4 ms·

Bill Gates always seemed like a more appropriate person to idol, if you must do such things, than Steve Jobs. Not only did he build the worlds largest technolog

Bill Gates always seemed like a more appropriate person to idol, if you must do such things, than Steve Jobs. Not only did he build the worlds largest technology company (in its time), but he's making a global philanthropic impact.

rwbt 14y ago
They both excel in their own ways.
larrydavid 14y ago
Whenever there is a topic concerning Bill Gates, there always seems to be someone in the discussion section that will find a way to shoehorn Steve Jobs into a comment, however irrelevant. An interesting phenomenon.
- nkozyra 14y ago
  Yeah, it's weird. Like when Joe Frazier or George Foreman come up in Ali discussions. Or when you talk Larry Bird, inevitably Magic Johnson comes up. Or when you talk about NES, someone brings up Sega. Oh wait it's because those things are narratively, intrinsically connected because of the compelling nature of rivalry as it turns out that is not weird at all.
- brudgers 14y ago
  Even more phenomenologically interesting is that everyone leaves out Larry Ellison.
- jfoster 14y ago
  I don't think it's shoehorning as much as it is Bill Gates & Steve Jobs being yinyang.
- enjo 14y ago
  The two are inescapably linked. Ali and Frazier. Magic and Bird. DiMaggio and Williams. We'll spend the next few decades putting them in context with each other.
tumultco 14y ago
I've often speculated it may be based on how you are brought up. If you value charity, engineering, and redemption then Bill Gates (of today) is more suitable. If you value creativity, strong will, and charisma then it is Steve Jobs.
manaskarekar 14y ago
Watching him on The Colbert Report just confirmed that. Seems like a nice guy, a geek you can identify with. http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/423362/january-30-2013/bill-gates http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/42336...
huherto 14y ago
I have mixed feelings about both. I don't care for Apple products, and I don't like that Steve Jobs didn't seem to be altruistic. But I admire how Steve Jobs was able to come back to Apple and make it big again. Also admire what he did with Pixar and Next. I like Bill Gates as a person, but I hate how Microsoft used to abuse their monopolistic power in the 90s. I admire the commitment that Bill Gates as a philanthropist.
- acabal 14y ago
  I look at it this way: both controlled massive, evil companies--MS and its monopoly, Apple and its patent and lawsuit madness. Both were of the same generation, both in the same industry, both were about the same age when Jobs died, both were super-rich. But one of them was a douchebag: denying the paternity of his daughter for years and acknowledged by all and sundry to be an asshole through and through. As far as we can know he died with his claws on his fortune. (Though it's possible he was an anonymous philanthropist.) Hell, he's a jerk from beyond the grave: he stiffed the guy who built is ulta-yacht! The other was acknowledged to be difficult to work with in his day (though I've read few descriptions of him that would qualify him as Jobs-level douchiness), but since then has gone to become one of the biggest philanthropists in the history of the world, making contributions to education, science, and medicine that will be felt for generations to come. I think these two figures are in a uniquely similar position to be judged side by side. Personally I would rather idolize the one who helped humanity, not the one who helped himself by making toys for rich people. (And hipsters.)
alayne 14y ago
I was not a big fan of Bill Gates in the 1980s and 1990s. But I think the philanthropic work he has done has been wonderful. Steve Jobs was not philanthropic, to a fault. He preferred to give to society by producing good things. I think Gates has given immensely to society by applying his exceptional problem solving skills to some extremely difficult problems.
davidroberts 14y ago
Both of them did absolutely amazing things. They were both very complicated characters. They both made an enormous contribution to society. They both drove their employees to the limit, and sometimes over the edge. Bill is following the tradition trajectory of American tycoons. Questionable business practices amass a fortune, which is then spent improving the world. Jobs was an artist whose medium was technology. His art was his offering to the world. Just my two cents...
benihana 14y ago
This doesn't make any sense. Who is saying that we only have to look up to one of them? Both men are human beings with flaws and motivations and ideals and goals who accomplished amazing and great and wondrous things and have made mistakes and done things others dont agree with. There is no reason, other than some false dichotomy contrived because they had competing companies, that we can't look up to both men and appreciate the fantastic things they've each done for the world. Just as there is no reason why we can't look at the mistakes they've made and learn from them.
- samstave 14y ago
  Personally: both are amazing people, but only one appears to be a pompous dick. (Not knowing either, I only have hearsay and biographies to base some of my opinions on. Although, one is still producing data points)
neumann_alfred 14y ago
Not only did he build the worlds largest technology company With what tactics and strategies, though? he's making a global philanthropic impact. How would one measure the destruction Microsoft caused? The wasted time? The wasted money, the wasted lifes? I mean, if HNers can scream bloody murder about Shirley Hornstein "stealing jobs that would have gone to others" ( http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5135436 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5135436 ), surely that should enter into this as well. If someone takes with one hand and gives with the other, you can't just count the giving. Well you can, but I can't follow. Personally, I judge people solely by how they react to a pie to the face, and Bill Gates scored quite low on that.
- digitalengineer 14y ago
  Agreed on the tactics. Of course we've seen incredibly rich people set up charity funds before. Like Alfred Nobel who invented the peace price after he became wealthy because of his invention of the detonator for dynamite and nitroglycerin.
  - ceelee 14y ago
    correction: dynamite was a significant stabilization of nitroglycerine by Nobel
- ivany 14y ago
  How would one measure the destruction Microsoft caused? The wasted time? The wasted money, the wasted lifes? Wat. I'm sure lots of work that gets done at Microsoft is misguided or redundant. Welcome to working at a big company. The pay is competitive and the environment, from what I hear, is some of the best in the software industry. It's not some sweatshop where you're forced to toil for pennies; I bet a lot of people here would enjoy and benefit from the experience of "wasting their lives" at MSFT for a few years.
  - adaml_623 14y ago
    I think he meant the time 'wasted' or perhaps just used working with Microsoft Windows. Rebooting, configuring/reinstalling every few months, etc. Every reboot required during the install or upgrade of a Microsoft product multiplied by an install base of hundreds of millions of machines is a big number. (Not that this is really relevant to Bill Gates's work today)
meaty 14y ago
Agreed. Steve Jobs only did it for his ego.
- adventured 14y ago
  Jobs did it because he loved design. It's no more complex than that. The expression of his ego in running Apple was his style / approach toward implementing his vision for product design. It's how he figured out he could get things done the way he wanted them done. You can debate the merits of his approach, but so what. Nobody put a gun to anybody's head and made them work for him at Apple or NeXT.
melling 14y ago
Rather than debating who best to idol, wouldn't it be more useful to discuss Bill's work, how it's effective, and how it could be made better? It feels kind of weird sitting on the sidelines debating who's more appropriate to idol.

