Bill Gates Rules Out a Full-time Return to Microsoft

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
[citation][nom]sykozis[/nom]If you want to get technical, Apple has "stolen" everything.... Now, exactly what "industry" did Steve Jobs create????[/citation]

@ta152h: had enough? a$$
 
Someone needs to bring some life back into Microsoft ... financially passed up my Apple last year and basically becoming a 2nd or 3rd tier player in the entire Electronics/computing industry.

Ballmer is a useless bean counter that has out sourced most of Microsoft to India ... a US company that is making jobs in India ... what about creating US jobs??
 
I never thought he would return after that article surfaced. But, I do agree that Microsoft could use a new CEO. They are pretty much late to market and trying to compete in crowded markets when they should be first. And with the case of Windows Media Center, considering that idea legacy, when Google and Apple are hitting it hard.
 
Let's not forget the visionary aspects of Bill Gates. In the infancy of the web, which at the time was Prodigy and other BBS type systems, Bill Gates, and several others saw a future for interconnected computers and the "World Wide Web." Microsoft invested and partnered heavily with cable companies, citing that connectivity and ubiquitous computing would be the next technological revolution - and he was right. Gates, Jobs, et. all, also made computing easy by bringing the PC into the mainstream. Many of the advances in computing that we have enjoyed is due, in large part, to two generations who have been raised with at least one computer in the home.

Gates, probably more so than Microsoft as an entity, realized that the only way that computing can continue in the mainstream psyche, is with a healthy, competitive balance, that's why he gave so much money to Apple when it was teetering on the verge of bankruptcy, well, I'm sure that the anti-trust lawsuit had a bit to do with that as well, but either way, Microsoft continues to fund start-ups and heavy R&D companies, creating public development arenas like CodePlex, contributing to open source projects like Drupal, jQuery and providing free development tools like Visual Studio Express, SQL Server Express, etc.

Microsoft is also a major player in many international standardization bodies like the W3C. Many of the current standards were pushed by Microsoft and were widely adopted because Microsoft embraced them. Standards like XML, XSL, HTML and others that we see every day on the web are around because Microsoft put their considerable weight behind them.

Throughout the years, Microsoft has always espoused that developers are the key to moving computing forward. As much as I may grumble about the quality of their API documentation, the fact is that Microsoft has created an environment where programmers can build amazing programs that will work consistently on any version of Windows - something that was challenging in the early years when there were literally dozens of operating systems that came and went, and you had no supporting APIs to lend consistent look-and-feel. As a programmer with a great software idea, it is pretty easy to target and support an Operating System with a 90%+ deployment worldwide.

Sure, Microsoft had created and leveraged it's monopoly, especially during the browser wars, but those days are long past. Microsoft also has a fairly spotty record in terms of security, but again, if you were writing a virus I'm sure you would target the 90% instead of the 1-2% that Linux enjoys, or the 8% that OS-X has, it's purely a matter of scale and probability.

Microsoft, of late, seems to have lost their way, and personally, I think that it starts at the top with Ballmer. Microsoft clearly has missed the mobile device revolution (both phones and tables), their web presence is paltry compared to Google and truth be told, they are falling behind in mindshare (and maybe marketshare as well) relative to Apple and Google, especially in the web and mobile arenas. Gates, nearly 15 years ago went all-in on the networked, ubiquitous computing concept, even pumping out before-their-time products like Origami and MSN TV, which new products like the iPad and Roku/Boxee respectively, have executed better in modern times. I simply do not see the type of leadership that will usher in the next era of computing from Ballmer. There are so many products and ideas from Microsoft R&D that are withering on the vine so to speak, enough so that the Slate and Courier were both killed, years before the iPad revolution. This has led to a mass exodus of top talent out of Microsoft to competitors like Google and Oracle.

Even if Gates does not come back full time, I think that he does have to outline a vision for the future that Microsoft can drive towards. Until then, they will flounder with half-baked products like Windows 8, kill moderately successful products like Silverlight and never commercialize the ideas coming from their own R&D department. Unless Microsoft (and Ballmer specifically) stops looking at the bottom-line, capital expeditures, ROI and other Accounting geekery, they will continue to be the lumbering giant who's best days are behind them.
 
Bill Gates has done the world good with the money he earned and Steve Jobs promoted products that would have otherwise died (The Mouse by XEROX Parc for example).

These are two different achievements, so stop comparing Bill and Steve like they were actual competition between each other.
 
