Posted on 06/16/2006 10:48:47 PM PDT by nickcarraway
SAN JOSE, Calif. — Many books will be written about the career of Bill Gates, but they can all be summarized in two words: He won.
Early in his career, he won the battle against Apple to establish the PC as the platform for the personal computer over the Mac. He won the battle against IBM to establish Windows as the PC operating system against OS/2. He bested Lotus and Novell in the applications and LAN businesses. He slapped down Larry Ellison's half-baked notion of the NetPC.
More recently, he won the battle against Netscape to establish Internet Explorer as the browser for the PC against Navigator. He won the battle against Real Networks to establish Windows Media as the digital media player against Real Player. He even beat the US government when it did its level best to mount an antitrust case against his company—and they had plenty of evidence to take him down.
This consummate player of bridge—a thinker's game of strategy— has apparently tired of the game.
You could see it in his keynote addresses over the last several years. They seemed like walk throughs. He hit his marks, said the words, but there was no sparkle. Both the disarming Gates chuckle--and the competitive dagger that glinted behind his eyes—have dimmed.
The press corps felt it as recently as the Gates keynote at the Windows Hardware Engineering Conference on his home turf of Seattle in May. Gates was mouthing the words of a script pasted together from the agendas of two dozen different program mangers working under him. But none of the words felt like the Gates agenda anymore.
The battles never end. Google is trying to use it position in search to redefine how we use the Internet. The cell phone is still a work-in-progress as the personal platform for tomorrow. And there are plenty of nooks in the embedded world where Windows doesn't play. But Bill Gates has already achieved more than anyone in the computer industry.
Microsoft is by far the most profitable company in computing, including Intel. It is not only one of the few survivors left standing, it is arguably the last company with robust profits and a viable growth strategy.
In computing, Windows now runs on everything from pocket-sized portables to hefty back-end clusters. And the company has managed to diversify beyond computing with significant footholds in the cellphone, videogame consoles, the TV, Web services and embedded.
Years ago we scoffed that Microsoft could never mount a challenge to Sony and Nintendo in the videogame business. Today Nintendo is trying to redefine that industry to maintain its relevance, and Sony is under real pressure to deliver with its Playstation 3.
A less aggressive competitor might have gone into retirement years ago.
Like any company driven by an iconic and engaged leader, Microsoft runs the risk over time of losing its position at the top of the heap. Gates apparently realizes this and is trying to do the right thing by maintaining his role as chairman and a strategic advisor and making his transition out of the day-to-day business a slow one, stretching over two years.
Love him or hate him, Bill Gates won all the key battles of computing and then some. Let's hope that old fire gets sparked again as he turns his attention to much more pressing battles with disease and ignorance.
In my opinion, Microsoft has done more to HARM development of the computer than just about any other company. If it wasn't for IBM's OS2 and Apple, Microsoft would still be giving us Windows 95. Instead of overcoming the competition by providing a superior product, they used their corporate muscle to buy out or bury anyone they couldn't beat. That's my opinion, for what it's worth.
You can't do that with MSFT's WebTV! (Plus)
Much better than the newer MSN-TV which lacks the TV options & PIP
I for one HOPE NOT. His "old fire" reflects being devoid of scruples while his "charity" reflects a being devoid of soul as he funnels millions into UN's population control efforts and more to Planned Parenthood International and abortions in the 3rd world.
His battle with Linux is far from over.
Whatever. MS may not always provide the best product, but they definitely try to guarantee the compatibility and coherence of their product lines. Something very underrated in the world of computing, but extremely important. I can still open a Word document that I wrote back in 1992. That is an achievement in itself. Without continuation, the PC world today would be like Linux.
Bump!
nickcarraway wrote: "How did they get to the point where they had that much corporate muscle?"
You make a good point. Gates actually owes his fortune to IBM, because IBM selected his code for their PC. I think a lot of people purchased IBM because it was already in the business market. Apple squandered its opportunity, partly because it charged a very substantial premium on its systems.
