Do You Really Know Bill Gates? The Myth of Entrepreneur as Risk-Taker | Hacker News Reader

Do You Really Know Bill Gates? The Myth of Entrepreneur as Risk-Taker

fourhourworkweek.com

31 pointsidiotb11 comments

This is something a lot of people don't always see. For example, I spent 20 hours building a website and doing all the SEO, link generation,etc and then just let it sit. It had a bunch of fake products and now 2 or 3 months later people are now trying to place orders.

Now I can start devoting time to it and build out the infrastructure to support the website and business. I didn't jump and quit my job to see if it will work.

At the end of the day, when the money runs out you have to get a real job. The goal should be to take small-risk big-reward plays and lots of them until something catches.

Just curious: how did you decide what products to (pretend to) offer?

"The thought of Gates and Allen as the godfathers of a hacking subculture that has cost Microsoft and the world overall hundreds of billions of dollars does indeed boggle the mind."

Lulwat? Talk about somebody not knowing their history.

In what sense? What he mean was 'G&A did the same computer vandalism that has cost the world $bb since then'. Which, even if a bit dramatic and un-nuanced, is not really wrong.

"the godfathers of a hacking subculture"

The "hacking subculture" had it's roots way before Gates and Allen, and in completely different social circles. The effect of the comment is to mis-attributed something that was much bigger than them.

The Gates story reads like it was mostly cribbed from the Wikipedia entry and dates from[2009]. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_gates#Early_life

Malcolm Gladwell wrote a similar article in the New Yorker:

http://www.gladwell.com/2010/2010_01_18_a_surething.html

Ambition is the overriding characteristic that Gates has in such abundance and most people lack. Gates was lucky to have had so much support but probably would have taken more risk if he had been forced to.

The amount of risks that Bill Gates would have (supposedly) been wiling to take (due to his superhuman ambition) doesn't make a difference. The support he had allowed his risks to actually come to some end and would have helped him survive failure should it have come to that. There is nothing in the history of Bill Gates that suggests that Microsoft was successful due to it's competitors' lack of ambition.

> probably would have taken more risk if he had been forced to.

If you are born on top of what amounts to be, effectively, an infinite pile of money (you know you will never actually be poor, no matter how terribly your business fails) are you really taking a risk? Most people who open businesses do so based on a sometimes wrong assumption the business will be able to sustain them and their families.

I believe the PC-DOS deal (without which Microsoft would be a footnote) stems from Microsoft's role in the BASIC interpreter built into the PC's ROM rather than an indirect intervention from Mary Gates. The BASIC deal, however, is somewhat attributed to her.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com