[citation][nom]walter87[/nom]Looks like your the one distorted reality to make it look appear Apple and Steve Jobs created a market for everything they've ever produced. Apple and Steve Jobs took advantage of making markets out of nothing. Tablets did exist long before the iPad, but Apple used their pixie dust to make people think they need a tablet? The iPad is simply an over-sized phone without the phone and lacks most computing tasks a laptop could do. Apple herded the sheep into thinking theres such a place for such products when they bringing nothing truly innovated, besides a new form factor to play with.[/citation]

Making a market??? Are you serious? The way basic capitalism works is that a person or company provides a product and/or service and hope people are interested in the product and/or service and buy it. Maybe you live in a communist country or a socialistic country?

Your perception of markets is exactly why Microsoft continue to decline their market share and can't seem to enter the phone market with any success (Windows Phone 7 was a failure, even Ballmer admitted that).

Apple succeeded because they provide a complete package that works with very little effort from the consumer. In other words, the consumer turns it on and it works and makes sense to them. THIS IS WHERE MICROSOFT FAIL ... Microsoft products require more end user (consumer) understanding and training, more R&D to fix drivers, OS, registry problems, etc. etc. etc.

Apple provide products people want, if you are having a problem dealing with that and calling people "Sheep" then you're going to have a pretty miserable life and road ahead of you. You don't dictate what people like or don't like ... they decide, not you. But let me give you a hint on success in life -- take on someone else's point of view and try to really understand it, you don't have to agree with it, but finding understanding will open new doors to you.

Best of luck to you, as of right now your attitude is holding your growth potential back.

 
[citation][nom]ta152h[/nom]Wow, where do idiots like you come from? Are you implying that Microsoft never sued anyone for patents? What?????Do you even know what Microsoft did? Did you know they would charge PC makers license fees for every PC they sold, whether it had Windows or not? So, let's say you sold a PC with OS/2. You'd have to pay for the Windows license, and the OS/2 license, even if you didn't ever have Windows on that machine.So, not only did the sue early and often, they used illegal tactics, proven in court, to stop competitors. They did everything they could to kill competition, not only legally, but illegally! So please, stop talking about things you don't know anything about. You're just embarrassing yourself.Also, keep it in context. We're talking about guys leading a company, not what they do in their personal life. I'm pretty sure Bill Gates would be a really good guy to meet, but, he wasn't the business leader Steve Jobs was.[/citation]

Funny, I don't recall implying that Microsoft never sued anyone or that they've never used their position in the marketplace for financial gain. It was you who tried said that apple was anti-monopoly when clearly they aren't. If they were they'd allow their OS to be installed on any machine, just like windows does. I never saw MS forcing you to buy MS brand hardware just to run their software.

As for where idiots like me come from... we come from university then grad school, not from the rabbit hole you fell down into when you drank the apple kool-aid.
 
Oh I also forgot to mention, if you want to complain about the past when every PC had to pay a fee for the license at least they let people have a PC instead of taking the apple route and refusing to even license tech unless it came from them (I'm referring to apple's refusal to negotiate with samsung when offered in Australia. At least it went well when a the previous judges injunction for apple was found to be the subject of gross judicial incompetence).
 
Silentbobdc,

Maybe you should go back to grad school, you seem unclear on what a Monopoly is. So can I install MS Windows on a PS3? ... hmmm, no I can't. Can I install Windows on a Wii ... no I can't ... can I install Windows on my SGi hardware ... hmmm ... no I can't. Not being able to install an OS on other platform doesn't suggest a monopoly ... seriously flawed logic you have there.

Microsoft tried to tell everyone that IE is an integrated part of the OS and can't be separated and hence no other browser could be installed on a Windows OS ... that's attempt at Monopoly. Apple did NOT attempt to stop Microsoft from producing Office for the Mac, Games for the Mac, IE for the Mac, nor any other Microsoft software.

Refusing a deal has nothing to do with Monopoly. Verizon refused to deal with Apple when Apple was introducing their 1st generation iPhone, so Apple went to AT&T ... big mistake by Verizon who is living to regret it and have now accepted Apple with open arms after AT&T locked Apple into an exclusive multi-year deal. Again, this isn't a Monopoly, this is business.

 
[citation][nom]V8VENOM[/nom]In other words, the consumer turns it on and it works and makes sense to them.[/citation]

Certainly, this is one of the benefits of a closed environment, where a single vendor controls hardware, software and distribution. Microsoft never had this luxury and I think that is the point that was alluded to in a previous post. When you allow 3rd parties to develop hardware that works with your OS, you are completely at their mercy. From terrible printer/graphics/wireless drivers to poorly written 3rd party software, Microsoft ultimately has very little control over the end user experience outside of the OS. End users neither know, nor care that the fault lies with HP/Adobe/Asus/etc., all they know is that their computer is broken and whether they blame Microsoft, or their computer manufacturer, the fault is placed at the feet of the wrong vendor and, unfortunately, that vendor has almost no control over correcting it.

