his "contribution" at that time was running Microsoft, and that he'd decide later in life which charities were worthy of his support. Again, source and precise quote available on request.

Those many were not fundraisers. Fundraisers, who deal with the rich and megarich, generally know when people are in the careers and building their businesses, they don't give that much, because they are focussed on their businesses. This was what Gates was doing.

His gifts at that time were about 0.5 to 1% of his net worth at that time. Generally, when fundraisers ask for major gifts, it's anywhere from 1 to 5% of a person's net worth (and of course, what they get is often not they asked for). What he was giving was not a major gift/stretch gift, but was not particularly noteworthy for being below his level.

Your expectations for Gates is all out of line with the behavior of every other major donor in the world. Feel free to criticize him for that, but I don't think it's particularly fair, nor were your description of his behavior particularly accurate.

Gasu E.
Jun 16, 2006, 12:00 PM
As anyone who's read biographical information about him would know, he's all about winning. Always has been, and presumably, always will be.

Good. Then I hope he beats the crap out of malaria, typhoid, and AIDS.

gwangung
Jun 16, 2006, 12:02 PM
There's a misconception that "Bill Gates is worth $100 Billion" means that he actually has 100 billion dollars. They are not the same thing at all. What "Bill Gates is worth $100 Billion" really means is that he owns a zillion MS shares, and a single MS share is worth 1 zillionth os $100 Billion. This distinction is important for two reasons: first, because if Bill dumped his stock on the market all at once it wouldn't be worth close to $100 Billion; and second, because all that stock gives him control of MS, something which is extremely important to him-- it makes him Chairman and provides his identity.

That said, there's a tremendous amount of Gates' wealth that's under the radar; a few years back, he diversified and split off some of his wealth into a private investment business. That's now a substantial portion of his wealth.

Gates became a billionaire in 1987, the youngest person to achieve this in history. I can provide a precise source for this information, if you think you need it. Multiple billions came very soon afterwards.

By the way, my records indicate his net worth was in the $1.5 to $1.9 billion range in 1990 and 1991 (and rocketed up after that, of course).

IJ Reilly
Jun 16, 2006, 12:08 PM
And PCs today would cost $10K. Through commodization of system products, Gates drove almost all of the profit out of the hands of PC makers. He took a sliver for himself (and another slice went to Intel), but most ended up in the pockets of the customer.

Sorry, but this is nonsense. Only in the PC market do people seem to cling to the idea that competition increases prices. It would have been far better for consumers overall if this "commodization" of the PC hardware market had not occurred, as this would have allowed for more innovation and therefore more competition from alternatives, and more competition and innovation is always better than less competition and innovation -- in any market, PCs are no exception. The problem Apple had and has selling the Mac into this world of artificial hardware "standards" is a perfect case-in-point that we should all understand.

slackersonly
Jun 16, 2006, 12:14 PM
hating bill gates for windows is like hating

ford for the model T
einstein for the nuclear bomb
dean smith for the 4 corners offense

they all took someones basic product, improved it a little, and then others made their products better and worse.

thank you bill for revolutionizing the computer industry
thank you for the good and bad that comes with industry standards
thank you for making me love my mac every day

IJ Reilly
Jun 16, 2006, 12:19 PM
Those many were not fundraisers. Fundraisers, who deal with the rich and megarich, generally know when people are in the careers and building their businesses, they don't give that much, because they are focussed on their businesses. This was what Gates was doing.

His gifts at that time were about 0.5 to 1% of his net worth at that time. Generally, when fundraisers ask for major gifts, it's anywhere from 1 to 5% of a person's net worth (and of course, what they get is often not they asked for). What he was giving was not a major gift/stretch gift, but was not particularly noteworthy for being below his level.

Your expectations for Gates is all out of line with the behavior of every other major donor in the world. Feel free to criticize him for that, but I don't think it's particularly fair, nor were your description of his behavior particularly accurate.

Perhaps, but the point I've raised is that he made a very large fortune at a very early age, and so the questions about his generosity with that fortune became a question to him at an early age. Unfair? If you insist. But it didn't help that his company at the same time adopted a practice of making donations which would aid their own bottom line, and also pursued illegal business practices. A lot of this stuck to Gates. And why should it not?

gwangung
Jun 16, 2006, 12:24 PM
Perhaps, but the point I've raised is that he made a very large fortune at a very early age, and so the questions about his generosity with that fortune became a question to him at an early age. Unfair? If you insist. But it didn't help that his company at the same time adopted a practice of making donations which would aid their own bottom line, and also pursued illegal business practices. A lot of this stuck to Gates. And why should it not?

No reason why it shouldn't. I respect his wife, Melinda, more than I do him.

However, I want to criticize him from a fair position. I happen to think a lot of Microsoft practices were unfair and unethical. But I can't criticize their software donations, because that's what ALL the other software companies were doing at the time (Adobe, Aldus, Apple, etc.). And I want to criticize Gates for what he specifically does, and not just because of all the zeroes he has in his bank account--that's acting like lawyers, going after someone only because he/she has deep pockets.

