6 ms·

Gates: made computing ubiquitous; I've seen Windows boxes in rural towns in 3rd world countries Goldman Sachs & Co: "bunch of cash-driven assholes" I think Gat

by derwiki 16y ago

Gates: made computing ubiquitous; I've seen Windows boxes in rural towns in 3rd world countries Goldman Sachs & Co: "bunch of cash-driven assholes" I think Gates has done considerable more good for the world than the other assholes of the business world.

julio_the_squid 16y ago
Well, it would have all happened without Gates, and we'd all generally have software of better quality. Gates did a lot for himself and his shareholders, which I guess is the point of business - he didn't do so much for the world of computing. That said, sure, Microsoft is a lot better than the businesses that merely push cash around and take a stack for themselves in the process.
celoyd 16y ago
I have great respect for how Gates is spending his money now. But, in all seriousness, Windows (including Office etc.) is morally questionable. Grant me two points: First, it could be better without serious harm to its success. Over the last 15 years, Microsoft could have funded security and usability a bit more and saturation advertising a bit less, and it would have the same market share but save its users something like 10% of their use time. Second, it hasn’t competed ethically. Microsoft under Gates did things that were only slightly to its medium-term benefit and very much to the detriment of the market. Many products that were clearly better for the user never got a fair shake. Cutthroat capitalism has its place, but Gates went further. Given these, the opportunity cost of Windows adds up to a huge amount of inefficiency – time spent needlessly fighting computers – for which Gates is significantly responsible. Some back-of-the-envelope math: If Windows has an install base of 1 billion, and the average install is used for 4 hours a day, that’s about 150 million Windows-years per year. If Gates is personally responsible for 1% inefficiency there, that’s about 1.5 million person-years of waste per year. Would that particular time and effort have cured cancer? Or made the Linux kernel twice as good? No. But it’s still a lot to waste. I’m trying not to be glib. I know it’s not original to say that Windows sucks. My point is that when something really big sucks preventably, we’re talking about significant amounts of resources burning away, and that has a moral dimension. More power to Gates as he eradicates malaria, but as far as I’m concerned he started with a big debt to society.
- qq66 16y ago
  Wait, so if a computer saves me 4 hours a day in efficiency, but could have saved me 4 hours 10 minutes with better design, the person who gave it to me is indebted to me for those 10 minutes?
  - celoyd 16y ago
    This is why my second premise is important. The person who sold it to you and unfairly prevented others from selling you a better one does, arguably, owe you something. I’m not saying Gates owes us all a perfect operating system. But by doing a worse job than he could and distorting the market (if you agree to both of those), he screwed up.
    - qq66 16y ago
      Your argument seems to imply that if someone does design a perfect operating system, it's OK to distort the market to make it successful.
      - bluedanieru 16y ago
        Well, if there is a perfect operating system out there and some inefficiency in the market is preventing it from being widely adopted, then yeah it's hard to argue against distorting the market to make it successful. The market is a tool, after all, not an end in itself.
- bad_user 16y ago
  > Microsoft under Gates did things that were only slightly to its medium-term benefit and very much to the detriment of the market. If Microsoft would have delivered sexy / functional products, nobody would have noticed ... not only that, but they would have a legion of people defending them. Unfortunately they preferred to make partnerships with companies like Intel, Compaq or HP, favoring IBM-compatible PCs, or hardware that was more open / accessible, putting a lot of control in the hands of hardware companies. Maybe it was IBM breathing down their necks, maybe it made sense for their business, but if this didn't happen Windows NT would've been released as a consumer version instead of Win 9x ... which is the main culprit of almost all problems associated with Windows. And I don't know what "big debt to society" you're talking about ... in '95 in my (arguably third world country) I live in schools in small towns had computer-labs with Microsoft software on it. If IBM-compatible PCs weren't so popular (with MS software contributing a lot to that) or free to clone, we wouldn't have had local companies producing cheap computers, and thus we wouldn't have had computers in school (and I wouldn't be a software developer for that matter). IMHO, I see a lot of double-standards flying around.
patrickgzill 16y ago
I always thought Intel was under-appreciated and under-noticed, though maybe they prefer it that way. Clearly the revolution that started with the first tube in 1908 and progressed to fancier tubes, to transistors, to what we have today, points more to Intel than Microsoft. Compare yourself and see that they are pretty big and content to stay out of the limelight: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=INTC+Key+Statistics http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=INTC+Key+Statistics vs. http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=MSFT+Key+Statistics http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=MSFT+Key+Statistics
abecedarius 16y ago
Do you think computing would not have become ubiquitous without Gates? Or that it's likely to have taken significantly longer?
ams6110 16y ago
Though it's popular to bash them these days, investment banking firms are an absolutely essential part of our economy.
b-man 16y ago
I really don't think you can say that Gates or MS made any breakthroughs in making computing ubiquitous. They were in business for a BASIC interpreter[1], created an empire based on monopoly and questionable ethics and frankly could not care less about the philosophy that paved the way for ubiquitous computing(that still is far from existing.) If you want to give credit, give it to people who did the deeds to deserve it. People like Alan Kay, Doug Engelbart, Ivan Sutherland, Seymour Papert[2]. [1] http://programmersatwork.wordpress.com/bill-gates-1986/ http://programmersatwork.wordpress.com/bill-gates-1986/ [2] http://gagne.homedns.org/~tgagne/contrib/EarlyHistoryST.html http://gagne.homedns.org/~tgagne/contrib/EarlyHistoryST.html
- joezydeco 16y ago
  How does saying go? Pioneers get the arrows, settlers get the land.

