081440 said:
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.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Bill Gates Transition/Retirement
- Thread starter zap2
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
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.
markkk! said:Can someone answer this please.
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....
orkle said:
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?
THX1139 said:
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.
IJ Reilly said:
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).
markkk! said:
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.
A is jump said:
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!"
I only have 4 words:OttawaGuy said: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.
Developers, developers, developers, developers.*
*I think a few will get this.
I hate propoganda and criminal guise...
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.
commonpeople said:
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.
JGowan said:I only have 4 words:
Developers, developers, developers, developers.*
*I think a few will get this.
I got it.
MacQuest said:
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?
Another way to look at it
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?
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?
Yes, sort of. My Jesuit education is speaking from here on out:lanray said:
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!)
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
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
Oh, what tangled webs bill & m$ weave...
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. 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 said:
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.
commonpeople said:
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."
commonpeople said:
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.
MacQuest said:
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.
MikeAtari said:
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
I hear this is the new release date for Vista! Haha....when is that thing supposed to be released again?
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.
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.