Sorry, that doesn't establish him as a tech genius either. What would, would be some actual tech genius accomplishments, which we don't really see in his career. What we do see is a history of ruthless, unethical, and sometimes illegal business practices that established him as what he is.
Well, since we are trying to establish actual factual concrete events which he was directly responsible for in his professional career, what would be some actual ruthless, unethical, and sometimes illegal business practices? I thought the question was if he was a technical genius, not if he used that genius to create the products Microsoft produced.
Being able to see the big picture and guide a tech company requires exceptional vision. They often make it look easy, leading to the misconception that anyone could run a company like Microsoft, or Apple, or whatever without understanding the market they are in. If he did not have exceptional tech savvy he would not have exceeded to the level he has.
It just doesn't stand to reason that this is luck. As for your other arguments of what it may result from I will look forward to a response that is a bit less vague.
Well, since we are trying to establish actual factual concrete events which he was directly responsible for in his professional career, what would be some actual ruthless, unethical, and sometimes illegal business practices? I thought the question was if he was a technical genius, not if he used that genius to create the products Microsoft produced.
Oh, I see, he's a tech genius but just never bothered to demonstrate that genius in any way. Of course, that makes perfect sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dralith
Being able to see the big picture and guide a tech company requires exceptional vision. They often make it look easy, leading to the misconception that anyone could run a company like Microsoft, or Apple, or whatever without understanding the market they are in. If he did not have exceptional tech savvy he would not have exceeded to the level he has.
It just doesn't stand to reason that this is luck. As for your other arguments of what it may result from I will look forward to a response that is a bit less vague.
Microsoft's history of "partnering" with other companies and stealing their technology is infamous. (Or, just outright stealing, like they did with the Quicktime code.) Microsoft's history as a convicted monopolist is well documented, as are its illegal deals forced on OEMs. Microsoft's practice of dumping unfinished code onto the market (e.g., Access) to stifle competition is equally well known. It's pretty hard to argue that, under Gates, the company didn't act in a ruthless, unethical, and sometime illegal fashion. It's also pretty hard to argue that this wasn't key to their success.
As to the luck, the sequence of events surrounding the introduction of the IBM PC and its subsequent cloning represent events not entirely under Microsoft's control that essentially laid the foundation for their future success. And Gates leverage that foundation in the ruthless, unethical and sometime illegal fashion described above.
You may continue to believe that Gates is a tech genius if you wish, but there simply aren't any facts to support your argument.
Oh, I see, he's a tech genius but just never bothered to demonstrate that genius in any way. Of course, that makes perfect sense.
Microsoft's history of "partnering" with other companies and stealing their technology is infamous. (Or, just outright stealing, like they did with the Quicktime code.) Microsoft's history as a convicted monopolist is well documented, as are its illegal deals forced on OEMs. Microsoft's practice of dumping unfinished code onto the market (e.g., Access) to stifle competition is equally well known. It's pretty hard to argue that, under Gates, the company didn't act in a ruthless, unethical, and sometime illegal fashion. It's also pretty hard to argue that this wasn't key to their success.
Wait, so Bill Gates and Microsoft are the same thing when discussing business practices, but not technical genius? What Microsoft has done as a company is either the direct responsibility of Bill Gates or it isn't. You can't pick and choose to support your arguments and expect to be taken seriously.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
As to the luck, the sequence of events surrounding the introduction of the IBM PC and its subsequent cloning represent events not entirely under Microsoft's control that essentially laid the foundation for their future success. And Gates leverage that foundation in the ruthless, unethical and sometime illegal fashion described above.
Opportunities pop up all the time for all manner of people. Some of them are bigger opportunities than others, but knowing when to fully throw yourself at an opportunity is not luck. Many people do this all the time and fail miserably because they do not fully grasp their situation. The ability to understand what you are getting yourself into defines your ability to navigate the obstacles you will encounter along the way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
You may continue to believe that Gates is a tech genius if you wish, but there simply aren't any facts to support your argument.