SimoneDice
Jun 16, 2006, 12:26 PM
Let us not forget that Gates is perhaps the greatest philanthropist the world has ever known. Whether or not you like MS, you have to admit his money is saving thousands of lives. I wish him luck.


That's our money that he is giving away. So 'we' are the greatest philanthropist that the world has ever seen. We just give him an avenue to help.

generationxwing
Jun 16, 2006, 12:28 PM
Good for him. The world needs more people like him, giving away their fortunes to charities.

I hate Windows as much as the next person around here, but it's Windows that makes Apple so great. Having a sub par program running on the vast majority of computers gives something for Apple to be better than.

If OSX was on 90% of computers, you can bet it wouldn't be nearly as good as it is now.

That's our money that he is giving away. So 'we' are the greatest philanthropist that the world has ever seen. We just give him an avenue to help.

No one's forcing him to do any of this. Our money, his money, someone else's money, it doesn't matter. The point is, he's choosing to give it away.

IJ Reilly
Jun 16, 2006, 12:41 PM
No reason why it shouldn't. I respect his wife, Melinda, more than I do him.

However, I want to criticize him from a fair position. I happen to think a lot of Microsoft practices were unfair and unethical. But I can't criticize their software donations, because that's what ALL the other software companies were doing at the time (Adobe, Aldus, Apple, etc.). And I want to criticize Gates for what he specifically does, and not just because of all the zeroes he has in his bank account--that's acting like lawyers, going after someone only because he/she has deep pockets.

I understand. I am probably reacting as much as anything to what I know of his personality, which is that he has always been a notorious control freak and can't stand not being the top dog. This means to me that he'll do a lot more talking than listening, which isn't necessarily the best way to be a philanthropist. He's already brought some of this personality to his giving. I remember about a year ago he was stumping for educational reform, and thinking "what does Bill Gates know about education?" Probably not any more than you or I, but with his financial resources, he can still push education where he thinks it ought to go.

seashellz
Jun 16, 2006, 12:57 PM
Well, he's not THAT philanthropic.

Seattle recently opened a huge state-of-the-art, 'World-Class' Public Library-and its design reminds one of the Museum of art in Paris. It IS truly an amazing building.
Bill and Melinda Gates did donate generously-in fact, there is an auditorium in the building named in honor of them.

A world-class library...yes?

No.

They have 500+ (maybe 700-dont quite recall) computers there in the building on a network, (as well as wifi,) all for public use.

Not a ONE of them is a Mac.

I wrote to the Head Librarian-noting it seemed strange to label itself as a "world class" library, and yet exclude Macs, which if nothing else, are a favorite of artists, desktop publishing, video work, and just plain everyday users- an important section of the community.

Which would be sort of like saying "We have an excellent Science section here, but we dont carry books on Quantum Physics-its such a small, hard to understand and theoretical field-we cant justify buying books on the subject."

Her first response was "We cant run Macs here-its a Windows system"

Huh?

I wrote back saying "So what? That is a very poor excuse-scrounge up the money (ask Bill-or even Apple) for a server and say, even 10-20 Macs.
And hire a part time Mac Tech, or better still, a guy who knows BOTH Mac and Windows-to keep costs down.

Her next response was that it would be too much trouble and costly to try to integrate systems."

Again, Huh?

I wrote back saying this is another idiotic excuse and that I was going to write to our 2 local daily papers on the scandal-"Gates dontations influence content policy regarding computers available in the SPL."

She wrote back, terrified, -you know-the kind of terrified that the local "eco-friendly" bus system, METRO might feel, if it were to be found to be using Killer Whale oil to run its busses-saying she would 'look into the matter, and the next time they got a grant, they would likely buy some Macs'

I wrote into Macintouch, to their 'Mac Marginalization' column about it urging others to write to the Head Librarian.

Its been while and I havent been there-I usually use the nearby small local branch which has only 10 computers-Dells-so I havent really checked back to the 'state-of-the-art" Central Library yet.

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.archinfo.com.tw/building/archi/images/200502/05022702-b.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.archinfo.com.tw/building/TXT/archi/2005/05022701.htm&h=686&w=1024&sz=223&tbnid=YJaglkBkJHCnFM:&tbnh=100&tbnw=150&hl=en&start=5&prev=/images%3Fq%3DSeattle%2BPublic%2BLibrary%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DG

the poll numbers are....interesting- 99% are in the positive range when added together, and 60% are in the negative range-(are we certain that Gates isnt investing in MacRumors? ;-) -I always thought % polls had to even out to 100%... this ones 159%.

Marx55
Jun 16, 2006, 01:44 PM
Beware the dirty tricks used by Bill Gates to make money from the very begining:

http://www.mackido.com/History/index.html

supermacdesign
Jun 16, 2006, 02:06 PM
I wish him the best of luck. Whether you like him or not he earned every penny he has by being a clever and shrewed business man. He changed the world with his product and I now hope he can change it again by making Philanthropy the new hip thing to do for billionaires.

