Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina  Without knowing Bill's true motives, you can't really know for sure.
Even if he took actions that were anti-competitive, what was his reason for doing those things? Was it for personal gain, or was it because he genuinely believed the world would be better served with Microsoft software being spread far and wide?
If I had to guess, I would say Bill is predominantly love-polarized and has been so since the early days of Microsoft. I think he cares a lot more about creating something of value, making a contribution, and impacting people's lives. I don't think personal gain, status, and recognition are of much importance to him.
Microsoft's internal motto in the early days was, "A computer on every desk and in every home... running Microsoft software." That's an outflow orientation to me.
Bill intially resisted taking Microsoft public. I read that he felt it would become too much of a distraction. But his employees who held stock basically demanded it, so they could finally cash in. Many of them became instant millionaires when the company went public.
Many people think that a lightworker will behave in a lovey-dovey manner towards everyone they meet. Surely some will behave that way, but it's not a requirement to serve the greater good. |
that seems like an extremely optimistic view
another interpretation is that the windows arm-twisting hyper competitivity and greed-mindedness threw the software industry into a dark age from which we are only beginning to emerge
Microsoft deserves credit for rapidly developing ubiquitous office software but when it comes to Windows the company motives were greed and control rather than quality and service. Many many excellent companies and technologies, through no flaw of their own, have been sent on a one-way trip to the Recycling Bin by Microsoft entirely because they were seen as a looming threat to wealth and control.
Bill Gates himself never personally wrote any worthwhile software, rather he conned his way into the business. He deceptively bought DOS for an extremely selfish sum and then tricked IBM into destroying their own company by signing the exclusivity contract with Microsoft. He was unendingly selfish when it came to his employees - dealing with Bill Gates often meant being used, abused, unappreciated, and underpaid.
MS Windows does not represent value creation, rather it represents the transfer of wealth from the world at large to Microsoft's empire.
Microsoft does deserve credit for developing & supporting good office software long-term, but this is unrelated to the Windows branch. And even with this software many many valuable innovations were killed for no reason other than greed.
Bill Gates, however, having succeeded in amassing his fortune, seems to have had some kind of realization and now is giving it back. So in the end maybe he will do more good than bad.
Until now Microsoft's actions have certainly been more to the bad than the good. They killed so many valuable companies that sought only to contribute, and could have contributed many valuable technologies, but were restrained from doing so when they were sent to the software gas chamber by Bill Gates.
Of course one can never know Bill's intentions. They may have been good all along. But his effects have been extremely negative in my opinion.