How precisely would you define a tech genius if you are not impressed my the fact that he is:
a. A genius.
b. Exceptionally technically capable since an early age.
c. Able to steer the most successful tech company of all time in terms of their overall impact on the world of computing?
Thanks for the permission, I believe I will continue to believe that he is a tech genius... even if I do hate Windows.
Wait, so Bill Gates and Microsoft are the same thing when discussing business practices, but not technical genius? What Microsoft has done as a company is either the direct responsibility of Bill Gates or it isn't. You can't pick and choose to support your arguments and expect to be taken seriously. ...
Well, there really has been very little "tech genius" demonstrated in any product from Microsoft. The companies business practices, however, he was directly responsible for, so your objection falls flat.
Well, there really has been very little "tech genius" demonstrated in any product from Microsoft. The companies business practices, however, he was directly responsible for, so your objection falls flat.
Jupiter Networks announced today that it had recruited Brad Brooks, an eight year Microsoft veteran who had managed the marketing of Windows Vista and Windows 7.
Who cares? If I didn't have Windows forced at work (and all my colleagues are pretty pissed about it not working 4 out of 5 times) I would not see a single Microsoft product the whole year around ... and I do not miss it at all.
I often felt I was the only one that had this problem. The only ones that really felt it is great are the Windows techies that have untouchable jobs testing, installing and patching the software.
I often felt I was the only one that had this problem. The only ones that really felt it is great are the Windows techies that have untouchable jobs testing, installing and patching the software.
The only way to know for sure is to see how much stock these gents start selling off on the down-low. I'm fairly sure that most of them (especially Muglia) would still have more than a few million bucks in fully-vested MSFT stock.
The only vision that anybody has ever had at Microsoft was that computers would be the future. Big deal. So did I. I just wasn't in a position to do anything about it. Except buy one.
They never even came up with an operating system. DOS was purchased. Everything else was copied. So now when new things are needed, operating systems for new devices for instance, they fall flat.
What microsoft needs is not just good leadership or vision. Microsoft also needs a culture of excitement, enthusiasm and genuine experimentation.
Like the videos showing employees at one of the Microsoft shops dancing and singing and trying to look like they were having a grand old time (while some shopper lifted a box of software in the background)?
Even at its depths though, AAPL still had a billion dollars in the bank, no debt, and enough talent to do great things.
I thought it got a bit more precarious. Didn't Jobs say Apple was 90 days from bankruptcy when he took over?
Quote:
Originally Posted by john galt
He did, though he may have been overstating the case. I do recall it was about a billion, though I no longer have their 10Ks from then.
Whether it was 90 days, six months or a year, it doesn't matter if you're burning through it.
The earliest earnings report I can find is from Q1 1998 (end of calendar year 1997). SJ came back in late 1996. At that time, Apple had about $4.1B in assets of which $1.2B was cash. This is approximately the billion dollars that I recall from the time.
Apple had an operating loss of $120M in the quarter just prior to Steve's return. "90 days from bankruptcy" may have been a slight exaggeration; a year seems more like it.
A year isn't so long though, and a billion, not so much.
The earliest earnings report I can find is from Q1 1998 (end of calendar year 1997). SJ came back in late 1996. At that time, Apple had about $4.1B in assets of which $1.2B was cash. This is approximately the billion dollars that I recall from the time.
Apple had an operating loss of $120M in the quarter just prior to Steve's return. "90 days from bankruptcy" may have been a slight exaggeration; a year seems more like it.
A year isn't so long though, and a billion, not so much.
Not even that close, really. A company short on cash flow can always issue bonds or seek other forms of credit. Not the best way to live, but better than dying and hardly uncommon.
I don't care much for Microsoft's products for the most part and have been a long time Mac/Linux/BSD user. That being said, this is not a particularly well informed comment. Gates has an IQ of around 160. That means he is not simply a "tech genius", he's an actual genius. This puts him at about the same intelligence level as Albert Einstein or Stephen Hawking.
