5 ms·

Shows that he believed in what he was doing, and kept at it no matter what. Sounds like he got dismissed by a LOT of people seemingly (from reading posts like y

by veb 12y ago

Shows that he believed in what he was doing, and kept at it no matter what. Sounds like he got dismissed by a LOT of people seemingly (from reading posts like yours, and other articles over the years). Pretty good effort I'd say! All I could think of after reading your post was: ouch!

r00fus 12y ago
Not to detract from his success, it also may have helped that he was financially independent (had a big safety net) having come from a wealthy family. Things are different if you're worried about putting food on the table a couple of months from now.
- shin_lao 12y ago
  You could also say that having a wealthy family was not an incentive to work hard. There is no rule to success.
- paulhauggis 12y ago
  If this really had anything to do with it, why did he keep going at all? After all, what's the point in trying to start a company if you already have a wealthy family and a safety net?
  - TeMPOraL 12y ago
    Because you want to, and not because you have to tread all the time to stay fed and sheltered.
    - paulhauggis 12y ago
      Yeah, well, this doesn't really make any sense. But you can continue to believe this.
    - adventured 12y ago
      This theory is invalidated by Paul Allen. They didn't have to worry about staying fed and sheltered, because they generated revenue immediately. They built a real business.
      - TeMPOraL 12y ago
        Maybe. But I was replying to the second part of paulhauggis's comment, and I still think the general point stands.
      - paulhauggis 12y ago
        Exactly. If you look at the kids of wealthy people that don't have to ever worry about money, they don't start their own businesses.
  - PhasmaFelis 12y ago
    "Money isn't the game. It's just how you keep score."
- jusben1369 12y ago
  It's certainly fine to never be interested in risking everything you have to take a chance and build a company. I get tired of those that chant that mantra as though that's the only way to have happiness in life. At the same time it seems insulting to boil Bill Gates down to "Well yeah he had a big nest egg so he could take chances" Anybody who builds something real and lasting stares down devastating financial and emotional defeat once if not multiple times during that time but perseveres.
- bsdpython 12y ago
  Nonsense. You are coming up with excuses for your own lot in life. Many people were given even better opportunities than Gates and had limited success. The guy is a genius, took huge risks, worked hard and had good fortune.
  - dang 12y ago
    > Nonsense. You are coming up with excuses for your own lot in life. Please don't make needlessly personal accusations in HN comments. This comment would be much better if it started from "Many people were given even better..." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html
    - throwawayaway 12y ago
      Much what now?
      - dang 12y ago
        Better! (Thanks—added.)
- ChuckMcM 12y ago
  I think that helps but as I've mentioned before there is a notion of 'fearlessness' that you get as the risk of losing your job becomes less of a catastrophe. Paying off your house for example adds a level of fearlessness because you know you can make enough to cover insurance and taxes, having enough saved for your kids college bills adds a level because you don't worry that some screw up of yours is going to disadvantage your kids, and having enough in the bank that you could continue to live in your paid off house without consuming principal, means that you really can take a huge risk and if it doesn't work out, just try something different. Having met Bill since that time in other contexts, it is clear to me that he had a much bigger picture in mind than my high school self could conceive of at the time. I'm not sure he forsaw all of what Microsoft became, but he saw a whole lot more in the future of microcomputers than I did.
- adventured 12y ago
  Gates & Allen were able to generate revenue almost from day one, to cover expenses for the business. Your theory is also decimated by Paul Allen. Those two never had to worry about starving to death, because they made sure to generate sales from the very beginning. Microsoft was started for peanuts, they lived on peanuts in New Mexico, they drove sales, and that was that. It would not have mattered if it was two Paul Allen's coming from a middle class background, or a Gates and Allen. One thing mattered: sales. You know why Allen wasn't afraid, despite lacking the Gates family money? He knew he had the ability to go get a well paying job at dozens of companies, he had a valuable skill.
  - xj9 12y ago
    This. Why would you start a business around a product nobody is interested in paying for? Doesn't make a lick of sense to me.
marktangotango 12y ago
The missing element here is: there were A LOT of small companies pushing microcomputer hardware and software products in the late 70's, Gates and Microsoft were pretty much indistinguishable from the field. Anecdota: My Father used to subscribe to the Wall Street journal during this time, and him and I observed the whole thing play out. There no indication, none what so ever that Microsoft would win out the way they did. It was all really remarkable.
- WalterBright 12y ago
  I and a number of my friends thought DEC would dominate the business! After all, DEC had an enormous head start with the LSI-11, RT-11, mature compilers, etc. I had an H-11 computer. If there ever was a computer company that squandered a golden opportunity, it was DEC.
- hyperpallium 12y ago
  But weren't they the first to sell software for personal computers? (of course, DOS was their big break)
  - rjaco31 12y ago
    It's more sheer luck with their deal with IBM for doing an OS (which wasn't even their core business).

