Paul Allen's Microsoft Experience 515
theodp writes "Just in case Microsoft bashers don't have enough ammo, Robert X. Cringely has a couple of interesting tales in this week's column. The first explains how Bill Gates used Paul Allen's moonlighting at MITS to justify awarding himself 64% of Microsoft's stock vs. Allen's 36% (and Gates' failure to adjust the shares after he accepted a $10/hour part-time MITS job). The second heart-warming tale concerns a conversation Allen reportedly overheard late one night (as he was finishing up DOS 2.0) between Gates and Steve Ballmer discussing how to get Allen's Microsoft stock back if the Hodgkins disease Allen was battling killed him. Yikes."
Re:flamebate? (Score:5, Interesting)
It is a very interesting discuission. How would Microsoft be different if Paul Allen was 50% (or more) owner. The personality of the company be much different, that much is for sure. Would Microsoft have had the moxy to take over the PC world like it did? Would the architecture be even remotely like it is today?
It is fascinating to me how much history depends on a few descisions. While this one may not be the largest in the world, it certainly has had a big impact on the PC world.
A lot of this is old news (Score:3, Interesting)
OTH, many love going to Paul's because he really is a nice guy.
For every published story there are thousands more (Score:1, Interesting)
A person I know well and trust was a WordPerfect sales
rep at the big CeBit show in Germany, before Microsoft
knew how to do an exciting show. WordPerfect'sreps
were putting on a show that was drawing
huge crowds. But then were visited by thugs from
Microsoft who told them they would be killed if they
did not shut the show down immediately and go home.
So they did.
Eventually there was a letter of apology from Gates
over the incident. Really small-time thugery compared
to their corporate behavior, but you don't hear a lot
of the incidents publicly.
Re:Question for someone knowledgable (Score:5, Interesting)
Say MS had 1 million shares, bill has 64% or 640,000, allen has 360,000... They pass a rule stating that their 640000 aren't subject to dilution (IE any new stock issues they get 64% of) and then proceed to issue 100 million shares... they now have 64,000,000 shares, they stick 35,640,000 shares in a trust to be given to future employees (or sold on the market, or whatever) and allen is left with his 360,000 shares which are now 1/3 of 1% of the company. Thus, he (or his heirs) are effectively removed from any meaningful involvment in the company, and they don't have to give anything (cash or otherwise to them).
This would be totally legal, and 100% possible given majority voting rights.
Re:flamebate? (Score:5, Interesting)
My take is that Paul made the smart move here. Gates was the drive behind Microsoft and he wouldn't have gone full out, if he didn't have a big enough share. The bit about MITS was merely a pretext IMHO. As I mention elsewhere in this thread, the lion got the lion's share.
Re:flamebate? (Score:4, Interesting)
>How would Microsoft be different if Paul Allen was 50% (or more) owner.
Thats a great point, but do you really think this is the place that can insightfully discuss this?
You want a better story? How about this;
Apple's Finest Flip-Flops
http://www.wired.com/news/culture/mac/0,70546-0.h
Non-flamebait (unless you want to hang/defend Steve Jobs over everything he did in the past 15 years), interesting and tech-related.
The Cringely article is just fuel for hate on slashdot.
All of it (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:flamebate? (Score:5, Interesting)
Once Balmer was on board, Allen might not have been able to do much to influence Microsoft's culture.
Re:Question for someone knowledgable (Score:3, Interesting)
If I am wrong, please cite a source. I am always willing to be proven wrong
MS grew more evil when Ballmer stepped in (Score:5, Interesting)
After Ballmer stepped in, support for fringe platforms (i.e. not strictly PC-compatible) was pretty much dropped, up through 2.0, MS-DOS ran on quite a variety of 8086/8 boxes.
Now to think of it, MS dropping Xenix happened about this same time frame.
What I like is... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation? (Score:3, Interesting)
I dont think so.
While I was just a newbie in the tech world, I made a promise to myself that I will give 20 % of my salary to charity.
Well, I did too, for around 2 years.
After that my salary increased, and I started finding it extremely diffiicult to give the 20 % of THAT salary away.. The amount increased, you see..
And at that time I wasnt having any other obligations also.
After 1 more year, with an even more increase in salary, I stopped, completely.
Because, when you get good money, you tend to be more selfish.
I *am* weak.
Bill Gates is a better man than Paul Allen (Score:1, Interesting)
The world would probably be a better place if Gates had gotten full control in 82.