I hate Microsoft but seriously, Congrats Bill.

roach
Jun 16, 2006, 02:08 PM
Well, he's not THAT philanthropic.

Seattle recently opened a huge state-of-the-art, 'World-Class' Public Library-and its design reminds one of the Museum of art in Paris. It IS truly an amazing building.
Bill and Melinda Gates did donate generously-in fact, there is an auditorium in the building named in honor of them.

A world-class library...yes?

No.

They have 500+ (maybe 700-dont quite recall) computers there in the building on a network, (as well as wifi,) all for public use.

Not a ONE of them is a Mac.

I wrote to the Head Librarian-noting it seemed strange to label itself as a "world class" library, and yet exclude Macs, which if nothing else, are a favorite of artists, desktop publishing, video work, and just plain everyday users- an important section of the community.


Its a freakin' library, just because the building design looks funky, doesn't mean they have to honor to the "Artist of the World". For all I can remember, Library had been using PC ever since the dos days. I wouldn't be surprise if Bill did denote the system, but I wouldn't think the library would not object if Apple also wanted to donate some Apple system. The last thing a Library want to get in to is get into Apple PC battle or put a few Apple system to satisfy fanboys like you. Try book search on PC, I'm sure whatever virus it has wont pass on to you...don't be scared!

And where did you get info as far as Macs being the favorite of artists, desktop publishing and video work. Do you have any link backing this statement? I worked on VFX for TV/Film for the last 7 years and now I work for a gaming company for the last 2 years and I say 95 percent of the system we use is NOT mac. One thing to remember, good art is create by the Artist, not by the computer it was created.

Yebot
Jun 16, 2006, 02:37 PM
Bill Gates semi-retire in 2007?

Right.

I call delayed until 2011.

mgauss
Jun 16, 2006, 02:55 PM
I read a lot of his charity is giving things that save him more on taxes than what he is giving away.

I'd like to see when he dies how much is given to the IRS in taxes. Millions of dollars spent on accountants to shelter money in trusts and other BS that will protect his money as much as possible. And in this country, the richest get the most protection.

I don't believe his BS for a second.

Also, feed an African village today and they have the energy to procreate, 9 months later you have babies born dying of hunger cause the CNN/FOX crew is with Bill Gates in another country.

Charity should be for countries, not for fickle rich individuals that are here today, kissing ass with celebrities tomorrow.

I predict that after a few months of hanging around with his laptop in hotels with his bodyguard possy he will scurry right back to that big desk at
Micro$oft and play his Bridge card games.

My 74 year old mother beat him in Montreal in Bridge (she ended 24th place, he 270th place). He has his personal Bridge tutor, and is getting beaten by the octogenarians. Pathetic. At least stay in Redmond where we admire him. What is he gonna do now, hang out with Paris Hilton? He is a mousy shy guy and his wife Melinda won't take the pressure of being with him.

From the richest man in the world to complaining that the hotel has no A/C and no security. With the bitchy wife running out of estrogen in the bathroom, late for some charity event.

Prediction: he'll hate it, come right back to M$, and unmotivate Ozzie, who will leave M$ in less than 2 years. VisiCalc loser.

gwangung
Jun 16, 2006, 03:23 PM
I read a lot of his charity is giving things that save him more on taxes than what he is giving away.

Good thing you're not my accountant.

janstett
Jun 16, 2006, 03:44 PM
Actually, now that I think about it, this is just another sign that the great Computer Wars are over. The industry has matured and is no longer the wild west and rapid growing area that it used to be.

Remember the recent departures at Apple, including the lead architect of OSX. Think about where we are.

Computers are pretty much mature now. Windows XP has been the dominant operating system for five years, and despite what Mac users venemously say is pretty darned robust and stable. Same with OSX for that matter. What do we really need Vista (or Leopard) for? Could we not just live with XP and Tiger, well, forever? There really isn't anything new or radical to be done to an operating system. Not much challenge in being an OS guru these days. I think the loss of Bill Gates is a sad moment, really. The days of the Homebrew Computer Club, Apple, Atari, Commodore, Amiga, Lotus, Claris, et al have long been over, but now the doors are shutting on them. It's officially over, IMO.

supermacdesign
Jun 16, 2006, 03:55 PM
Whether he does it for tax purposes or not is irrelevant, let him give what he can sheesh.

janstett
Jun 16, 2006, 03:57 PM
Beware the dirty tricks used by Bill Gates to make money from the very begining:

http://www.mackido.com/History/index.html

Waaaah, Microsoft didn't fight fair. Waaaaah.

Let me just remind you Apple stole its great inventions too. The Apple I/II was inspired by the Altair. The Macintosh crew stole the idea for the GUI from Xerox. The iPod was not the first MP3 player. Apple played hardball, in fact worse than Microsoft... See how the killed the Apple II clones (Apricot, etc.) and then killed the Mac clones.

