9 ms·

Great people are not necessarily nice people. I understand that Leonardo Da Vinci was a jerk. Often doing something really difficult either requires you to be

Great people are not necessarily nice people. I understand that Leonardo Da Vinci was a jerk. Often doing something really difficult either requires you to be a jerk, or it could just be a jerk is more likely to have the insensitivity to do the job. I'm old enough to remember Bill Gates was like while he was running Microsoft, and I know people whose businesses Microsoft seriously, and unethically IMO, damaged. If Gates has mellowed, then cool. Once you've accomplished your goals and squashed your opponents, then you've got time to play the nice guy and work on your place in history. (Mr. Carnegie built a lot of libraries that did a lot of good; after a career in industry and development that makes anything Gates might have done pale in comparison.) Personally I think Gates got pissed when he realized he had lost the browser wars and he couldn't own that internet thingie. Jobs's goals were a bit more ambitious than simply making "all the money." To describe Jobs's work as "an easy to use computer, some cool movies, and ... some expensive first-world gadgets." strikes me as glib and disingenuous. Anyone who seriously thinks that needs to spend some time with normal people and watch how they interact with technology. And the movies are better than just cool... Even had Jobs lived a normal life span it's unlikely that he would have accomplished all the universe denting he had in mind. If Jobs was a jerk, and having met him once I can say from personal observation that he was a bit of one, he was a jerk in a hurry.

hellweaver666 15y ago
> he was a jerk in a hurry It's strange you should say that, in his biography it mentions that he was always sure he would have a short life, from a very young age. It's no wonder that he didn't feel he had the time to be nice when he wanted to achieve so much.
waitwhat 15y ago
To imply that Bill Gates' goals were "simply making 'all the money'" is at best intentionally misleading. Microsoft's unofficial mission statement from 1977 was "a computer on every desk and in every home". They aimed ridiculously high, succeeded past anyone's expectations, and fundamentally changed the world all on their own. To dismiss the tens of billions of dollars that he is ploughing into his foundation (and the tens of billions of dollars he convinced Warren Buffet to also donate) as just "play[ing] the nice guy and work[ing] on [his] place in history" is, quite frankly, ridiculous. This is a foundation working hard on some of the most fundamental problems of humanity: crippling poverty and devastating diseases. Sure, this gets them a few headlines, but what do you expect when their budget is as much as the International Red Cross and Oxfam International combined? Bill Gates: Changed the world once. Will probably do it again. Steve Jobs: "This changes everything. Again."
- sandGorgon 15y ago
  He has already changed India - http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2012/01/12/bill-gates-on-indias-first-polio-free-year/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2012/01/12/bill-ga...
- jonhendry 15y ago
  " They aimed ridiculously high" Well, sort of. The goal of putting a computer on every desk and in every home doesn't really carry any requirements about the quality of the product does it? It can be fulfilled with absolute dreck, and arguably, was.
- commieneko 15y ago
  Despite the actual verbiage used, Gate's goal wasn't a PC on every desk, it was a computer, which he didn't sell, running his OS and software, which he did sell, on every desk. Software that locked the user into an ecosystem that Microsoft controlled and profited by. He helped get the hardware in place, but never got the software lock in he wanted. Not from lack of trying though. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft) Ironic that Jobs's emphasis on maintaining quality and interfacing with human psychology is faring better towards that goal; as a side effect. While I admire your attempt at parallelism, no where in my post do I denigrate Gate's philanthropy. Read it again. Ruthlessness and vanity have their social uses. I grew up using a Carnegie library and am a better person for it. They had a hell of a time tearing it down in the 1970s in order to put up a much inferior glass box. The wreaking ball kept just bouncing off... Literally. We'll see how well Gates's legacy performs historically. Myself, I wish he had an interest in the space program or in energy production. But it's his loot to spend as he sees fit. Jobs is through changing the world. At least directly. He's left some ongoing projects, but such things seldom can continue without their visionaries. Look at what happened to Walt Disney's urban planning experiments. Job's legacy will be changing the way people think about and interact with technology. My bet is that will have farther reaching consequences than any actual technology.
