Ask HN: Who among the current lot is in the league of Bill Gates, Steve Jobs? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: Who among the current lot is in the league of Bill Gates, Steve Jobs?

16 pointsdeepaksurti17 comments

Very few people actually know about Robert Pera. He's the founder of Ubiquiti Networks, and former Hardware Engineer @ Apple. Currently valued at $4Bn, he achieved his first billion within 8 years of starting his company.

Here are some guesses, based on the success of the companies they founded. My list has some overlap with the one from @kevindeasis:

Satoshi Nakamoto (Bitcoin)

Vitalik Buterin (Ethereum)

Jack Ma (Alibaba)

Robin Li (Baidu)

Ma Huateng (Tencent)

Lei Jun (Xiaomi)

Evan Spiegal (Snapchat)

Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook)

Travis Kalanick (Uber)*

Brian Chesky (Airbnb)

Peter Thiel (Palantir)

Jeff Bezos (Amazon)

Elon Musk (SpaceX)

Drew Houston (Dropbox)

Frank Wang (DJI)

Marc Benioff (Salesforce)

Sachin Binsal and/or Binny Bansal (Flipkart)

David Duffield (Workday)

(*Disclosure: I am a former Uber employee.)

In below link you can find self made billionaires (if thats what you mean by the league). https://www.inc.com/business-insider/worlds-youngest-self-ma...

I'm afraid this list is outdated coz it values Elizabeth Holmes at $4.3Bn. Forbes downgraded her value to zero dollars last year.

Jack Ma would probably be the next fit for that category. Visionary, and head of a conglomerate.

Some of them that kinda fits in your category are Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Vitalik Buterin, Satoshi Nakamoto, Larry Page & Sergey Brin, Ma Huateng, Jack Ma, Robin Li, Andreessen Horowitz, Marc Andreessen, Peter Thiel.

Please explain what "league" means, and why the obvious choices of Musk, Zuckerberg, Bezos, Brin and Page - I assume that 'current lot' means 'new tech billionaires' - aren't in that league.

Brin and Page are IMO the best benchmark. Gates and Jobs aren't necessarily repeatable successes, as in VCs don't look for people like them to try to replicate success.

"Repeatable successes"?

If that's your standard then why is Gates on the list? Hasn't he only had one success?

By comparison, Jim Clark founded Silicon Graphics (max market cap of $7 billion dollars in 1995), Netscape (bought by AOL for a stock-swap of $10 billion), and Healtheon (Healtheon/WebMD had a market cap of more than $15 billion at its peak).

Markkula provided angel investment because the Valentine didn't want to provide VC funding.

Don't VCs look exactly for someone like the early Gates? That is, 20-year-old white males from rich, well-educated families, who go to prestigious colleges?

I don't think Microsoft ever needed external funding.

Microsoft never needed external funding but they took $1M from certain VCs for networking reasons. I remember that in a relatively recent stage interview at Harvard, Gates said that that $1M was still at the bank.

Only one success?

Are you ignorant? MSDOS, Windows, Word, Microsoft Programming Suite, Azure, XBox, MSQL, Excel, Flight Simulator, Exchange Server, Surface, Explorer, C#

Microsoft has had many successes and keeps finding ways to reinvent itself.

No, I am not ignorant.

I believe the original context was looking for "success" as it relates to VC funding, that is, people who are successful at starting or leading startup companies and bringing them to a successful IPO or buyout. That's the type of people that VCs want to work with.

Gates didn't take (much) VC money, and VCs aren't going to look for people who plan to bootstrap to success. In this context, I regard Microsoft as one success, even though the company had many successful products.

Jobs was successful with Apple and Pixar; the first was angel funded and the second was mostly funded by Jobs' wealth. Still, I count that as two successes, even though Apple certainly had many successful products while Jobs was CEO.

Many people have had one success (by VC standards), but not been able to have another success. Jim Clark has had three such successes.

By some measure Gates has none, as he bought a product and called it MS-DOS1, with the profits of that hired other people to make everything else. Zuckerberg at least personally made the thefacebook complete with algorithms a friend drew on a window.

That is not a correct interpretation.

Microsoft started as a programming languages company in 1975, first with Altair BASIC and then variants of Microsoft BASIC (Applesoft BASIC, Commodore BASIC, IBM Cassette BASIC, etc.).

Gates was a co-author of Altair BASIC.

That provided the funding to help it spread into other fields. It entered the OS field in 1980 with Xenix, which was the OS that Microsoft Word was originally developed for. The MS-DOS work for IBM didn't start until 1981, six years after the company was founded.

OP here: More context: When I say league, I mean in terms of having a vision, articulating and executing it. All other things being equal, both BG and SJ played a major role in making computers ubiquitous through their companies. So financial success is not a huge parameter in here.

My 2$: I think next such impactful visionaries might be those who make AR and VR mainstream. Only my personal opinion, MZ and JB are not in the same league (with due respect to their hard work and intelligence) thus far.

From a non-financial POV:

Elon Musk, John Carmack and Satya Nadella.

What puts Satya Nadella in this category? Not challenging your opinion, I'm just not familiar with his accomplishments aside from the fact that he's the CEO of Microsoft and I think it would be interesting to learn more.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com