My point is simply that once Microsoft cornered a significant part of the market, they used their corporate strength to throttle the competition. It's obvious they achieved a defacto monopoly, and that's not good for anyone. All PC users should be glad Apple and Linux are still out their plugging away. It helps keep Microsoft honest.
haha supposedly MS Bob was developed by Bill Gates' wife.
The DOS tax for PC clones was like printing free money for Microsoft. It was they who started on OS/2 and then double-crossed IBM by knowingly, deceitfully, developing NT as a Windows product rather than the next iteration of OS/2. Microsoft had also stuck with Windows its product development while it evangelized OS/2 to its competitors who took the bait--Microsoft's OS/2 products were the Windows versions bolted to a compatibility layer, not real OS/2 programs. Once their NT bait-switch was found out, IBM did try to pick up the pieces of what Microsoft left them and compete but the market had no interest in alternatives since OEMs had to pay Microsoft anyway whether they shipped with their products installed or not. That was part of the anti-trust case. Microsoft slit a lot of throats of would-be partners like Stack Electronics (data compression) by getting access to their technology in a supposed partnership interest, stealing it, competing directly and burying the little guy. Stack sued, settled and ended up changing markets. Early on, Windows Media used code literally copied from Quicktime for Windows. A settlement took place. Many of us are familiar with the infamous "tying" of Internet Explorer to Windows in order to kill Netscape. I could go all night but you don't have to go far to read up about these things. Look at the Findings of Fact in the illegal monopoly case, look at the testimony, look at books such as "Showstopper" (about NT's development). The point is, Microsoft's history is REPLETE with these scandalous cases of abuse. Be thankful that Apple didn't die off in the 90's or there Windows Vista would not be the product it's going to be. Be thankful for what competition does exist and rue the day another competitor is drowned by Microsoft.
armoreokie wrote: "Whatever. MS may not always provide the best product, but they definitely try to guarantee the compatibility and coherence of their product lines."
You almost sound like the same people who fought for Ma Bell. "I know she wants my firstborn and 10 references for a deposit, but see, I get this beautiful dial phone!" Competition is good, friend. Lack of competition is bad. BTW, I'm in Oklahoma City. It's nice to know a FReeper from Ardmore!
I saw the CEO of MySQL speak two weeks ago, and someone asked him how he could prevent Ingres from using MySQL's software to create their product. He said he hoped they did use it.
Not quite. Gates had no code when he promised IBM he could deliver DOS. He bought another product (QDOS) from a small company (Seattle Computer Products). Had the late Gary Kildall of DEC not been away flying airplanes or whatever it was he did when IBM came calling looking for an operating system for its PC, Gates would never have been in the position he was.
What are you talking about? Apple is a complete ripoff from others also (then and now). Apple is not some pure angel, it's a company just like Microsoft out to seek profit. The only difference is that Apple isn't as successful as MS at it because they are too greedy on their premiums and lock-ins.
newzjunky wrote: "Be thankful that Apple didn't die off in the 90's"
The government would have had no choice but to split Microsoft's monopoly up if Apple wasn't there, so I think Gates left it alone as token competition. He clearly had the muscle and money to bury Apple. For one, he could have easily stopped all Microsoft development for the Apple platform. Just think of no Microsoft Office for Apple. He's no fool. Gates left it alive purely to maintain Microsoft's defacto monopoly. That's what I think.
I have a hard time holding that story against Gates. This is the United States, and we're supposed to believe that you can succees by getting up eary, hustling, and working harder, not just because you're a big shot. DEC had every advantage over a nobody Harvard drop-out. Of all things, I can't fault Gates for having the chutzpah to go up against large companies, that he "had no business" competing against. Just like small software companies today should be able to try and go up against Microsoft.
MySQL is *open source* (source code freely available). It's not closed like Quicktime. I'm not surprised someone from an open source project would like a competitor or commercial entity to use their code (under proper license).
Competition is good, true, but too much regulation is bad also and eliminates the incentive for companies to do their darndest in maximizing their profits. Sometimes monopolies are simply more efficient for the consumer as well. One cannot say with certainty that a monopoly must be bad for society.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.