You're just mad that the "cheater" you backed didn't win.

gwangung
Jun 16, 2006, 04:02 PM
I understand. I am probably reacting as much as anything to what I know of his personality, which is that he has always been a notorious control freak and can't stand not being the top dog. This means to me that he'll do a lot more talking than listening, which isn't necessarily the best way to be a philanthropist.

Maaaaaannnnnn.....I wish that were more often the case in the world......


He's already brought some of this personality to his giving. I remember about a year ago he was stumping for educational reform, and thinking "what does Bill Gates know about education?" Probably not any more than you or I, but with his financial resources, he can still push education where he thinks it ought to go.

Hah. He's gotten his nose bloodied in education. He's going to get it bloodied again (and this is generally in spite of the fact he's gotten decent people in as program officers in his organization). What he thinks works in education and what WILL work are not the same...

IJ Reilly
Jun 16, 2006, 04:04 PM
Waaaah, Microsoft didn't fight fair. Waaaaah.

Let me just remind you Apple stole its great inventions too. The Apple I/II was inspired by the Altair. The Macintosh crew stole the idea for the GUI from Xerox. The iPod was not the first MP3 player. Apple played hardball, in fact worse than Microsoft... See how the killed the Apple II clones (Apricot, etc.) and then killed the Mac clones.

You're just mad that the "cheater" you backed didn't win.

Actually, no, especially the Apple stealing from Xerox business. This is one of the most persistent myths of the computer business. There's no real truth to it.

Microsoft, OTOH, has been called to account for antitrust violations many many times, both in the United States and in Europe. To my knowledge, they have never prevailed in a single case.

kalisphoenix
Jun 16, 2006, 04:15 PM
Waaaah, Microsoft didn't fight fair. Waaaaah.

Let me just remind you Apple stole its great inventions too. The Apple I/II was inspired by the Altair. The Macintosh crew stole the idea for the GUI from Xerox. The iPod was not the first MP3 player. Apple played hardball, in fact worse than Microsoft... See how the killed the Apple II clones (Apricot, etc.) and then killed the Mac clones.

You're just mad that the "cheater" you backed didn't win.

Gah! READ SOMETHING, MAN! READ! PLEASE!

IJ Reilly
Jun 16, 2006, 04:18 PM
Hah. He's gotten his nose bloodied in education. He's going to get it bloodied again (and this is generally in spite of the fact he's gotten decent people in as program officers in his organization). What he thinks works in education and what WILL work are not the same...

Yes, and he's never been inclined towards taking the views of others into account. In his life he's never really had to, which is another way of saying, he tends to believe he's always the smartest guy in the room. And who will tell him otherwise, especially if he's spreading the big bucks around? I think he really needs to turn his foundation towards supporting existing national and international organizations running proven programs, instead of creating his own. But again, who's going to tell Bill?

janstett
Jun 16, 2006, 04:26 PM
They have 500+ (maybe 700-dont quite recall) computers there in the building on a network, (as well as wifi,) all for public use.

Not a ONE of them is a Mac.


Waaah, I want a Linux box in the Seattle Public Library, waaaaaah. Is there a quota system? Is there a discrimination law against what computers are in a library?

IJ Reilly
Jun 16, 2006, 04:28 PM
Waaah, I want a Linux box in the Seattle Public Library, waaaaaah. Is there a quota system? Is there a discrimination law against what computers are in a library?

This is borderline trolling. Fair warning.

janstett
Jun 16, 2006, 04:28 PM
Actually, no, especially the Apple stealing from Xerox business. This is one of the most persistent myths of the computer business. There's no real truth to it.

BS. It's widely acknowledged that Apple's team visited their friends at Xerox PARC, Steve Jobs spearheaded the road trip. To say otherwise is revisionist history.

EDIT: I'm going to dig up the episode of TWiT where the early Apple guys discuss it with Leo Laporte, just for one of a million documentations of it.

http://twit.tv/48

IJ Reilly
Jun 16, 2006, 04:38 PM
BS. It's widely acknowledged that Apple's team visited their friends at Xerox PARC, Steve Jobs spearheaded the road trip. To say otherwise is revisionist history.

Incorrect. The trip was arranged by Jef Raskin, not by Jobs. In fact Raskin, who was heading the Mac team at the time, organized the trip to Xerox for the purpose of persuading Jobs that a GUI computer was worth pursuing. It worked so well that Jobs immediately took over the Mac project. That was the real effect, not Jobs "stealing" anything from Xerox.

Not as dramatic, but the facts often aren't dramatic.

Edit: Jef Raskin's essay on this subject:

http://jef.raskincenter.org/published/holes.html

XForge
Jun 16, 2006, 04:50 PM
That's our money that he is giving away. So 'we' are the greatest philanthropist that the world has ever seen. We just give him an avenue to help.

That ain't MY money; I've never paid retail for a copy of a Microsoft program in my life. I inherit licenses when people sell me used stuff. And sign them over to me. Legally. No, I'm serious. Stop laughing.

mozmac
Jun 16, 2006, 05:35 PM
Way to go, Bill. I'd like to see more people in the world that are willing to dedicate more of their time to saving humanity.