Even with that in mind, he started programming at 13, troubleshooting profession code at 14, and writing software for his high school shortly after that. He probably has more technical ability in his little finger than most of the people on these forums have in their entire body.
The man did not arrive at his current station by way of accidents. He was poised to take advantage of situations that many people may have been able to perceive, but no one else was able to respond to with his efficiency. There is a reason that under his leadership Microsoft has dominated the OS market for the length of time they have. I'm all for well placed criticism, but trying to downplay what Gates accomplished and pushed others to accomplish seems a bit silly... \
I totally disagree with you. Where did you dig up 160 ? Normally this is confidential information, are you privy to this. Anyway IQ tests are not definitive in themselves.
I laugh when you put gates up there with Einstein, are you serious ?
Gates is what they term a conman a carpet bagger, who was VERY lucky in his timing and was vicious in his business deals, how come M$ have the deserved reputation of being back-stabbers to their partners. hang on IBM (OS/2), Apple and so on the list goes on.
He has no morals and please don't flatter him with the tag of genius, he is far from it.
That was not the measure I used to support his technical genius. The part that did that has not been responded to at all. If you look back at my actual reply to you I think you will see that element is covered in the second section... you know... the one where he was able to write software for his high school... when he was in high school... after debugging commercial software for them... \
Yes you did, you mentioned 160, go and re-read your original post please.
Comments
Sorry, that doesn't establish him as a tech genius either. What would, would be some actual tech genius accomplishments, which we don't really see in his career. What we do see is a history of ruthless, unethical, and sometimes illegal business practices that established him as what he is.
Well, since we are trying to establish actual factual concrete events which he was directly responsible for in his professional career, what would be some actual ruthless, unethical, and sometimes illegal business practices? I thought the question was if he was a technical genius, not if he used that genius to create the products Microsoft produced.
Being able to see the big picture and guide a tech company requires exceptional vision. They often make it look easy, leading to the misconception that anyone could run a company like Microsoft, or Apple, or whatever without understanding the market they are in. If he did not have exceptional tech savvy he would not have exceeded to the level he has.
It just doesn't stand to reason that this is luck. As for your other arguments of what it may result from I will look forward to a response that is a bit less vague.
Well, since we are trying to establish actual factual concrete events which he was directly responsible for in his professional career, what would be some actual ruthless, unethical, and sometimes illegal business practices? I thought the question was if he was a technical genius, not if he used that genius to create the products Microsoft produced.
Oh, I see, he's a tech genius but just never bothered to demonstrate that genius in any way. Of course, that makes perfect sense.
Being able to see the big picture and guide a tech company requires exceptional vision. They often make it look easy, leading to the misconception that anyone could run a company like Microsoft, or Apple, or whatever without understanding the market they are in. If he did not have exceptional tech savvy he would not have exceeded to the level he has.
It just doesn't stand to reason that this is luck. As for your other arguments of what it may result from I will look forward to a response that is a bit less vague.
Microsoft's history of "partnering" with other companies and stealing their technology is infamous. (Or, just outright stealing, like they did with the Quicktime code.) Microsoft's history as a convicted monopolist is well documented, as are its illegal deals forced on OEMs. Microsoft's practice of dumping unfinished code onto the market (e.g., Access) to stifle competition is equally well known. It's pretty hard to argue that, under Gates, the company didn't act in a ruthless, unethical, and sometime illegal fashion. It's also pretty hard to argue that this wasn't key to their success.
As to the luck, the sequence of events surrounding the introduction of the IBM PC and its subsequent cloning represent events not entirely under Microsoft's control that essentially laid the foundation for their future success. And Gates leverage that foundation in the ruthless, unethical and sometime illegal fashion described above.
You may continue to believe that Gates is a tech genius if you wish, but there simply aren't any facts to support your argument.
