A Bill Gates Comeback?
tech.fortune.cnn.com
tech.fortune.cnn.com
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.
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.
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...
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.
> 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.
It's hard to imagine a less reliable source. And that sentence is the only real news in the article!
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.
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.
"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?
"Any headline which ends in a question mark can be answered by the word 'no'".
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?
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.
> 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.
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...
The software industry doesn't need fixing - I hope Gates continues to focus his energy in these other areas.
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?
And that is what this story was build on? A hear-hear-say?
Wow.