Bill Gates Transition/Retirement

[MacQuest]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

bill gates did a lot.. what about you?

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]

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.

 

[MacQuest]

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]

Wow

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]

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]

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]

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]

Please...

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.

 

[IJ Reilly]

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]

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]

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_(game)

 

[Demoman]

Bill's Legacy

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]

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!

 

[IJ Reilly]

"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]

"Serious Philanthropists" percentage wise?

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]

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]

He's The Leader Of The Evil Empire:d

 

[dextertangocci]

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.....

 

[dextertangocci]

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

????