▲ 52 points
back
32 comments
To echo what some others have already said, I don't see how coming back to Microsoft could be more personally satisfying for Gates than what he's doing now. Sure, it would probably feel pretty nice if he could right the ship and get lauded in the same way Jobs has been as of late.
Let's be honest though: the stuff Gates is doing today is way more important than any of the things Jobs did over the last decade. We can argue about the relative merits of disrupting the cell phone handset industry and tablet computing, long-tail effects thereof and the like, but at the end of the day the best you can argue is that it will have trickle-down effects for the poor and disadvantaged.
Gates, on the other hand, is working on goals to directly improve the lives of people. And the people his foundation is trying to help tends to be the folks who need help the most, not people who can afford expensive mobile phones and even more expensive mobile phone rate plans. Gates is no saint by any means, but I can't see how after working on such big-picture issues, he'd want to come back and run a business.
Not to mention, it would probably be a big loss for his foundation. He didn't just pour in the money for it, he engages fiercely with governments and organizations for specific measurable goals with just as much passion as business. Philanthropy may not sound exciting to techies, but at the scale he's doing it (his ambition is to reduce the global death toll from diseases by 80%) it must be pretty challenging.
And another thing: Gates led microsoft in its two most exciting eras (the PC and the Internet). Both of these sectors have now been commoditized, leaving little space for revolution (tablets? meh).
http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2011/11/02/the-sec...
What do you mean little space for revolution? I bet no one thought the PC, Internet or tablet markets would take off long before the fact. It is called a revolution exactly because it is unexpected.
Exactly. I didn't fully grasp this until I read some of Bill's letters on what he's working on now.
http://www.gatesfoundation.org/annual-letter/2011/Pages/home...
Without considering it, one might think that with billions of dollars, accomplishing any task should be a rather straightforward issue. Reading his letters provides a view on how much work and how big their challenges are.
Some counterpoints to consider:
I had considered that -- there's plenty of evidence to support the idea that "charity" doesn't often help achieve big picture goals like substantially decreasing poverty.
That said, a lot of the things his foundation is working on are more immediate-need types of issues, like access to doctors and medication for malaria and other diseases. In these venues, charities can have a much bigger, more immediate impact than trying to grow a market to deal with the issue.
Less poverty and diseases beats a better version of Microsoft <Product> any day.
let's not forget about energy http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2011/12/07/technolog... and since it's also still in the tech dept., I fail to see how comming back to run desktop/mobile OS business could be an attractive option to him.
> Let's be honest though: the stuff Gates is doing today is
> way more important than any of the things Jobs did over
> the last decade.
Exactly! Jobs is great but Gates' work is so much more important then Jobs' iPhone that it's incomparable.
One prominent chief executive told Fortune he'd heard from someone close to Gates that he might be considering such a move.
It's hard to imagine a less reliable source. And that sentence is the only real news in the article!
That's a news speak for "Balmer said that Gates told him" but he wouldn't be cited on the record.
How did u conclude that?
Obviously this is mere speculation.
But this is a device often used in media, when somebody would like to release some information, but would obviously loose face doing so in person.
Whenever you read/hear that "sources close to X said...", It usually means that X said it, but would not be cited on the record. It's all about plausible denial and controlling one's image.
The device can be used to prepare public for some unpopular shift of policy, to test the reaction of people to information or just to prepare ground for some change.
Without any source whatsoever other than what I can dream up (which is better than some unnamed chief executive), I think this is bullshit. Bill Gates is now looking at building a reputation worthy of Mother Teresa PLUS Andrew Carnegie; why does he need to be CEO of Microsoft again.
Maybe if the stock price was going to completely tank, which would affect his foundation, he would consider coming back. But the stock shouldn't do that; the company is still remarkably profitable.
Somehow,
"Bill, would you consider returning to lead Microsoft?"
"No."
Became a 1000 word article. Amazing.