sharan 15y ago
> Gates got pissed when he realized he had lost the browser wars Gates announced his retirement in 2006. At which point IE's world market share was between 85.33% - 90.01% Hardly what I'd call having lost a war. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers
- MatthewPhillips 15y ago
  It's more appropriate to say he lost to the internet. Even by 2006 it was obvious that OS didn't matter any more. Not that I agree with the grandparent.
  - waitwhat 15y ago
    And post 2007, smartphones have shown that the the OS really does still matter.
  - WayneDB 15y ago
    The OS has always mattered. Do you really think that all the businesses that run Windows could just switch away from it with no pain? Gimme a break.
- commieneko 15y ago
  The writing was on the wall long before 2006. Browser marketshare was only one metric for winning. Controlling the way browsers worked and how people used them was much more important. "Embrace, extend, extinguish" never got much farther than the first stage. What's the point of doing all the work and paying for all the support if you can't control the game?
jules 15y ago
> Great people are not necessarily nice people. I understand that Leonardo Da Vinci was a jerk. I don't understand the deification of Leonardo da Vinci either. He was a nice painter but nothing extraordinary. His science and engineering is basically bogus, like his flying machines. Now Newton and Gauss for example, they were true geniuses. But when historians see a drawing of a flying machine by da Vince they think "amazing!" and so does the general public. When they come across Newton's works the see a bunch of unintelligible stuff.
- joubert 15y ago
  I think you underestimate the vastness of Da Vinci's contributions. Have you seen any of his paintings in real life? I saw an amazing Da Vinci exhibit in South Africa more than a decade ago. It included not only some of his paintings, but also an incredible array of sketches in fields where he made important discoveries such as anatomy, optics, civil engineering, etc. For me, when you see the depth of his work across a wide swathe of fields, he stands out as a beacon amongst a fog of misery and ignorance.
  - jules 15y ago
    I have seen some of da Vinci's paintings in real life. Among them his famous Mona Lisa. I didn't find them particularly extraordinary among the other paintings in the Louvre, though I already said that he was a good painter. What are his important discoveries in anatomy, optics and civil engineering? What did da Vinci discover about optics that Euclid hadn't already discovered 1700 years earlier? It seems to me that his contribution in those fields is mainly as an illustrator. Which of his "inventions" actually worked? How do you explain his nonsense engineering like flying machines? Perhaps the case that da Vinci was an illustrator-wannabe-scientist/engineer is overstating it a bit. I'm not saying he made no contributions whatsoever, just that there are other people far more deserving of the deification that Leonardo da Vinci enjoys, like Newton, Galilei, Gauss, etc. When people talk about da Vinci's contributions they always talk in vague terms. Now take Newton and we can easily find numerous contributions that are still extremely important even in our age: * Calculus - the basis of physics, engineering, and a large part of practical mathematics * Newton's laws of motion * Newton's law of gravity * Major contributions to optics * Newton's method - one of the most important algorithms The trouble with these is that they require far more effort and study to appreciate compared to a bunch of drawings, especially if you don't try to look critically at the drawings and try to determine whether the machines depicted actually work.