[citation][nom]V8VENOM[/nom]But let me give you a hint on success in life -- take on someone else's point of view and try to really understand it, you don't have to agree with it, but finding understanding will open new doors to you.[/citation]

Hypocrisy is a funny thing, isn't it....
 
[citation][nom]V8VENOM[/nom]So can I install MS Windows on a PS3? ... hmmm, no I can't. Can I install Windows on a Wii ... no I can't ... can I install Windows on my SGi hardware ... hmmm ... no I can't.[/citation]

Are you really questioning why Windows cannot be installed onto a proprietary gaming console to prove a point? All software has prerequisites, for instance 1.0 GHz or faster Intel/x86 compatible processor, 256 MB of RAM, 250 GB hard drive are the minimum for Windows. You can install Windows on any machine that meets those requirements, whereas, you can only install OS-X on Apple specific hardware (well, Psystar corporation had an Apple clone, but they got sued into non-existence by Apple in early 2010).

And your second point is no different than the fact that Safari is preinstalled on OS-X. You have always been able to install an alternative browser, but many users are neither inclined, nor technically adept enough to find a better browser, download and install it. So what ends up happening is that Netscape sees that they are losing market share as soon as Microsoft starts bundling IE, and subsequently sues on the grounds of anti-competitive abuses. Let's forget the fact that after Netscape 4.7, they completely stopped innovating and instead moved into litigation to protect their market share. History teaches us that litigation is a poor substitute for innovation (see Rambus, SCO).

Monopolies are when you have no viable alternatives (see utility companies, Ma Bell [before breakup], Standard Oil, etc.). What Microsoft is both today an earlier is not a Monopoly by the overwhelming industry leader. They did not get to that point by chance, they leveraged good business contracts and their dominant positioning, much the same way that Apple is today. Neither are monopolies, both are simply savvy business.
 
Unsure why my first comment was deleted: However...

Bill Gates doesn't need to come back to Microsoft to "revive it". Balmer is a manager, and he's good at it. He doesn't have that "spark", but the people under him do. Look at WP7, Windows 8, Connect, tablets coming with windows 8 and the 360. They are all successful... Skype on WP7 will take off too.

Remember people, Gates does more than work with Microsoft. His foundation contributes to the world more than anyone else. He gives money to universities, charities & funds research for cures to diseases. The last article I saw, was Gates giving 7 million to a uni for the redevelopment of the toilet in 3rd world countries.

People can bitch and moan about him "stealing ideas" or "blocking growth" (whatever the Gates haters believe). But you cannot deny that he has helped millions around the world survive
 
[citation][nom]billionairechronicles[/nom]Gates Lied, Novell Lawyer Tells Jury. Mircosoft sabotaged WordPerfect and QuottoProhttp://www.billionairechronicles.n [...] tells-jury[/citation]

Well, you're article, from billionairechronicles.net (surely a very reputable source, no corroborating evidence to support that from anywhere other than the attorneys mouth) cites the Novell attorney making that statement. Surely, there could not be a conflict of interest that motivates that statement.

Let's wait and see what the Jurors decide before assuming that Microsoft is guilty.
 
Ballmer is terrible?

give.me.a.break.

Steve Ballmer is a very good businessman and salesman. Sure he might not be a genius (neither is Steve Jobs but Bill Gates is a real life living genius and I'm not saying that as compliment, he literally is a genius and not figuratively).

I also agree with the guy above. I don't care about tablets, cloud, etc. Each has its place and is a useful tool but for novelty and use as a gimmick or gadget to herd people in (like Apple does with its products) is kinda sub par imho.

Also I agree that we need faster computers and less of the novelty junk. I'm with the pro bill gates and pro ballmer guys here. But Jobs? Are you kidding me.... He was a good businessman but genius? no innovator? well yeah because he took ideas / products that already existed and put a magical touch on it to herd you guys into buying ipods and iphones.

How many people in this thread are bashing Apple and have an iPhone in their pocket? I'd guess more than half of you. I surely don't own that junk.
 


Yep, as I said, Balmer isn't a visionary, he's a manager that keeps everyone in check. The people below him have that "spark".
I can see why people are comparing Gates to Jobs, however it shouldn't be the case. Might as well compare apples to oranges
 
@silver565 but comparing apples and oranges denotes two similar things does it not? Both are round, fruit, organic. The only difference is color and flavor. Much like these two, they were both leading business heads who did great jobs in both fields, regardless of innovation, or just plain market magic. Without both, either things would be shitty, or would be awesome but no one would buy them due to horrible marketing. Both competing has only created a feedback loop that has thrusted computers into the homes of millions, Apple or Microsoft alike.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom