Secret of Bill Gates Success ..?? 9

[RushiShroff]

It says that there are thousands of people who are more hardworking and brillient but ultimately "Destiny" is the supreme force.

What are the factors lying behind the success of Bill Gates ?

He is having 12 % stack in Microsoft.The partnership for
12 % is really something.What makes him deserve this ? Rushi Shroff Rushi@emqube.com
"Life is beautiful."

 

[garwain]

my opinion... he doesn't deserve it.

The only reason he got where he is is that he was in the right place at the right time. He made some risky decisions that paid off. He managed to get contracts with key players in the market so that windows was made the standard OS, and then got so big that the little guys now who have superior OSs can't get their foot in the door. BEOS is a good example. Great OS, but the management didn't even try to compete.

From what I've read, it seems like there is a good possibility that code has even been placed into the OS that will make other software unable to work as efficiently. Lotus apparently is supposed to be able to read ms office formats, but can't get the same response time.

Microsoft releases several versions of a program before its really ready to market, then sell upgrades for people to upgrade to the latest version. If a person buys window95 and upgrades to 98 the to 98SE and something messes up, then that's 3 times the work, so they might go out and get a 98SE full cd to save installing 3 cds to get the same thing. Now microsoft has sold 4x the software and the user has 3 cds that will never be used again. MS releases winME and the user upgrades thinking it'll be better just to find out that win2K would do a better job at meeting their needs. another useless cd sitting around. Now XP comes along with advertising saying it's the best product. It's so easy to use, etc, etc, etc. so a user goes out and buys that. (apply same concepts for MS Office)

With most of the computer users focused on MS products companies either have to shell out for multiple copies for their computers or buy a site licence. The users don't want to learn another OS so to get the most out of the server, the company needs to run a winnt or win2k server...

Software developers need to write software that will run on the OS that is used by the masses, which means they need compilers that generated windows compatible code... Enter VB, VC++, VJ++ all ms products...

Now with so many people running MS products you need technicians that can support them, which has led to MSCE and other such certifications. People pay thousands of dollars to get these to be able to prove they know what they are doing, more money going to MS.

My opinion is that Big Brothe.. I mean Bill deserves credit for being ahead of his time, and a great marketer for his products, but now he has gotten too big for his britches. It's time for something to stir up the market to blaze a trail for the next generation. If we don't do something to cut him down to size he will continue to force his way into all sectors of life.

I don't want my toaster to use a MS operating system, and I'd be happy to be able to completely remove the windows virus from my life, but I'm forced to work with the products that the my clients rely on. I can't go into a company and tell them to switch to linux and run openoffice they'll just roll their eyeballs and continue the way they are because it'll require too much time to retrain their staff to use a new setup (even after pointing out how much money could be saved by not needing to buy all the M$ products)

One last time, this is mostly a matter of opinion. Feel free to debate it, but it's not likely that you will change my opinion. I have no love for bill or microsoft. I do respect that bill managed to take his company where no company has gone before, but I disagree with the methods that have allowed him to corner the market. If Levis jeans were to force their way to the top so that LA BLUE, SGT Pepper,etc loose their hold and I have to get my jeans from only the smallest stores, where I can't get the hemmed for me, I'd be ticked off about that in the same way... well at least I wouldn't have to stare at my jeans all day but the best comparison I could think of at the time...

 

[MasterRacker]

Whether you love or hate MS's products and or practices is immaterial to this question. Bill deserves whatever percentage he owns because he and Paul Allen founded the company and that's the portion he has decided to keep.
Jeff
Working in IT is like trying to commit suicide with a very small hammer ....

 

[garwain]

the question finished off with "What makes him deserve this?"

I agree that love/hate for the products can't justify the answer, however the practices of the company DO factor in. Bill as head of M$ is the one who gives the go ahead or hold for any major decision, which makes it his ethics at play.

Asking if he deserves it is a wide open question. Legally sure he holds the stocks so he is entitled to what it pays him. Ethically there are a lot of shady issues clouding the waters. My point was that I don't believe that he is ethicaly deserving of his billion.

 

[ponderworks]

You left out the fact that while the company products might be mediocre, they are an incredible marketing machine. If anything got them where there are today it is...

1. Outstanding marketing
2. Really, really, dumb competitors.

Over the years there have been so many examples of this (IBM, Lotus, Apple, etc) that there isn't enough space to do it all justice.

But, and I hate to say this, he didn't just earn what he has, we all gave it to him. And continue to do so. How many use non-MS products at home?

 

[garwain]

I still belive that it was more luck than anything that got him the deals so that he could get his foot into the door of almost every house in the world.

No marketing strategy will work for the salesman if you customer is able to slam the door in his face. IBM shipping dos then windows on all their machines was this foot in the door.

I'll quickly agree on the dumb competitors (refrence BEOS in first paragraph of my first post...), however now that there are good alternatives, most of the users have already been conditioned to believe that MS is the only choice.

I for one use mostly non-MS products (grudingly switch back when a client needs a program in VB modified, or an ASP script developed) But this question can also be switched around to: How many non-MS products have been taken over by MS and either converted into a MS product or shut down? Also how many people use IE over netscape or other browsers due to IE being so heavily integrated into window that they can't excape it anyway?

 

[sheronne]

What many people overlook is, Bill Gates had a factor that many startup businesses DO NOT have, MONEY! Bill Gates had money long before Microsoft, so it was much easier for him to finance a business. Other companies have to have a product to gain financial backing, whereas he had money to develop a product.

Does he deserve a 12% stake. Well, Bill Gates has approximately 640,000,000 shares. Adjusted for splits the IPO would be approx. 14 cents a share. That represents a $90,000,000 investment that has paid of and is now worth billions of dollars. Is he to fault for this?