hellweaver666 15y ago

> he was a jerk in a hurry It's strange you should say that, in his biography it mentions that he was always sure he would have a short life, from a very young age. It's no wonder that he didn't feel he had the time to be nice when he wanted to achieve so much.

waitwhat 15y ago

To imply that Bill Gates' goals were "simply making 'all the money'" is at best intentionally misleading. Microsoft's unofficial mission statement from 1977 was "a computer on every desk and in every home". They aimed ridiculously high, succeeded past anyone's expectations, and fundamentally changed the world all on their own. To dismiss the tens of billions of dollars that he is ploughing into his foundation (and the tens of billions of dollars he convinced Warren Buffet to also donate) as just "play[ing] the nice guy and work[ing] on [his] place in history" is, quite frankly, ridiculous. This is a foundation working hard on some of the most fundamental problems of humanity: crippling poverty and devastating diseases. Sure, this gets them a few headlines, but what do you expect when their budget is as much as the International Red Cross and Oxfam International combined? Bill Gates: Changed the world once. Will probably do it again. Steve Jobs: "This changes everything. Again."

sandGorgon 15y ago
He has already changed India - http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2012/01/12/bill-gates-on-indias-first-polio-free-year/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2012/01/12/bill-ga...
jonhendry 15y ago
" They aimed ridiculously high" Well, sort of. The goal of putting a computer on every desk and in every home doesn't really carry any requirements about the quality of the product does it? It can be fulfilled with absolute dreck, and arguably, was.
commieneko 15y ago
Despite the actual verbiage used, Gate's goal wasn't a PC on every desk, it was a computer, which he didn't sell, running his OS and software, which he did sell, on every desk. Software that locked the user into an ecosystem that Microsoft controlled and profited by. He helped get the hardware in place, but never got the software lock in he wanted. Not from lack of trying though. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft) Ironic that Jobs's emphasis on maintaining quality and interfacing with human psychology is faring better towards that goal; as a side effect. While I admire your attempt at parallelism, no where in my post do I denigrate Gate's philanthropy. Read it again. Ruthlessness and vanity have their social uses. I grew up using a Carnegie library and am a better person for it. They had a hell of a time tearing it down in the 1970s in order to put up a much inferior glass box. The wreaking ball kept just bouncing off... Literally. We'll see how well Gates's legacy performs historically. Myself, I wish he had an interest in the space program or in energy production. But it's his loot to spend as he sees fit. Jobs is through changing the world. At least directly. He's left some ongoing projects, but such things seldom can continue without their visionaries. Look at what happened to Walt Disney's urban planning experiments. Job's legacy will be changing the way people think about and interact with technology. My bet is that will have farther reaching consequences than any actual technology.

sharan 15y ago

> Gates got pissed when he realized he had lost the browser wars Gates announced his retirement in 2006. At which point IE's world market share was between 85.33% - 90.01% Hardly what I'd call having lost a war. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers

MatthewPhillips 15y ago
It's more appropriate to say he lost to the internet. Even by 2006 it was obvious that OS didn't matter any more. Not that I agree with the grandparent.
- waitwhat 15y ago
  And post 2007, smartphones have shown that the the OS really does still matter.
- WayneDB 15y ago
  The OS has always mattered. Do you really think that all the businesses that run Windows could just switch away from it with no pain? Gimme a break.
commieneko 15y ago
The writing was on the wall long before 2006. Browser marketshare was only one metric for winning. Controlling the way browsers worked and how people used them was much more important. "Embrace, extend, extinguish" never got much farther than the first stage. What's the point of doing all the work and paying for all the support if you can't control the game?

jules 15y ago

> Great people are not necessarily nice people. I understand that Leonardo Da Vinci was a jerk. I don't understand the deification of Leonardo da Vinci either. He was a nice painter but nothing extraordinary. His science and engineering is basically bogus, like his flying machines. Now Newton and Gauss for example, they were true geniuses. But when historians see a drawing of a flying machine by da Vince they think "amazing!" and so does the general public. When they come across Newton's works the see a bunch of unintelligible stuff.

joubert 15y ago
I think you underestimate the vastness of Da Vinci's contributions. Have you seen any of his paintings in real life? I saw an amazing Da Vinci exhibit in South Africa more than a decade ago. It included not only some of his paintings, but also an incredible array of sketches in fields where he made important discoveries such as anatomy, optics, civil engineering, etc. For me, when you see the depth of his work across a wide swathe of fields, he stands out as a beacon amongst a fog of misery and ignorance.
- jules 15y ago
  I have seen some of da Vinci's paintings in real life. Among them his famous Mona Lisa. I didn't find them particularly extraordinary among the other paintings in the Louvre, though I already said that he was a good painter. What are his important discoveries in anatomy, optics and civil engineering? What did da Vinci discover about optics that Euclid hadn't already discovered 1700 years earlier? It seems to me that his contribution in those fields is mainly as an illustrator. Which of his "inventions" actually worked? How do you explain his nonsense engineering like flying machines? Perhaps the case that da Vinci was an illustrator-wannabe-scientist/engineer is overstating it a bit. I'm not saying he made no contributions whatsoever, just that there are other people far more deserving of the deification that Leonardo da Vinci enjoys, like Newton, Galilei, Gauss, etc. When people talk about da Vinci's contributions they always talk in vague terms. Now take Newton and we can easily find numerous contributions that are still extremely important even in our age: * Calculus - the basis of physics, engineering, and a large part of practical mathematics * Newton's laws of motion * Newton's law of gravity * Major contributions to optics * Newton's method - one of the most important algorithms The trouble with these is that they require far more effort and study to appreciate compared to a bunch of drawings, especially if you don't try to look critically at the drawings and try to determine whether the machines depicted actually work.