by derwiki 16y ago

julio_the_squid 16y ago

Well, it would have all happened without Gates, and we'd all generally have software of better quality. Gates did a lot for himself and his shareholders, which I guess is the point of business - he didn't do so much for the world of computing. That said, sure, Microsoft is a lot better than the businesses that merely push cash around and take a stack for themselves in the process.

celoyd 16y ago

I have great respect for how Gates is spending his money now. But, in all seriousness, Windows (including Office etc.) is morally questionable. Grant me two points: First, it could be better without serious harm to its success. Over the last 15 years, Microsoft could have funded security and usability a bit more and saturation advertising a bit less, and it would have the same market share but save its users something like 10% of their use time. Second, it hasn’t competed ethically. Microsoft under Gates did things that were only slightly to its medium-term benefit and very much to the detriment of the market. Many products that were clearly better for the user never got a fair shake. Cutthroat capitalism has its place, but Gates went further. Given these, the opportunity cost of Windows adds up to a huge amount of inefficiency – time spent needlessly fighting computers – for which Gates is significantly responsible. Some back-of-the-envelope math: If Windows has an install base of 1 billion, and the average install is used for 4 hours a day, that’s about 150 million Windows-years per year. If Gates is personally responsible for 1% inefficiency there, that’s about 1.5 million person-years of waste per year. Would that particular time and effort have cured cancer? Or made the Linux kernel twice as good? No. But it’s still a lot to waste. I’m trying not to be glib. I know it’s not original to say that Windows sucks. My point is that when something really big sucks preventably, we’re talking about significant amounts of resources burning away, and that has a moral dimension. More power to Gates as he eradicates malaria, but as far as I’m concerned he started with a big debt to society.

qq66 16y ago
Wait, so if a computer saves me 4 hours a day in efficiency, but could have saved me 4 hours 10 minutes with better design, the person who gave it to me is indebted to me for those 10 minutes?
- celoyd 16y ago
  This is why my second premise is important. The person who sold it to you and unfairly prevented others from selling you a better one does, arguably, owe you something. I’m not saying Gates owes us all a perfect operating system. But by doing a worse job than he could and distorting the market (if you agree to both of those), he screwed up.
  - qq66 16y ago
    Your argument seems to imply that if someone does design a perfect operating system, it's OK to distort the market to make it successful.
    - bluedanieru 16y ago
      Well, if there is a perfect operating system out there and some inefficiency in the market is preventing it from being widely adopted, then yeah it's hard to argue against distorting the market to make it successful. The market is a tool, after all, not an end in itself.
bad_user 16y ago
> Microsoft under Gates did things that were only slightly to its medium-term benefit and very much to the detriment of the market. If Microsoft would have delivered sexy / functional products, nobody would have noticed ... not only that, but they would have a legion of people defending them. Unfortunately they preferred to make partnerships with companies like Intel, Compaq or HP, favoring IBM-compatible PCs, or hardware that was more open / accessible, putting a lot of control in the hands of hardware companies. Maybe it was IBM breathing down their necks, maybe it made sense for their business, but if this didn't happen Windows NT would've been released as a consumer version instead of Win 9x ... which is the main culprit of almost all problems associated with Windows. And I don't know what "big debt to society" you're talking about ... in '95 in my (arguably third world country) I live in schools in small towns had computer-labs with Microsoft software on it. If IBM-compatible PCs weren't so popular (with MS software contributing a lot to that) or free to clone, we wouldn't have had local companies producing cheap computers, and thus we wouldn't have had computers in school (and I wouldn't be a software developer for that matter). IMHO, I see a lot of double-standards flying around.

patrickgzill 16y ago

I always thought Intel was under-appreciated and under-noticed, though maybe they prefer it that way. Clearly the revolution that started with the first tube in 1908 and progressed to fancier tubes, to transistors, to what we have today, points more to Intel than Microsoft. Compare yourself and see that they are pretty big and content to stay out of the limelight: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=INTC+Key+Statistics http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=INTC+Key+Statistics vs. http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=MSFT+Key+Statistics http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=MSFT+Key+Statistics

abecedarius 16y ago

Do you think computing would not have become ubiquitous without Gates? Or that it's likely to have taken significantly longer?

ams6110 16y ago

Though it's popular to bash them these days, investment banking firms are an absolutely essential part of our economy.

b-man 16y ago

I really don't think you can say that Gates or MS made any breakthroughs in making computing ubiquitous. They were in business for a BASIC interpreter[1], created an empire based on monopoly and questionable ethics and frankly could not care less about the philosophy that paved the way for ubiquitous computing(that still is far from existing.) If you want to give credit, give it to people who did the deeds to deserve it. People like Alan Kay, Doug Engelbart, Ivan Sutherland, Seymour Papert[2]. [1] http://programmersatwork.wordpress.com/bill-gates-1986/ http://programmersatwork.wordpress.com/bill-gates-1986/ [2] http://gagne.homedns.org/~tgagne/contrib/EarlyHistoryST.html http://gagne.homedns.org/~tgagne/contrib/EarlyHistoryST.html

joezydeco 16y ago
How does saying go? Pioneers get the arrows, settlers get the land.