Bill Gates Transition/Retirement

[electronboy]

Isn't this site MACrumors? Just more noise.

 

[AppleJustWorks]

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.

 

[whatever]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Giving

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]

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]

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]

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.]

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]

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.]

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]

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]

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.]

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]

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.