rwbt 14y ago

They both excel in their own ways.

larrydavid 14y ago

Whenever there is a topic concerning Bill Gates, there always seems to be someone in the discussion section that will find a way to shoehorn Steve Jobs into a comment, however irrelevant. An interesting phenomenon.

nkozyra 14y ago
Yeah, it's weird. Like when Joe Frazier or George Foreman come up in Ali discussions. Or when you talk Larry Bird, inevitably Magic Johnson comes up. Or when you talk about NES, someone brings up Sega. Oh wait it's because those things are narratively, intrinsically connected because of the compelling nature of rivalry as it turns out that is not weird at all.
brudgers 14y ago
Even more phenomenologically interesting is that everyone leaves out Larry Ellison.
jfoster 14y ago
I don't think it's shoehorning as much as it is Bill Gates & Steve Jobs being yinyang.
enjo 14y ago
The two are inescapably linked. Ali and Frazier. Magic and Bird. DiMaggio and Williams. We'll spend the next few decades putting them in context with each other.

tumultco 14y ago

I've often speculated it may be based on how you are brought up. If you value charity, engineering, and redemption then Bill Gates (of today) is more suitable. If you value creativity, strong will, and charisma then it is Steve Jobs.

manaskarekar 14y ago

Watching him on The Colbert Report just confirmed that. Seems like a nice guy, a geek you can identify with. http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/423362/january-30-2013/bill-gates http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/42336...

huherto 14y ago

I have mixed feelings about both. I don't care for Apple products, and I don't like that Steve Jobs didn't seem to be altruistic. But I admire how Steve Jobs was able to come back to Apple and make it big again. Also admire what he did with Pixar and Next. I like Bill Gates as a person, but I hate how Microsoft used to abuse their monopolistic power in the 90s. I admire the commitment that Bill Gates as a philanthropist.