The "HN Dream" has always seemed to be:
1) Make a startup
2) Strike it rich
3) Acquire millions (billions? I forget which is "cool")
4) With [bm]illions, change the world
Gates personifies that. Why on Earth would he backtrack to step 1 again?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridges_Law_of_Headlines
"Any headline which ends in a question mark can be answered by the word 'no'".
You know, in the 90s and early part of the last decade, I felt way too bitter about Bill Gates. I didn't like Microsoft's business practices and I certainly didn't like their software. Being young and full of piss & vinegar, I seethed with rage.
Now I'm older and Bill Gates has become one of the public figures I most respect. He's changing the world in ways that matter far more than Steve Jobs or Michael Dell ever did. Schultz and the rest should be jealous of him.
This a man who talks seriously and realistically about eliminating malaria. How does selling more or better enterprise software begin to compare with getting up in the morning and knowing that what you do that day will give thousands of children a chance at life?
Rather see Gates start a nuclear energy company, with radical new designs that focus on safety, widely distributed, low cost, zero emissions.
He's invested in such companies, but I'd love to see him really push it as CEO. He's done/doing great philanthropic work in the 3rd world. Cheap, clean, and available electrical power would do wonders for poor countries. 1MW nuclear reactor in a shipping container, runs for 30 years with no maintenance, no harmful radioactive waste? It could happen if we stop chasing foolish "green" energy windmills and solar panels.
I agreed with you right up to the last sentence.
> It could happen if we stop chasing foolish "green" energy windmills and solar panels.
What? How are the two things even related at all? How are solar panels foolish? Why put "green" in quotes?
The reason that nuclear power isn't getting the attention it deserves is not that other 'alternative energy' projects get the attention. It's much more that governments and corporations are locked in to dirty energy and are having a tough time getting out.
Don't blame nuclear's current failures on solar panels.
I would argue that ethanol subsidies are currently a barrier to wiser energy policies, however.
Ethanol subsidies are terrible. We need to stop holding presidential primaries in Iowa.
Or just randomize the order you hold them in.
Covering millions of acres of land with windmills isn't green to me. At worst windfarms kill wildlife, destroy property values, create noise pollution, create shadow flicker. At best they turn a natural landscape into an industrial zone for the sake of unreliable power that has no immediate future chance of being practical. Ditto for solar. The future is not centralized power generation that eats up vast amounts of land, and then transmitting the power thousands of miles on wires where the majority of it is lost.
Nuclear isn't getting attention because of irrational fear that liberals and the government promote. Gates would have a tough job, but he's someone with the resources to lobby govt, and get trusted and respected people to start taking nuclear seriously.
Perhaps after Gates starts building these reactors in other countries, the green zealots will finally get discredited. Seriously, why is someone with billions of dollars, huge influence and power, and a strong advocate of reducing carbon emissions, why is he NOT building a solar and wind power company? And why is it that the people who are making money off solar and wind seem to get all their profits through government subsidies?
http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/Bill-Ga...
Gates' recent initiatives in energy, education and health are interesting. We need more leaders who can envision and execute projects that will make a positive impact.
The software industry doesn't need fixing - I hope Gates continues to focus his energy in these other areas.
Eh. Microsoft might not be as dominant in the post-Gates era, but their products are more user-friendly without his narrow focus, their developer relations are more cordial, their platform choices are more standards-conscious.
I think the first thing journalists need to realize is that people like Gates, Jobs, and Page don't care about short-term effects on stock price. The only reason you'd care about that is if you were in a pump-and-dump.
Microsoft may not be "cool" anymore, but it's the biggest and most profitable enterprise software company and it's a business that will last. What more would Gates want?
Besides that, I would be surprised if he didn't enjoy philanthropy substantially more than running a software company.
I couldn't imagine anything more depressing for Gates. I believe he has moved on and found something more rewarding to do with his time.
He should run for President instead.
What do you expect Bill Gates to do as president? Convince Congress to fix healthcare with a brilliant solution he came up with? It would get crushed because it does not preserve the power of and bribe the powers that be.
One prominent chief executive told Fortune he'd heard from someone close to Gates that he might be considering such a move.
And that is what this story was build on? A hear-hear-say?
Wow.