DougTheImpaler
Jun 16, 2006, 06:27 PM
Wonder how this might affect further development of MS applications for the Mac, most specifically MS Office...

Billy Boo Bob
Jun 16, 2006, 06:39 PM
Wonder how this might affect further development of MS applications for the Mac, most specifically MS Office...
I think they "signed" on for 5 more years, although that could be just to support it, not necessarily keep developing / improving.

Billy Boo Bob
Jun 16, 2006, 06:49 PM
The poll numbers are....interesting- 99% are in the positive range when added together, and 60% are in the negative range-(are we certain that Gates isnt investing in MacRumors? ;-) -I always thought % polls had to even out to 100%... this ones 159%.
I think that's because you can select multiple options in the poll. Checkboxes vs. radio buttons. If it were radio buttons (one–and only one–choice), then they would total 100 %

weg
Jun 16, 2006, 07:30 PM
Ah we are talking about philanthropists right now in History.

He said Gates has basically piggy-backed on Carnegie

That he was extremely slow to donate anything

Yes, CMU is really the place where people'd starve to death if it wasn't for Gates' donations, ain't it?

Willis
Jun 16, 2006, 07:44 PM
hmm, Gates is a good guy for what he does. But hes still a donkey.

Ah well, end of the day, his money is going to good causes, and it seems Vista got left out :p [/cuebadjoke]

sushi
Jun 16, 2006, 08:45 PM
Wonder how this might affect further development of MS applications for the Mac, most specifically MS Office...
Doubt it will change. MSFT makes money with their MBU of which Office is their primary product.

I would imagine that when the Intel update of Office comes out we will see a vastly improved version of VPC.

mrblah
Jun 16, 2006, 10:02 PM
So he was slow to donate money, maybe he had a life changing moment in that made him suddenly want to help people. Are born again christians any less christian than those that were simply grown to be christian?

Acting like hes not genuine is about as stupid as all the people who think Bono is doing charity work in africa only for publicity. It seems like the only way you can genuinely be charitable is if youre poor, all the rich people are just faking it.

elgruga
Jun 16, 2006, 11:31 PM
Rich people dont see much - well they are rich and they dont have the problems of waking up in the GUTTER with no food and no way of getting any.
How can a guy like Gates even know where to start?
Well, he could first spend time finding out why, in a world of plenty, we have poverty.
What he will discover is that most 'Aid' goes to local corrupt politicians or warlords working with the CIA.
He will discover that 'aid' is only given if you agree to accept that the US and other countries will take all your natural resources and pay peanuts for them.
He will find that the IMF supports very low wages for poor people in 'third-world' countries.
He will discover that poverty is a way to CONTROL people.
Oh, wait a minute, Bill Gates LOVES to control people - he gets a kick out of it - look at his business practices.
SO instead of stopping disease and helping people to help themselves, he will give cash to a few corrupt 'charities' that pretend to help while supporting evil US foreign policy and paying their staff huge salaries.
He will talk to the people who 'know best' - not the actual poor people.
Well, we wouldnt really want get too close to poor people, would we Billy?
POVERTY is an INDUSTRY.
CHARITY is an INDUSTRY.
GATES is a liar and a fool and a coward, and all you sappy computer geeks who think he is 'doing good' need your heads examining.
GATES is spreading stupid USA foreign policy around the world - he will make poverty WORSE by supporting the evil status quo.
And yes, BONO is just as stupid as Gates, and as corrupt.

Stick that in your word processor.

Oh and BTW, I dont CARE which 'OS' you use.
I dont CARE about Windows or MAC - its just NOT important, at all. That game is OVER, friends.

Go here - http://www.yayacanada.com/index.html - if you want to open your minds - this is NOT the place for debate about real issues - this is a vanity/geek/computer site - essentially worthless.

celebrian23
Jun 16, 2006, 11:36 PM
I'm glad. I honestly believe he is a genuine person doing good work. Just because he hasn't always done the right thing doesn't mean he can't now. And you may hate microsoft, but because of microsoft Apple has some of the technology it does have. He has been extremely important and influential to this industry, in both bad and good ways.

BackInTheSaddle
Jun 16, 2006, 11:50 PM
Rich people dont see much - well they are rich and they dont have the problems of waking up in the GUTTER with no food and no way of getting any.
How can a guy like Gates even know where to start?
blah blah blah

I didn't know Howard Dean posted on Macrumors.com...Welcome! :D

iMacZealot
Jun 17, 2006, 12:52 AM
I like how he's trying to cure diseases and all like malaria, but how's he going to stop mosquitos carrying malaria if he couldn't even get the bugs out of Windows XP? :confused:

mcarnes
Jun 17, 2006, 02:05 AM
hmm, Gates is a good guy for what he does. But hes still a donkey.[/cuebadjoke]

Actually, I think he prefers the term "longhorn".

