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."
flamebate? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:flamebate? (Score:2, Informative)
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.
Re:flamebate? (Score:2)
And that would be interesting discussion. The summary, however, doesn't even come close to that as a possibility.
The summary is definitely flamebait.
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:3, Insightful)
Re:flamebate? (Score:3, Insightful)
While Gates is often claimed to be a technical genius because he wrote a basic interpreter for some obscure hardware without ever seeing the machine, he could only do so because Allen wrote a program to emulate said machine
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.
Re:flamebate? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:flamebate? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:flamebate? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:flamebate? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:flamebate? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
let's examine these one at a time. (Score:5, Insightful)
Disclaimer: I was a PC user up until a couple of months ago, when I got a powerbook. I've barely used another computer since.
10. Apple II Forever: The 1984 introduction of the compact Apple IIc, at a boisterous celebration in San Francisco's Moscone Center, is interrupted by a magnitude 6.2 earthquake. The party, called "Apple II Forever," doesn't miss a beat because loyal Apple II users are already shaken up by their belief the company is focusing too much on the Macintosh, even though the Apple II is generating the bulk of sales and profit.
Unfortunately, nothing is forever, not even the Apple II -- although it comes close. On Nov. 15, 1993, more than 16 years after it was introduced, and with over 5 million units shipped, Apple quietly drops the last of the line, the Apple IIe. As a gesture to the faithful, Apple continues offering Apple II technology through an expansion card for some early Mac LC and Performa models.
What type of computer
sells well
for 8 YEARS?
I mean, seriously, am I the only one that thinks that's one hell of a long time for them to be selling what's essentially the same computer? It most likely got too expensive for them to keep selling it, and they dropped it.
9. Portable predictions: Apple chief Steve Jobs is lauded for his forward thinking, but he misses the boat on notebook computers. "(Smaller portables) are OK if you're a reporter and trying to take notes on the run," he tells Playboy magazine in February 1985. "But for the average person, they're really not that useful, and there's not all that much software for them, either."
He eventually changes his tune but Apple's first stab at a laptop, a 15.8-pound behemoth dubbed the Macintosh Portable, isn't much to write home about. Apple finally gets it right in 1991 when it introduces the truly portable PowerBook. Despite the PowerBook's popularity, a dozen years pass before Jobs declares 2003 "the year of the notebook" for Apple. "Many users are going to wonder why they even need a desktop computer anymore," he says then.
I'm not that old, and I can't really remember 1985, so I can't say for certain. But I gather from his quote that all the "portables" in that day resembled somewhat different hardware and software configurations to their desktop equivalants. I doubt that the macintosh in that form could be minaturized to a "portable" in 1985, either.
By the 1990s, there were companies selling laptops with 68k processors, that, with the addition of a ROM chip ripped from a mac, could run Mac OS. This arrangement was, obviously, very expensive for anyone who wanted an apple laptop, yet these clones were still selling. Did apple really have a choice about it?
8. Consumers cool to Cube: Never one to shy away from hyperbole, Jobs pronounces the G4 Cube as "simply the coolest computer ever" at Macworld New York in 2000. Apple gushes over its latest creation: "An entirely new class of computer, it marries the Pentium-crushing performance of the Power Mac G4 with the miniaturization, silent operation and elegant desktop design of the iMac. It is an amazing engineering and design feat, and we're thrilled to finally unveil it to our customers."
It doesn't turn out to be all that cool. Although praised for Jonathan Ive's innovative industrial design, the Cube fails to catch on with creative professionals because it's too expensive ($1,800), not powerful enough (450 MHz) and hard to upgrade. The Cube is put on ice in July 2001.
The cube was cool. Admit it. It had problems. I can admit that. It wasn't selling, so it was cancelled.
I will take a break at this point to point out that two of these three are nothing other than apple discontinuing products because they weren't selling. Yeah, shocking, isn't it.
What's next? Oooh, a real one.
7. Death to CRTs: Introducing the flat-panel iMac at Macworld San Francisc
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:flamebate? (Score:5, Interesting)
Once Balmer was on board, Allen might not have been able to do much to influence Microsoft's culture.
Re:flamebate? (Score:5, Funny)
Wow, you must really hate Microsoft.
Gates gave us opensource. (Score:5, Insightful)
This bad attitude is at the center of the poor customer support, poorly designed and implemented products, and general lack of concern for what effect they're having on their customers and society at large. If Paul Allen had kept the reigns of the PC revolution the entire world could be a very different place now.
