Bill Gates Transition/Retirement

[sushi]

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]

????

I think he has Gates confused with Michael Jackson.

 

[atezun]

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]

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]

So the real question is this:

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

My money's on Bill.

-Clive

 

[ictiosapiens]

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%

 

[mikes63737]

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]

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]

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]

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]

I'll 2nd that

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]

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]

Philanthropy: Genuine

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]

He's better at philanthropy than computer software

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]

Goodbye, William Gates.

 

[janstett]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[kingtj]

As much as I love my Macs....

....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]

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

 

[PlayUltimate]

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]

kingtj: Questionable business practices doesn't mean not giving people a better warranty or more accessories. Not sure where you got that idea.

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