Space Cowboy
Jun 17, 2006, 02:30 AM
Apple had a great games machine with Steve Wozniak's INTEGER BASIC built right in, but Bill Gate's Applesoft BASIC (floating-point & high resolution graphics) delivered a really useful dream machine... the AppleII.

mrblah
Jun 17, 2006, 04:09 AM
News flash elgruga: not everyone is born rich. You wonder how they would know what its like being poor? Bill Gates is not a Walton, he made his fortune from scratch rather than inheriting it. Many musicians were also by no means rich or even middle class before they made it big. Nothing in your post made the slightest bit of sense or was remotely coherent, were you drunk and mad at "the man"?

SParis
Jun 17, 2006, 04:32 AM
News flash elgruga: not everyone is born rich. You wonder how they would know what its like being poor? Bill Gates is not a Walton, he made his fortune from scratch rather than inheriting it.

Hmmm... this kinda contradicts this:
"Bill Gates was born in Seattle, Washington to William H. Gates, Sr. and Mary Maxwell Gates. His family was wealthy; his father was a prominent lawyer, his mother was the first female Regent of the University of Washington, and his maternal grandfather, J. W. Maxwell, was a national bank president." (emphasis mine)

Coming from a rich family certainly helps and in anwer to your question, no, I don't think Bill has any idea what it's like being poor. How could he?

ezekielrage_99
Jun 17, 2006, 06:34 AM
Though his money and fame mostly comes from stolen products and monopolistic business practices. meh? who cares, he's saving lives! *smoke screen alert*

Didn't Lenin say something to the extent "History is written by the winners"?

Gates always played by the rules the end justifies the means, right or wrong I do have respect for a person who can be that successful. He has been completely unscrupulous, monopolised products and profited from questionable business practises/ethics, still if he didn't take the IT industry by storm it probably would have been someones who we are all complaining about. :rolleyes:

aquajet
Jun 17, 2006, 11:01 AM
Edit: Jef Raskin's essay on this subject:

http://jef.raskincenter.org/published/holes.html

Very interesting read. I'll admit I had a few misconceptions about the genesis of the Mac. Lots of other interesting essays there too. Thanks.

IJ Reilly
Jun 17, 2006, 11:22 AM
Very interesting read. I'll admit I had a few misconceptions about the genesis of the Mac. Lots of other interesting essays there too. Thanks.

The punchline to the story is, after Jobs took over the Mac project, moved it to a separate building from the rest of the Apple campus, and raised that famous pirate flag, he canned Jef Raskin. Consequently, some people discount Raskin's telling, saying he was bitter and tried to take too much credit for the genesis of the Mac project. I don't honestly know, but he was there at the time, and many who'd tell a somewhat different story, were not.

My personal punchline to the story is that I ran into Jef Raskin at a MacWorld a few years ago. He was standing right next to me at a booth. I could hardly believe the name I was seeing on the badge. I introduced myself and we chatted for awhile (He said, "welcome to my expo!"). Afterwards, he send me a copy of his book, "The Humane Interface."

Fabio_gsilva
Jun 17, 2006, 05:31 PM
Rich people dont see much - well they are rich and they dont have the problems of waking up in the GUTTER with no food and no way of getting any.
How can a guy like Gates even know where to start?
Well, he could first spend time finding out why, in a world of plenty, we have poverty.
(...).

Well, I think you lost the punch line here...
Don't criticize so strongly something that you don't know for sure.

york2600
Jun 17, 2006, 05:50 PM
Oh how I love the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. I worked for them in 2002 administering Windows 2000 Servers and helping digital high schools figure out how to work their magic. I used the $$$ to buy a nice Power Mac G4. I thought it was an appropriate use of money.

aussie_geek
Jun 17, 2006, 09:14 PM
A Steve Ballmer figurehead is a scary visualization..


Very Scary... :eek: :eek:

DMann
Jun 17, 2006, 10:34 PM
Yes, CMU is really the place where people'd starve to death if it wasn't for Gates' donations, ain't it?

Endowment anyone? Substantial to say the least.....

Dale Sorel
Jun 17, 2006, 10:57 PM
Very Scary... :eek: :eek:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6rqXHX3O48

billyboy
Jun 17, 2006, 11:09 PM
For the most part the best philanthropists are the ones that have the most problems.


I cant remember the guys name, but he was known (and hated even) because he was a miserly miserable anti social billionaire. When he died, they went through his books, and oops, he had been donating hundreds of millions to small projects in latin America. never said a word, never sought any recognition, and never got it! To me that man is the ultimate philanthropist.

Bill gates is a very very wealthy self centered guy with a wife who has tugged at his heart strings and thankfully he has responded. I hope he does all the good he can with his money and influence, and doesnt try to angle everything back to Microsoft.

DMann
Jun 18, 2006, 01:09 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6rqXHX3O48

Extraordinary rendering of "monkeyman" doin' his thing.......
Brilliantly done!

javierbds
Jun 18, 2006, 06:52 AM
It's pathetic reading the ragging on Gates. You use Macs, just be happy. But you're not. Why? because you have no life.

You are right, I'm getting a life ... out of IT !