Re:Mod me as troll but... (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation? (Score:1, Interesting)
One of the advantages of the capatialst system, is that is does allow extreem wealth to be concentrated into the hands of those who know how to intelligently use it. Governments are notoriously poor at using capital. Rockerfeller philanthropies have created research that never would have existed, research that has saved and improved countless lives, research that never would have happened unless he used his business acumen to create the weatlh in the first place.
Re:Yikes??!! (Score:3, Interesting)
In the real, honest world, Gates and Ballmer go to Allen (and his wife?) and ask if they've done any estate planning, so that Allen's estate gets to keep the stock instead of having to sell it off to pay inheritance taxes.
Only truly Evil, greedy bastards try to legally steal someone's estate.
Re:flamebate? (Score:3, Interesting)
8. Consumers cool to Cube
The cube was a monumental flop. Not a 'major change to the entire industry', or 'different people in control', nor 'caving into expectations'. It was a disaster, unexpandable, underpowered and yanked after a year on the shelves, underselling. That is not the most shining example of a "feel for the pulse of the IT world". And "when they've made mistakes in the past, they've usually tried to move past them" - it's called survival.
7. Death to CRTs
Much the same. Perhaps becoming true, now, but saying that and then releasing a model 4 months later - ie it was in development even as he was proclaiming this - if it was so dead, why wasn't development killed / rejigged?
Workarounds (Score:4, Interesting)
Presumably Gates, Balmer and Allen had a certain class of shares, probably along with some other early investors, which were not held by the general shareholders.
So, for the fiscal year 1983 (after Allen left), they could create a new class of shares and match 1:1 with shares from the new class to shares in the old class, for people actively involved in the betterment of the company (not Allen) as an employee stock incentive. Then they could dillute the class of shares that Allen held, including Gates and Balmer's shares (but they don't care, they have the new class).
Of course, IANAPSM (I am not a professional stock manipulator), but it seems if there's a will there's a way.
Re:flamebate? (Score:5, Interesting)
I wouldn't call this a flip flop. At worst, it's putting out disinformation to confuse competitors. Disavowing video was part of the strategy.
Re:Guilt (Score:5, Interesting)
You have no idea how true that is. Heres what an expert in criminal psychology states about mafia hitmen, rapists and CEOs.
From here [fastcompany.com]:
According to the Canadian Press and Toronto Sun reporters who rescued the moment from obscurity, Hare began by talking about Mafia hit men and sex offenders, whose photos were projected on a large screen behind him. But then those images were replaced by pictures of top executives from WorldCom, which had just declared bankruptcy, and Enron, which imploded only months earlier. The securities frauds would eventually lead to long prison sentences for WorldCom CEO Bernard Ebbers and Enron CFO Andrew Fastow.
"These are callous, cold-blooded individuals," Hare said.
"They don't care that you have thoughts and feelings. They have no sense of guilt or remorse." He talked about the pain and suffering the corporate rogues had inflicted on thousands of people who had lost their jobs, or their life's savings. Some of those victims would succumb to heart attacks or commit suicide, he said.
Then Hare came out with a startling proposal. He said that the recent corporate scandals could have been prevented if CEOs were screened for psychopathic behavior. "Why wouldn't we want to screen them?" he asked. "We screen police officers, teachers. Why not people who are going to handle billions of dollars?"
"I always said that if I wasn't studying psychopaths in prison, I'd do it at the stock exchange," Hare told Fast Company.
Limited? (Score:2, Interesting)
Prehaps correct in the foretelling but completely off in the reasoning. If anything is going to kill Microsoft, it'll be OpenSource. Although, I doubt Microsoft will "die" but rather merely fade into an important but not critical role as IBM has.
Re:flamebate? (Score:3, Interesting)
Since they were his own assets, I'm pretty sure it's more than gauche. Technically, do they not fall to whomever he has them willed to?
In most jurisdictions, shares are inherited by next of kin. If you're running a tightly knit technology company, you may decide that in the event of your death, your partners shouldn't be subjected to the whims of your computer illiterate wife or your third uncle fifth removed. Trouble is, you cannot will these shares away to someone else without your next of kin's consent. At least usually, where the spouse is concerned.
There are plenty of inelegant ways of discussing how your dead partner's wife might make you miserable. Probably not something the dying partner should ever have to hear. But it's still a legitimate business concern.