acabal 14y ago
I look at it this way: both controlled massive, evil companies--MS and its monopoly, Apple and its patent and lawsuit madness. Both were of the same generation, both in the same industry, both were about the same age when Jobs died, both were super-rich. But one of them was a douchebag: denying the paternity of his daughter for years and acknowledged by all and sundry to be an asshole through and through. As far as we can know he died with his claws on his fortune. (Though it's possible he was an anonymous philanthropist.) Hell, he's a jerk from beyond the grave: he stiffed the guy who built is ulta-yacht! The other was acknowledged to be difficult to work with in his day (though I've read few descriptions of him that would qualify him as Jobs-level douchiness), but since then has gone to become one of the biggest philanthropists in the history of the world, making contributions to education, science, and medicine that will be felt for generations to come. I think these two figures are in a uniquely similar position to be judged side by side. Personally I would rather idolize the one who helped humanity, not the one who helped himself by making toys for rich people. (And hipsters.)

alayne 14y ago

I was not a big fan of Bill Gates in the 1980s and 1990s. But I think the philanthropic work he has done has been wonderful. Steve Jobs was not philanthropic, to a fault. He preferred to give to society by producing good things. I think Gates has given immensely to society by applying his exceptional problem solving skills to some extremely difficult problems.

davidroberts 14y ago

Both of them did absolutely amazing things. They were both very complicated characters. They both made an enormous contribution to society. They both drove their employees to the limit, and sometimes over the edge. Bill is following the tradition trajectory of American tycoons. Questionable business practices amass a fortune, which is then spent improving the world. Jobs was an artist whose medium was technology. His art was his offering to the world. Just my two cents...

benihana 14y ago

This doesn't make any sense. Who is saying that we only have to look up to one of them? Both men are human beings with flaws and motivations and ideals and goals who accomplished amazing and great and wondrous things and have made mistakes and done things others dont agree with. There is no reason, other than some false dichotomy contrived because they had competing companies, that we can't look up to both men and appreciate the fantastic things they've each done for the world. Just as there is no reason why we can't look at the mistakes they've made and learn from them.

samstave 14y ago
Personally: both are amazing people, but only one appears to be a pompous dick. (Not knowing either, I only have hearsay and biographies to base some of my opinions on. Although, one is still producing data points)

neumann_alfred 14y ago

Not only did he build the worlds largest technology company With what tactics and strategies, though? he's making a global philanthropic impact. How would one measure the destruction Microsoft caused? The wasted time? The wasted money, the wasted lifes? I mean, if HNers can scream bloody murder about Shirley Hornstein "stealing jobs that would have gone to others" ( http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5135436 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5135436 ), surely that should enter into this as well. If someone takes with one hand and gives with the other, you can't just count the giving. Well you can, but I can't follow. Personally, I judge people solely by how they react to a pie to the face, and Bill Gates scored quite low on that.

digitalengineer 14y ago
Agreed on the tactics. Of course we've seen incredibly rich people set up charity funds before. Like Alfred Nobel who invented the peace price after he became wealthy because of his invention of the detonator for dynamite and nitroglycerin.
- ceelee 14y ago
  correction: dynamite was a significant stabilization of nitroglycerine by Nobel
ivany 14y ago
How would one measure the destruction Microsoft caused? The wasted time? The wasted money, the wasted lifes? Wat. I'm sure lots of work that gets done at Microsoft is misguided or redundant. Welcome to working at a big company. The pay is competitive and the environment, from what I hear, is some of the best in the software industry. It's not some sweatshop where you're forced to toil for pennies; I bet a lot of people here would enjoy and benefit from the experience of "wasting their lives" at MSFT for a few years.
- adaml_623 14y ago
  I think he meant the time 'wasted' or perhaps just used working with Microsoft Windows. Rebooting, configuring/reinstalling every few months, etc. Every reboot required during the install or upgrade of a Microsoft product multiplied by an install base of hundreds of millions of machines is a big number. (Not that this is really relevant to Bill Gates's work today)

meaty 14y ago

Agreed. Steve Jobs only did it for his ego.

adventured 14y ago
Jobs did it because he loved design. It's no more complex than that. The expression of his ego in running Apple was his style / approach toward implementing his vision for product design. It's how he figured out he could get things done the way he wanted them done. You can debate the merits of his approach, but so what. Nobody put a gun to anybody's head and made them work for him at Apple or NeXT.

melling 14y ago

Rather than debating who best to idol, wouldn't it be more useful to discuss Bill's work, how it's effective, and how it could be made better? It feels kind of weird sitting on the sidelines debating who's more appropriate to idol.