4 ms·
I don't think PG is arguing that Gates is rich because of IBM's failure. I think he is arguing that Gates is fantastically rich because of IBM's failure. PG s
by tpatke 15y ago
I don't think PG is arguing that Gates is rich because of IBM's failure. I think he is arguing that Gates is fantastically rich because of IBM's failure. PG states in the essay that someone like Gates who is smart and hard working will be successful. ...but being successful and being a multi-billionaire are two different things. Being a multi-billionaire requires luck.
And, yeah, it’s pretty clear that IBM dropped the ball on this one. There was a good 10 - 15 year period where IBM could have easilly crushed (or bought) Microsoft.
- davidw 15y agoOne of my favorite, fun reads about this era, with a lot of insight, is "20 years of high tech marketing disasters": http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001C6MQA8?ie=UTF8&tag=dedasys-20&linkCode=shr&camp=213733&creative=393177&creativeASIN=B001C6MQA8 http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001C6MQA8?ie=UTF8&tag=... The 'conclusion' is that the most successful companies aren't necessarily all that brilliant, it's just that they screw up less than the competition.
- Symmetry 15y ago"Battles are decided, Sethra told me, when timing and momentum and courage all come together and, at just the right moment, someone fails to make a critical mistake and doesn't manage to miss a vital opportunity." -Steven Brust, from Dragon