1, 2, 3, ... 10 <exhale> :D

OK, here I go :

I have nothing personal against Bill. I have a lot to say about his company ...
I'm pretty sure Bill made the best for MS, money talks ...
But if we take the (my) whole perspective (80s-2008) then a very SCARY picture is seen on what has happened to computing. I'm not blaming all to MS but being such a ... success, means being responsible. I'll try to just paint a few strokes:

- Of course it does not work right, if it would, it would be much more expensive [A VB Project Head]

- Set an internal date of delivery (for the developers) and an external one (much later, for the stakeholders).[Many project management books]

- Developers (coding monkeys) are a dime a dozen [Strongly held belief in IT shops]

- IT work follows the model of a MacDonalds, a repeatable, low quality, high health risk operation, extremely profitable for some ... [Spolsky]

- Could you pass me a copy of X? (where X is any piece of non-free sw) [Any otherwise highly responsible citizen who would not even think of stealing a pencil ...]

- The Linux community was born out of the desire to have the option of using something that was not Windows and can be used in IT shops ... To be viable it had to be FREE ... All, and I mean ALL ..., other market based efforts failed !

- I do not understand why you hate MS [Badly informed people, the same that think that TV quality has to be low, what they do not realize is that sugared water sellers run the networks ...]


I cannot accept the naïve conclusion that everybody else was dumber than Bill [Chapman]. Some cannot accept the truth, because it points to deep flaws in the system ... Is Bill more clever than (think about some people that have been involved in IT and gotten out of it, even to a small niche, not to get too burnt out ...) ? Sure you will have a few names ... Unless you only understand clever as being able to get more money and that is quite telling ...

IT is DEAD! :eek:

Well, maybe in 2008, a peck of light will appear :cool:

Bill, do not forget to close the door ... I mean the Window ! :p

sushi
Jun 18, 2006, 09:06 AM
Rich people dont see much - well they are rich and they dont have the problems of waking up in the GUTTER with no food and no way of getting any.

How can a guy like Gates even know where to start?
So you are saying that someone must be from the GUTTER, as you put it, to know how to give away money and support?

IJ Reilly
Jun 18, 2006, 09:59 AM
So you are saying that someone must be from the GUTTER, as you put it, to know how to give away money and support?

I don't know what he means, but I will say that it helps to have empathy. Williams Gates III has never known a moment of need in his entire life. I'd say, for someone like him, understanding the problems of the less fortunate would require some effort.

Super Dave
Jun 18, 2006, 11:01 AM
I don't know what he means, but I will say that it helps to have empathy. Williams Gates III has never known a moment of need in his entire life. I'd say, for someone like him, understanding the problems of the less fortunate would require some effort.

It would seem that he has put that effort in, as evidenced by his charity work.

David :cool:

IJ Reilly
Jun 18, 2006, 12:03 PM
It would seem that he has put that effort in, as evidenced by his charity work.

David :cool:

That remains to be seen. As I pointed out before, Gates is an extremely controlling sort of individual. If his charitable efforts are predicated upon telling people what they need instead of asking and listening, then no, charity work is not necessarily an indication of empathy. It can be just another way of making others dance to your tune.

inkswamp
Jun 18, 2006, 01:15 PM
Don't understand why any of you are conflicted. You can still hate MS while giving its founder the pass that he probably deserves.

My beef is with the company Gates started. I don't know whether it was him behind all the thievery and dishonest business practices we've seen over the last couple decades, but that's what I don't like and that's why I continue personally boycotting all MS products. I don't think my money should support that.

Gates is just an individual. There's nothing there to love or hate unless you know him personally. I have no real opinion on Gates. I like what he does with his cash. Good for him. I'd love to see more wealthy people spread their money around to deserving causes like he does.

I only wish the company he started wasn't such a parasite.

billyboy
Jun 18, 2006, 03:26 PM
Don't understand why any of you are conflicted. You can still hate MS while giving its founder the pass that he probably deserves.

My beef is with the company Gates started. I don't know whether it was him behind all the thievery and dishonest business practices we've seen over the last couple decades,

I only wish the company he started wasn't such a parasite.
You cant really separate a chairman from the actions of his company! No doubt MS mindset and practices will continue as before, with a different chairman to take the responsibility for the company. As you say, now he should get some credit for redistributing some albeit ill gotten gains

SpaceMusic_Guy
Jun 18, 2006, 05:48 PM
Bill Gates announced Thursday afternoon he will step down as CEO of Microsoft Corp. and company President Steve Ballmer will take over the CEO role. The changes were to take effect immediately. :eek:


Uh.....Steve Ballmer already took over as CEO 5 or 6 years ago. Gates since that point has held the position of "Chief Software Architect", a position they made up for him. So Gates hasn't been the "CEO" of Microsoft for quite some time now.

Yes, he's still been the "Chairman of the Board" and will still be on the board of directors as chairman but will no longer be involved in any day to day operations.

mrplow
Jun 18, 2006, 09:05 PM
Yes, CMU is really the place where people'd starve to death if it wasn't for Gates' donations, ain't it?

could you please tell me what the hell that means?