 

[gwinn7]

Actually, he really didn't have money at that time. As I understand it, they needed Paul Allen to mortgage a home in order to purchase what is now called, "DOS", for about $50,000. So, what other money are you referring to?

Gary
gwinn7

 

[sheronne]

Read the first part of this website:

http://philip.greenspun.com/bg/

It is pretty interesting. This is the wealth I was referring to.

 

[AndrewBillits]

I completely agree with garwain. It was pure luck and nothing else. I am still getting chewed out by clients when I tell them that linux does about the same thing on it's own scael and costs less.(they now even have a desktop OS package, MSNBC)

 

[RushiShroff]

Dear sheronne ,
really good link.Thanks for that. Rushi Shroff Rushi@emqube.com
"Life is beautiful."

 

[kregh99]

There are 2 reasons behind the monolith that is Bill Gates:
- He takes gambles
- He is utterly ruthless

The big gamble he took was when he contracted with IBM without an operating system to put on the PC's they were going to roll out. He then acquired (not wrote, acquired) DOS and the rest is history.

He is ruthless in that anyone who tries to compete better get their attorney involved first, or have such an alternative business plan (a la Linux) that it just infuriates the crap out of him that he can't go up against it. You can't go up against MS with their own business model and win. You also can't battle him legally. You'll be dead before any verdict with meaning is rendered.

 

[MDXer]

The manner in which Bill Gates has approached business is nothing new. It is infact a very old business plan, To be the Largest and Most Powerful Player in the market. Some of the most powerful men in US history approached business in the same manner. These men are now respected historical figures whose families are among the elite of the richest. Men such as JP Morgan, John D. Rockefeller , Cornelius Vanderbilt, Andrew Carnegie it was people like these that brought business to the level it is now. Powerful Business men have always tried to find a way to keep as much business as possible with themselves. Does Bill Gates Deserve the stake he has in MS? By all means. He was willing to take a risk and by taking this risk he was able to do something many people wouldn't have believed possible.

As for the people bitching about Microsoft and there products the answer is easy don't use or support them. But your clients will only use MS products? Then take a risk and find new clients who are more open to alternatives, or are linux or unix shops. If your opposed to MS Business practices yet you still make a living off MS products then what does that say about your ethics?

"Shoot Me! Shoot Me NOW!!!"
- Daffy Duck

 

[GwydionM]

Like Henry Ford, Bill Gates was lucky to be in the right place at the right time. And better than everyone else who happened to be there, a small sample of humanity.

Bill Gates was also lucky that IBM had been mauled by an anti-trust suit. And therefore did not buy up MS-DOS, when he would have been quite happy to sell.

 

[cwivy]

Interesting reading..... many of you owe what you do to Bill Gates and what developed from what he and Paul started. I started selling IBM pc's when they came out and made money. No money that Bill Gates took money out of my pocket or food out of my kids' mouths. In fact, to the contrary.... a few of you sound like you are part of the fast developing socialist groups here in the states. Stop your whining, thank God and Bill Gates for your jobs and go and convince people to use linux..... but don't complain when the hoards don't follow you immediately. Viva capitalism, nothing else works as it does.

 

[Breadcrust]

stop your whining? bill gates sucks billions of dollars out of people who dont know any better. btw, i agree, the only reason gates got to where he is is because of gambles, and he was a lucky gambler.

btw, that think about thanking god was stupid. some of us dont follow religion with a one and only god. can you prove god exists let alone control our lives? anyway, i dont want to start discussing religion so ill leave that matter alone now.

[tt]
Breadcrust (aka J@red)

Web -

http://www.bcwebnet.tk

E-mail - net-head@softhome.net
Linux Reg. Number - 307180 (

http://counter.li.org)

[/tt]

 

[GwydionM]

Bill Gates succeedes because he intentionally sells things at below cost price, to put rivals out of business. Sometimes he gives them away, as with internet browsers and other stuff that was 'bundled' with Windows.

It's a simple fact that big rich corporations do not have to play by the official rules of capitalism.

 

[jrbarnett]

GwydionM,

It may be true that Internet Explorer/Outlook express and other applications such as Movie maker are given away, and that MS definitely makes a profit on other products such as Office and Windows operating systems, but how does this differ from say open source or free software which must cost money to develop, but is given away for free because the developers choose to, or non MS commercial software sold at a profit such as products from Adobe, Macromedia or Lotus/IBM, to name but a few. They can set the prices for their products to what the market will bear.

The big hole in this argument I can hear you saying is it's true that those companies don't develop the operating system that the software runs as well, so for another analogy try this:

I don't know much about Macs and haven't used them for ages, but have heard that Apple make and market a lot of their own software, which used to be sold under the Claris brand.
How is this different to the MS stranglehold? Nobody requires you to run ClarisWorks or MacWrite (sorry if these products are no longer produced, as I said it's a while since I've used them). If anything, it's worse, because Apple make the hardware, if you had to have a Microsoft PC to run Microsoft IE and Office on Microsoft Windows then the stranglehold would be even worse.

John

 

[gabbosgold]

Interesting comments from all of you. Bill Gates has only 24 hours in his day too! He puts his pants on one leg at a time just as we do. The most that I know about him came from a movie called "Pirates of Silicone Valley". Least we not forget that he and Melinda are also the top philanthropist in the world ? Microsoft has always been committed to helping the less fortunate. If you search really deep into the microsoft site, you will see that he has certainly justified his lifestyle in todays technological world. I admire the man, but never plan to envy his way. Figure it out !

gabbosgold

 

[Cagliostro]

I think the Secret of BillGates success is not a secret.
1. Know well how and what to do with money
2. Be smart
3. Hard work
4. Be organized
5. Don't trust in luck
6. Be a bit aggressive
7. Have powerful relationship
8. ....

Ion Filipski