Oh, I see, he's a tech genius but just never bothered to demonstrate that genius in any way. Of course, that makes perfect sense.
Microsoft's history of "partnering" with other companies and stealing their technology is infamous. (Or, just outright stealing, like they did with the Quicktime code.) Microsoft's history as a convicted monopolist is well documented, as are its illegal deals forced on OEMs. Microsoft's practice of dumping unfinished code onto the market (e.g., Access) to stifle competition is equally well known. It's pretty hard to argue that, under Gates, the company didn't act in a ruthless, unethical, and sometime illegal fashion. It's also pretty hard to argue that this wasn't key to their success.
Wait, so Bill Gates and Microsoft are the same thing when discussing business practices, but not technical genius? What Microsoft has done as a company is either the direct responsibility of Bill Gates or it isn't. You can't pick and choose to support your arguments and expect to be taken seriously.
As to the luck, the sequence of events surrounding the introduction of the IBM PC and its subsequent cloning represent events not entirely under Microsoft's control that essentially laid the foundation for their future success. And Gates leverage that foundation in the ruthless, unethical and sometime illegal fashion described above.
Opportunities pop up all the time for all manner of people. Some of them are bigger opportunities than others, but knowing when to fully throw yourself at an opportunity is not luck. Many people do this all the time and fail miserably because they do not fully grasp their situation. The ability to understand what you are getting yourself into defines your ability to navigate the obstacles you will encounter along the way.
You may continue to believe that Gates is a tech genius if you wish, but there simply aren't any facts to support your argument.
How precisely would you define a tech genius if you are not impressed my the fact that he is:
a. A genius.
b. Exceptionally technically capable since an early age.
c. Able to steer the most successful tech company of all time in terms of their overall impact on the world of computing?
Thanks for the permission, I believe I will continue to believe that he is a tech genius... even if I do hate Windows.
Wait, so Bill Gates and Microsoft are the same thing when discussing business practices, but not technical genius? What Microsoft has done as a company is either the direct responsibility of Bill Gates or it isn't. You can't pick and choose to support your arguments and expect to be taken seriously. ...
Well, there really has been very little "tech genius" demonstrated in any product from Microsoft. The companies business practices, however, he was directly responsible for, so your objection falls flat.
Well, there really has been very little "tech genius" demonstrated in any product from Microsoft. The companies business practices, however, he was directly responsible for, so your objection falls flat.
How interesting.
Jupiter Networks announced today that it had recruited Brad Brooks, an eight year Microsoft veteran who had managed the marketing of Windows Vista and Windows 7.
huge mistake on jupiter's part.
Apple hired Tim Cook from Compaq??!!
Who cares? If I didn't have Windows forced at work (and all my colleagues are pretty pissed about it not working 4 out of 5 times) I would not see a single Microsoft product the whole year around ... and I do not miss it at all.
I often felt I was the only one that had this problem. The only ones that really felt it is great are the Windows techies that have untouchable jobs testing, installing and patching the software.
I often felt I was the only one that had this problem. The only ones that really felt it is great are the Windows techies that have untouchable jobs testing, installing and patching the software.
Makes them feel like tech geniuses.
"Mass exodus." Is there any other kind?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultima_III:_Exodus
Rats from a sinking ship
The only way to know for sure is to see how much stock these gents start selling off on the down-low. I'm fairly sure that most of them (especially Muglia) would still have more than a few million bucks in fully-vested MSFT stock.
Apple hired Tim Cook from Compaq??!!
Compaq was a pretty good company before it merged with HP.
He wasn't there long. Most of his career was with IBM.
The only vision that anybody has ever had at Microsoft was that computers would be the future. Big deal. So did I. I just wasn't in a position to do anything about it. Except buy one.
They never even came up with an operating system. DOS was purchased. Everything else was copied. So now when new things are needed, operating systems for new devices for instance, they fall flat.
Excellent way of putting this.