NewSc2
Jun 18, 2006, 11:31 PM
why is everybody still ragging on MS? this news item didn't say "News Flash, Microsoft is actually good!" it was "Bill Gates wants to do more good for the world" and for that I totally congratulate him. Many rich and powerful people out there are not doing anything close to what he does, and being the richest man in the world and pushing around the kind of money and research he has been is respectable.

And for that matter, I'm typing this on a Windows computer. *gasp* *shock* *horror*

Ryan5505
Jun 19, 2006, 12:23 AM
I think it's more like Apple doesn't want MS to pull office from the Mac just yet, as they would if Apple released their own equivalent. Being able to run the highly recognized brand name "Microsoft Office" on the Mac is still a selling point for Apple. If MS ever does pull Office out of the Mac market, I'm sure Apple has something waiting in the "secret building" to put in its place already.

But, alas, that discussion doesn't really apply here.

Back to topic... You think he's bailing before the Vista train wreck, or just waiting for Vista to finally ship? :)

If apple ever decided not to allow MS Office on the MAC OS, then it would shut out the entire education community. MS does mac good software, just a horrible OS.

Good Luck Bill

MacSA
Jun 19, 2006, 06:30 AM
Yuck.....Bill Gates is STILL on the front page..can't you replace it with some dodgy iPod rumour?

mymacluvsme
Jun 19, 2006, 06:47 AM
Yuck.....Bill Gates is STILL on the front page..can't you replace it with some dodgy iPod rumour?

My sentiments exactly. Make something up if you have to.

ezekielrage_99
Jun 19, 2006, 09:33 AM
Very Scary... :eek: :eek:

He looks like Fat Bastard...... GET IN MY BELLY :D

Maestro64
Jun 19, 2006, 11:09 AM
I would not call Bill Gates a philanthropists, as someone pointed out he did not give anything away until he got married. So you probably guess who is behind the charity work.

The only chariable thing he said he would do which I agree with is he will not leave his kids anything, they will have to go out an make it on thier own. Not like it will be really hard since they will make lots just being his kids.

Someone compared him to Carnegie, not sure if that comparison is good or bad, considering Carnegie was as hated as Gates is in some regards. But Carnegie did give back to the communities which he made millions from. He built libaries, museums and theaters and his money is still giving back today, those same museums and libaries are paid for by his chariable origanizations.

This is also true for the Hearst and Rockefeller, both these people have given more back to the communities. If you convered Rockefeller wealth to todays dollar he is still the richest man in the world, and his wealth was not stock options with could be worthless at any point.

My personal view is if you going to give back you give back to those who you benefitted from. Not to say trying to solve world health problem is not a good thing, but the people they are choosing to help may never benefit long term depending on how they spend thier money. Like those of the past their charty is still benefitting many generations after thier gone, can the same be said about Gates.

milatchi
Jun 19, 2006, 11:18 AM
Just to hide his previous sins. That gets my vote.

Doctor Q
Jun 19, 2006, 11:30 AM
That was a very thoughtful post, Maestro64.

I don't fault anyone for picking one charity over another. It's hard to say what an "objective" philanthropist would choose to sponsor. For each of us, our personal experiences and acquaintances influence which causes or charities we most want to help. As long as the sponsorships aren't for truly misguided purposes, I don't see a reason to second-guess the causes people sponsor.

Does Donald Trump have favorite charities?

IJ Reilly
Jun 19, 2006, 11:57 AM
That was a very thoughtful post, Maestro64.

I don't fault anyone for picking one charity over another. It's hard to say what an "objective" philanthropist would choose to sponsor. For each of us, our personal experiences and acquaintances influence which causes or charities we most want to help. As long as the sponsorships aren't for truly misguided purposes, I don't see a reason to second-guess the causes people sponsor.

Does Donald Trump have favorite charities?

Presumably. Gates is his own charity, though. With two threads running on this topic, it's difficult to keep straight what's been said where, but my previously stated concern is that Gates is using his money to decide what people need, instead of asking and listening. I'm afraid he's going to run his foundation the way he ran Microsoft.

markie
Jun 19, 2006, 01:20 PM
I won't get into politics here, just tell you that if you're intereted look at Bill Gates' so-called "philanthropy." Much (most?) of the money is going to support more EVIL.

timswim78
Jun 21, 2006, 12:11 PM
I won't get into politics here, just tell you that if you're intereted look at Bill Gates' so-called "philanthropy." Much (most?) of the money is going to support more EVIL.

Care to back up this vague statement?

IJ Reilly
Jun 21, 2006, 12:21 PM
I'm not. I've read a bit on this matter, and it looks like the foundation is really studying the issues..

So have I, which is why I'm concerned. About a year ago, Gates was making speeches about how the ideal high school size is 500 students, and his foundation is spending a lot of money to make it so. Having attended a very good high school with 2,000 students I have to wonder out loud whether Gates is right, and whether his foundation is really asking educators what they need.