By being so extremist in his position Bill Gates created his own worst enemy in the form of free opensource software. It was his influence that created the need for a counter-influence. Someone more centered would never have created such a strong counter-culture.
Apple had a similar experience between Jobs and Woz though so maybe it's just something that was bound to happen.
Re:Gates gave us opensource. (Score:3, Insightful)
To be more precise, Gates added fuel to the fire that made Open Source / Free Software the force to be reckoned with. Many years before Microsoft became an important force in the world of computing, Richard Stallman at the MIT AI lab experienced that now famous spat with proprietary printer software [gnu.org] from Xerox, which is similar to your own experiences with Microsoft software, that eventually led to the creation of the GNU Project. Gates basically, with his heavy handed attitude, made this an issue that aff
Re:Gates gave us opensource. (Score:3, Insightful)
"The consumers pick the level of quality in their products by what they purchase."
I must disagree here. Patents and copyrights are the real controlling factors. You can't make a true clone of Photoshop and open-source it, can you? The Gimp is as close as you can get to a PS clone to my knowledge and it's far from being a true PS clone, simply because they can't make one, let alone anything that's actually better.
Marketing is another important factor - where would we be now if Windows hadn't been market
Re:Gates gave us opensource. (Score:5, Funny)
I think you've got your pink glasses on there, mate.
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
Re:Gates gave us opensource. (Score:3, Insightful)
Something that is almost universally faster...
As I use the mouse in the left hand, that means a clumsy grip. Or the same issue of seconds lost.
...Unless of course you're a lefty. Bugger.
Personally, in your position, I'd train myself to use the mouse right-handed. Basically all keyboard+mouse acceleration shortcuts are designed under the assumption the user
Re:flamebate? (Score:2)
Second, while it's socially gauche to talk about a dying employee's stock shares while the employee is in earshot, the issue was an important one. I'm not seeing the story.
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 cons
Now, Knowing this... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Now, Knowing this... (Score:2)
In all seriousness.. he probably uses a Mac.
Re:Now, Knowing this... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Now, Knowing this... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Now, Knowing this... (Score:3, Funny)
I think that's because he got the little car. [angelfire.com] Fittingly, I got the boot.
Re:Now, Knowing this... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Now, Knowing this... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yikes??!! (Score:4, Insightful)
First of all, Cringely doesn't even attribute this information to a real source in his article, so there is no way anybody can even verify this. He just says two good sources, which mean almost nothing.
The second thing is, this sort of planning happens all the time at every big company. I know most of the slashbots probably never worked a real job, but it's good planning in the corporate world to know plan for where such a huge share of stock is going to go.
In short, this article is such a hack job looking for biters, I don't even know why it was posted to slashdot. Wait, actually this was a perfect article for slashdot.
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 bastar
Question for someone knowledgable (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Question for someone knowledgable (Score:3, Insightful)
I think that simply having the majority voting rights would have enabled them to get this type of rule passed, but I am not 100% positive.
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:Question for someone knowledgable (Score:3, Interesting)
If I am wrong, please cite a source. I am always willing to be proven wrong
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:Question for someone knowledgable (Score:5, Informative)
Majority rule is not the only rule. Nor is it the most important.
Not sure where you got the idea for this, but it's very far from legal. As a majority shareholder, you have a fiduciary duty to all shareholders in how you govern the company. That means you have a legal obligation to look out for their best interests. Ripping people off is obviously not looking out for their best interests.
Also, you cannot discriminate against shareholders within a class of shares. They have to be treated as one group.
Re:Question for someone knowledgable (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Issue more shares and dilute the stock. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Question for someone knowledgable (Score:2)
Re:Question for someone knowledgable (Score:2)
Re:Question for someone knowledgable (Score:5, Insightful)
Buy them. If you have a company with a small number of owners (Microsoft didn't IPO until 1986 [microsoft.com]), you don't want to have 36% of the voting rights suddenly go to someone that knows nothing about the company (or technology in general) -- they could wreck the place. It's pretty common for companies to have rules spelled out for handling such situations (e.g. terms for other owners to buy out) when a key person leaves/dies. Cringely seems to be making a mountain out of a molehill (and I'm not a MS fanboy).
Re:Question for someone knowledgable (Score:4, Informative)
> of a molehill (and I'm not a MS fanboy).
I agree, and I'm a Microsoft Partner.
Basically, the question they were facing is a very real question. Whenever you have several people involved in a startup and one of them faces health issues, it is highly important to create a contingency plan in the event of their death.
A common version of such a plan is to take out life insurance on the individual which pays sufficient benefits to purchase his share of the company outright. This generally gives his heirs something in excess of the cash value of the shares, which makes them happy, and keeps the shares themselves within the company family - which makes it happy.