What microsoft needs is not just good leadership or vision. Microsoft also needs a culture of excitement, enthusiasm and genuine experimentation.
Like the videos showing employees at one of the Microsoft shops dancing and singing and trying to look like they were having a grand old time (while some shopper lifted a box of software in the background)?
It's also entirely meaningless to establish him as a tech genius, since that isn't what IQ measures.
I agree, my IQ is about twice my age (I'm 71) but I am not a tech genius and I am No EyeNstein.
But Gates can't even spell "innovation" (it's spelled APPLE) but he can still be called agenius.
Gates has an IQ of around 160.
Source please? (and not just quotes from unreliable bloggers - I mean from the testing service that administered the test that shows his IQ)
Even at its depths though, AAPL still had a billion dollars in the bank, no debt, and enough talent to do great things.
I thought it got a bit more precarious. Didn't Jobs say Apple was 90 days from bankruptcy when he took over?
He did, though he may have been overstating the case. I do recall it was about a billion, though I no longer have their 10Ks from then.
Whether it was 90 days, six months or a year, it doesn't matter if you're burning through it.
The earliest earnings report I can find is from Q1 1998 (end of calendar year 1997). SJ came back in late 1996. At that time, Apple had about $4.1B in assets of which $1.2B was cash. This is approximately the billion dollars that I recall from the time.
Apple had an operating loss of $120M in the quarter just prior to Steve's return. "90 days from bankruptcy" may have been a slight exaggeration; a year seems more like it.
A year isn't so long though, and a billion, not so much.
The earliest earnings report I can find is from Q1 1998 (end of calendar year 1997). SJ came back in late 1996. At that time, Apple had about $4.1B in assets of which $1.2B was cash. This is approximately the billion dollars that I recall from the time.
Apple had an operating loss of $120M in the quarter just prior to Steve's return. "90 days from bankruptcy" may have been a slight exaggeration; a year seems more like it.
A year isn't so long though, and a billion, not so much.
Not even that close, really. A company short on cash flow can always issue bonds or seek other forms of credit. Not the best way to live, but better than dying and hardly uncommon.
I don't care much for Microsoft's products for the most part and have been a long time Mac/Linux/BSD user. That being said, this is not a particularly well informed comment. Gates has an IQ of around 160. That means he is not simply a "tech genius", he's an actual genius. This puts him at about the same intelligence level as Albert Einstein or Stephen Hawking.
Even with that in mind, he started programming at 13, troubleshooting profession code at 14, and writing software for his high school shortly after that. He probably has more technical ability in his little finger than most of the people on these forums have in their entire body.
The man did not arrive at his current station by way of accidents. He was poised to take advantage of situations that many people may have been able to perceive, but no one else was able to respond to with his efficiency. There is a reason that under his leadership Microsoft has dominated the OS market for the length of time they have. I'm all for well placed criticism, but trying to downplay what Gates accomplished and pushed others to accomplish seems a bit silly...
I totally disagree with you. Where did you dig up 160 ? Normally this is confidential information, are you privy to this. Anyway IQ tests are not definitive in themselves.
I laugh when you put gates up there with Einstein, are you serious ?
Gates is what they term a conman a carpet bagger, who was VERY lucky in his timing and was vicious in his business deals, how come M$ have the deserved reputation of being back-stabbers to their partners. hang on IBM (OS/2), Apple and so on the list goes on.
He has no morals and please don't flatter him with the tag of genius, he is far from it.
I shake my head with your ignorance and worship.
Source please? (and not just quotes from unreliable bloggers - I mean from the testing service that administered the test that shows his IQ)
well said !
That was not the measure I used to support his technical genius. The part that did that has not been responded to at all. If you look back at my actual reply to you I think you will see that element is covered in the second section... you know... the one where he was able to write software for his high school... when he was in high school... after debugging commercial software for them...
Yes you did, you mentioned 160, go and re-read your original post please.