5 ms·

Bill was able to organize the labor of people into something more productive than the sum of its parts. That is a relatively rare skill. Luck comes into it, a

Bill was able to organize the labor of people into something more productive than the sum of its parts. That is a relatively rare skill. Luck comes into it, and we can debate how much of a factor time, place, family networks, etc played into it. But regardless there were incumbents that were much more likely to succeed than him at the start. IBM had the biggest advantage here. Snatching defeat from the jaws of certain victory is one of the largest blunders in modern business. Gary Kildall failed to land a suitable deal with IBM, and would have been the next in line to be Bill Gates. Even if he did make the deal his personality made it unlikely he'd structure the deal as BillG did which enabled the clone market. Or Seattle Computer Products that owned the actual DOS BillG used. Ultimately it was BillG that executed the vision and did so relentlessly for multiple decades. Not many other executives were sleeping under their desks at the time. This was particularly what impressed IBM enough to take a chance on them. Their work ethic as a company was well noted in the industry. BillG set that example from the top.

gertef 9y ago
Bill G used a mixture of cuthroat and illegal activities to crush competition and create a monopoly. In his absence, we may well hve had a thriving ecosystem of compatible adn far more secure technology. Or some other cutthrouat like Steve Jobs would have won. Just because the game is winner-take-all doesn't mean the winner did nearly all the valuable work.
- slededit 9y ago
  That was true in the 90s with netscape. Less so during the 80s when his position was being cemented. He even sent IBM over to Gary Kildall initially. It was only after that meeting failed that he went out and bought QDOS. The point is that Microsoft wasn't always a monopoly. It took skill to get there, and there were opponents that started with much better hands.
crimsonalucard 9y ago
Is organizing labor a skill as rare as building a boeing 747 with your bare hands and raw intelligence? I would say that the aforementioned skill is so rare, no human being on the face of the earth has the ability to build an airliner by themselves. Yet here we have man named Bill Gates who possesses more wealth then several airliners. Bill Gates probably deserves to be a millionaire, but no man deservers to be billionaire... it's just obscene to say such a thing.
- slededit 9y ago
  There are many engineers. Very few of them are building new organizations that make things like 747s possible. How much this "skill" is worth can be debated. But if you go by scarcity its certainly more scarce than engineering talent.
  - crimsonalucard 9y ago
    How much skill required to build new organizations is also debatable. Sure there are few people who actually build organizations, but is it because the skill is scarce or is it because the positions accommodating this skill are few and far in-between? If a pauper can replace a prince then it must mean anyone including a pauper can do the job of the prince. Trust me. Gathering people and telling them what to do is 100 times easier than actually doing it.
cjlars 9y ago
And everyone was paid. Where is the unfairness in voluntary transactions? If you're trying to argue that, "it would have just happened anyway", all you're asserting is that the profits would have gone to someone else, but at a lag of several months to several years. Why is slowing down technological advancement an improvement?
- crimsonalucard 9y ago
  In third world countries people voluntarily get paid 10 cents an hour. Where is the unfairness there? A contract between an employer and an employee can establish a salary that is only agreed upon. Both parties can agree to either a salary that is fair, or is unfair. It is totally possible in this reality to voluntarily agree to unfair policies. >If you're trying to argue that, "it would have just happened anyway", all you're asserting is that the profits would have gone to someone else, but at a lag of several months to several years. Why is slowing down technological advancement an improvement? When did I say slowing down technological advancement an improvement? You're making a lot of random stuff up here. I've never claimed to have stated nor do I understand any of your statements here.
coldtea 9y ago
>Bill was able to organize the labor of people into something more productive than the sum of its parts. That is a relatively rare skill. Citation needed. Why it's a rare skill? How about it's a rare opportunity offered to too few people? I think that a market only can support/bear a number of successful companies (and thus CEOs etc) which is smaller than the number of otherwise competent potential CEOs. Instead of seeing someone like Gate as an ubermench with natural CEO-talent, I believe that tons of people are never offered the chance -- through lack of luck, lack of educational opportunities, bad background, etc to be able to start a company.
- slededit 9y ago
  Yes it's true there can be only so many. However the skill of BillG is that he made his company the one to dominate. As I said earlier he was not anywhere close to having the strongest hand at the start. It's skill in the same way someone with a mediocre poker hand bluffs their way to victory.

gertef 9y ago

Bill G used a mixture of cuthroat and illegal activities to crush competition and create a monopoly. In his absence, we may well hve had a thriving ecosystem of compatible adn far more secure technology. Or some other cutthrouat like Steve Jobs would have won. Just because the game is winner-take-all doesn't mean the winner did nearly all the valuable work.

slededit 9y ago
That was true in the 90s with netscape. Less so during the 80s when his position was being cemented. He even sent IBM over to Gary Kildall initially. It was only after that meeting failed that he went out and bought QDOS. The point is that Microsoft wasn't always a monopoly. It took skill to get there, and there were opponents that started with much better hands.

crimsonalucard 9y ago

Is organizing labor a skill as rare as building a boeing 747 with your bare hands and raw intelligence? I would say that the aforementioned skill is so rare, no human being on the face of the earth has the ability to build an airliner by themselves. Yet here we have man named Bill Gates who possesses more wealth then several airliners. Bill Gates probably deserves to be a millionaire, but no man deservers to be billionaire... it's just obscene to say such a thing.

slededit 9y ago
There are many engineers. Very few of them are building new organizations that make things like 747s possible. How much this "skill" is worth can be debated. But if you go by scarcity its certainly more scarce than engineering talent.
- crimsonalucard 9y ago
  How much skill required to build new organizations is also debatable. Sure there are few people who actually build organizations, but is it because the skill is scarce or is it because the positions accommodating this skill are few and far in-between? If a pauper can replace a prince then it must mean anyone including a pauper can do the job of the prince. Trust me. Gathering people and telling them what to do is 100 times easier than actually doing it.

cjlars 9y ago

And everyone was paid. Where is the unfairness in voluntary transactions? If you're trying to argue that, "it would have just happened anyway", all you're asserting is that the profits would have gone to someone else, but at a lag of several months to several years. Why is slowing down technological advancement an improvement?

crimsonalucard 9y ago
In third world countries people voluntarily get paid 10 cents an hour. Where is the unfairness there? A contract between an employer and an employee can establish a salary that is only agreed upon. Both parties can agree to either a salary that is fair, or is unfair. It is totally possible in this reality to voluntarily agree to unfair policies. >If you're trying to argue that, "it would have just happened anyway", all you're asserting is that the profits would have gone to someone else, but at a lag of several months to several years. Why is slowing down technological advancement an improvement? When did I say slowing down technological advancement an improvement? You're making a lot of random stuff up here. I've never claimed to have stated nor do I understand any of your statements here.

coldtea 9y ago

>Bill was able to organize the labor of people into something more productive than the sum of its parts. That is a relatively rare skill. Citation needed. Why it's a rare skill? How about it's a rare opportunity offered to too few people? I think that a market only can support/bear a number of successful companies (and thus CEOs etc) which is smaller than the number of otherwise competent potential CEOs. Instead of seeing someone like Gate as an ubermench with natural CEO-talent, I believe that tons of people are never offered the chance -- through lack of luck, lack of educational opportunities, bad background, etc to be able to start a company.

slededit 9y ago
Yes it's true there can be only so many. However the skill of BillG is that he made his company the one to dominate. As I said earlier he was not anywhere close to having the strongest hand at the start. It's skill in the same way someone with a mediocre poker hand bluffs their way to victory.