by veb 12y ago

r00fus 12y ago

Not to detract from his success, it also may have helped that he was financially independent (had a big safety net) having come from a wealthy family. Things are different if you're worried about putting food on the table a couple of months from now.

shin_lao 12y ago
You could also say that having a wealthy family was not an incentive to work hard. There is no rule to success.
paulhauggis 12y ago
If this really had anything to do with it, why did he keep going at all? After all, what's the point in trying to start a company if you already have a wealthy family and a safety net?
- TeMPOraL 12y ago
  Because you want to, and not because you have to tread all the time to stay fed and sheltered.
  - paulhauggis 12y ago
    Yeah, well, this doesn't really make any sense. But you can continue to believe this.
  - adventured 12y ago
    This theory is invalidated by Paul Allen. They didn't have to worry about staying fed and sheltered, because they generated revenue immediately. They built a real business.
    - TeMPOraL 12y ago
      Maybe. But I was replying to the second part of paulhauggis's comment, and I still think the general point stands.
    - paulhauggis 12y ago
      Exactly. If you look at the kids of wealthy people that don't have to ever worry about money, they don't start their own businesses.
- PhasmaFelis 12y ago
  "Money isn't the game. It's just how you keep score."
jusben1369 12y ago
It's certainly fine to never be interested in risking everything you have to take a chance and build a company. I get tired of those that chant that mantra as though that's the only way to have happiness in life. At the same time it seems insulting to boil Bill Gates down to "Well yeah he had a big nest egg so he could take chances" Anybody who builds something real and lasting stares down devastating financial and emotional defeat once if not multiple times during that time but perseveres.
bsdpython 12y ago
Nonsense. You are coming up with excuses for your own lot in life. Many people were given even better opportunities than Gates and had limited success. The guy is a genius, took huge risks, worked hard and had good fortune.
- dang 12y ago
  > Nonsense. You are coming up with excuses for your own lot in life. Please don't make needlessly personal accusations in HN comments. This comment would be much better if it started from "Many people were given even better..." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html
  - throwawayaway 12y ago
    Much what now?
    - dang 12y ago
      Better! (Thanks—added.)
ChuckMcM 12y ago
I think that helps but as I've mentioned before there is a notion of 'fearlessness' that you get as the risk of losing your job becomes less of a catastrophe. Paying off your house for example adds a level of fearlessness because you know you can make enough to cover insurance and taxes, having enough saved for your kids college bills adds a level because you don't worry that some screw up of yours is going to disadvantage your kids, and having enough in the bank that you could continue to live in your paid off house without consuming principal, means that you really can take a huge risk and if it doesn't work out, just try something different. Having met Bill since that time in other contexts, it is clear to me that he had a much bigger picture in mind than my high school self could conceive of at the time. I'm not sure he forsaw all of what Microsoft became, but he saw a whole lot more in the future of microcomputers than I did.
adventured 12y ago
Gates & Allen were able to generate revenue almost from day one, to cover expenses for the business. Your theory is also decimated by Paul Allen. Those two never had to worry about starving to death, because they made sure to generate sales from the very beginning. Microsoft was started for peanuts, they lived on peanuts in New Mexico, they drove sales, and that was that. It would not have mattered if it was two Paul Allen's coming from a middle class background, or a Gates and Allen. One thing mattered: sales. You know why Allen wasn't afraid, despite lacking the Gates family money? He knew he had the ability to go get a well paying job at dozens of companies, he had a valuable skill.
- xj9 12y ago
  This. Why would you start a business around a product nobody is interested in paying for? Doesn't make a lick of sense to me.

marktangotango 12y ago

The missing element here is: there were A LOT of small companies pushing microcomputer hardware and software products in the late 70's, Gates and Microsoft were pretty much indistinguishable from the field. Anecdota: My Father used to subscribe to the Wall Street journal during this time, and him and I observed the whole thing play out. There no indication, none what so ever that Microsoft would win out the way they did. It was all really remarkable.

WalterBright 12y ago
I and a number of my friends thought DEC would dominate the business! After all, DEC had an enormous head start with the LSI-11, RT-11, mature compilers, etc. I had an H-11 computer. If there ever was a computer company that squandered a golden opportunity, it was DEC.
hyperpallium 12y ago
But weren't they the first to sell software for personal computers? (of course, DOS was their big break)
- rjaco31 12y ago
  It's more sheer luck with their deal with IBM for doing an OS (which wasn't even their core business).