Re:Flamebait MS bashing. (Score:1, Interesting)
I think what you just wrote could be the most intelligent piece of slashdot journ... ok I can't stop laughing.
Seriously, there's a reason he's published on PBS and you're not: He's interesting and actually cites his sources. He's perfectly contented to admit that he doesn't know that what he's saying is true, it's an unreliable source. And he makes it pretty clear that what he's saying is conjecture.
You on the other hand simply say things, pretend we all believe you, and then make guesses based on what other people do.
It's obvious Cringely doesn't like Microsoft. And it's obvious, to anyone who has eyes, ears, and a brain, that Microsoft has been reeling from law enforcement in the US and Europe, and now Korea as well. They're topping off on the Windows market, and Office is in ever present danger of not being worth $500 a license. Of course, Microsoft has several tricks of its sleeve: Realistically Office software is still pathetic (Office, OOo, and everything else). But we're not seeing people who find that pathetic software to be good enough as it is, and they're going to be price shopping: Microsoft has long sucked at meeting low prices.
They've tried to move into other markets and largely failed. XBox is pretty good, but that's about the end of it. Microsoft wants in the living room, of course, good luck guys: People put $30 DVD players and $200 DVD players in their living rooms. You made your fortune on cheap computers and now you're trying to sell high priced living room solutions (or just the software for them). And of course, consumer trust in PC's is so high, I'm sure Aunt Tilly wants a PC in her living room. Wanna know what she thinks? "Will I have to clean virus's off my VCR now?"
Microsoft isn't doomed. But they've peaked, and they're fighting endless legal battles. It's pretty obvious Microsoft isn't in its prime anymore.
And no one sells the vast majority of their shares in a company to invest elsewhere because they have confidence in the long term value of that stock. He sold his stock for a reason: He knows Microsoft is peaking.
Re:Standing in line at a drive-in window (Score:2, Interesting)
But seriously, one girlfriend, in high school, and her friends, after partying too much, "got the munchies" and grabbed a shopping cart and went through a drive in. To them it was uproariously funny. But to tell the truth, I never have heard of anyone walking through.
Speaking of Bill Gates, Ballmer, and Allen, I have a few words. Microsoft fanboys, cut the whining and give it a rest. Everytime any tantalizing gossip is written about Bill & co, sorry but this is fascinating. We may use Linux, abhor Visual Basic, but admire a fellow geek, even respect some of the Microsoft gadgets (Visual Studio, Office) and revel in funny stories - these guys are rock stars for geeks.
Cringely especially has a way with writing hilarious stuff like the time Bill was standing in line to buy a quart of ice cream, scrounging for a 25 cent coupon, when finally a shopper gave him the funds, saying "pay me back when you're a millionaire". True/false? Who cares, at minimum there's a hint of truth. Does it tell us more about the culture at Microsoft, when, as Cringley also writes, when Bill was questioned about developing software for the Apple, or Next (I forget), he said "Develop for it? I'll piss on it!".
So Bill was plotting how to get Allen's share back - that's probably 100% true, it makes sense, Bill is after all first and foremost a businessman, so stop with the hurt feelings. To chastise Cringely, or other slashdot posters as mud slingers is a bit disingenuous. Now Bill is a saint who gives to charities? Sure, very nice, but he's still out to make a buck, as Cringely puts it, to pocket every nickel he can. The whole charity thing is mom's idea anyway, it's great, but no fanboy whining or giving money away is going to change the fact that Bill & co are some pretty ruthless, tough competitors. Not Hitler, no, perhaps more like Genghis Khan [wikipedia.org] .
But as other posters have pointed out, perhaps Bill's arrogance and cutthroat attitude are his own downfall, as it is quite clear the very qualities of Microsoft that have given it it's toehold in the world, so far, are also great reasons why others are now choosing open source alternatives. Or maybe with Google, it really wouldn't matter at all what they did, but having old enemies like Eric Schmidt [com.com] call the shots at Google can't be helpful.
Re:Gates gave us opensource. (Score:3, Interesting)
What bothers me about the single menu issue the most is that it is something that Apple could easily make a display preferences type option and just keep the default like it is now.
Sometimes simplicity for its own sake is awesome (love my iPod) but sometimes it seems like the engineers/managers at Apple are just being smug dicks, since such an option would have no negative impact on those who didn't want to use it.
Re:flamebate? (Score:3, Interesting)