See, some of us *can* think rationally.
Re:Question for someone knowledgable (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Question for someone knowledgable (Score:4, Funny)
Let me guess... you're the one tagging this story as gay?
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Perspective (Score:3, Insightful)
Donating money to charity is a good way to buy good publicity, and you get a good tax writeoff on money you donate. There are also a thousand and one other scams people can pull, like charging their expenses back to their charitable foundation.
Also large corporations donate their own products (microsoft is especially guilty of this) and claim tax breaks based on the retail prices of those products. In the case o
Re:Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation? (Score:2, Insightful)
All of it (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, Microsoft hasn't participated in mass murders or normal atrocities against civilians -- but have literally lowered the quality of life for many people. With more competition, there would have been more alternatives and faster evolution in the software jungle. That would mean a better life for me and many others. (I guess we should be happy Gates did
Re:Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation? (Score:2, Insightful)
The Gates Defence (Score:3, Insightful)
Trying to cast Bill Gates as a 21st century Robin Hood (takes from the richest and gives to the poorest) to defend the various critisms of him is suspect at best. In fact, I like calling it, the Gates defence, being a subset of the chewbaca defence.
Giving money away, if you have enough of it, is easy. Being truely forgiven for past sins (and in this
Re:Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation? (Score:3, Insightful)
No, that's not true. Because of Microsoft's business practices, that money belongs to you, your family, friends, and neighbors. It's your misappropriated money which is going to good causes. Every time somebody buys a bare-bones PC without an operating system yet still pays for Windows it is, in part, that person's money which is getting funnel
Re:Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation? (Score:3, Insightful)
However, study some business economics and have your ears wide open when the topic is "monopoly profits". The thing about them is that the profit of the monopoly is much, much lower than the damage it causes to the general public. For every $ that Bill has made, he's done 2, 3, maybe 5 $ worth of damage to the public.
In other words: Yes, he gives a billion or two away. That is a) our money and b) we'd have several times that if it weren't for him. Which leads to c) in a fair market
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 m
I call Bullshit (Score:5, Informative)
I know few people here like or appreciate Gates, but must we make shit up to slime the dude?
A lot of this is old news (Score:3, Interesting)
OTH, many love going to Paul's because he really is a nice guy.
Guilt (Score:5, Funny)
Couple that with the fact that Ballmer is clearly a psychopath (*ducks*) and the Gates-Ballmer leadership looks quite scary. Microsoft truly are evil.
iqu
Re:Guilt (Score:3, Insightful)
Besides, you can tell a lot about a man from the caliber of his friends
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.
Re:Guilt (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe it's just me, but I partly do the work I do because I enjoy it, but also because it pays the bills. If the bills disappeared, I would make different choices in my work.
I don't even think that Microsoft have the "purpose" of companies like Google. At least when those companies release something, you can sense the excitement, that the G
The man has $15 billion with a "b" dollars (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The man has $15 billion with a "b" dollars (Score:3, Insightful)
Considered submitting something like this on Apr 1 (Score:5, Funny)
When asked for comment, Slashdot posters likened the news to an extension of Microsoft's embrace-and-extend methodology that the company applies to product development. "We won't be duped by this one, we can't let Microsoft to develop a monopoly on sarcastic and derisive commentary." Other posters used lots of exclamation points and mixed caps, and thus were excluded from this press release.
(It's a joke guys, I'm not intending this as flamebait
Bring back the pink! (Score:2, Funny)
Re:The pink can be yours! (Score:3, Informative)
Or you could just change the extensions.slashdotter.stylesheet preference in about:config to "fool". But that way, you don't get the bugfixes in the new version.
We need more of these (Score:5, Insightful)
Climb high enough in the organization, and it becomes clear that Microsoft's success has not always been based on legal or ethical behavior.
I have to admit, we need more of these articles out there. Here in Slashdot we know all about it, so we'd get the typical captain of the obvious or "no sh*t sherlock" responses, but we need the general public to read more of them.
Re:We need more of these (Score:5, Insightful)
MS make software that run computers, they don't prop up Dictatorships, cause civil unrest in 3rd world countries, kill 10's of thousands of people and wash thier hands of it (looking at you Union Carbide) There a Corps out there that make Bill and his friends look like saints, and people already know this, but... THEY JUST DON'T CARE... if they don't care about the real Evil Corporations they won't care about MS... they will just shrug, stuff their face with burgers and get back to the Xbox...
Wishful thinking (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm about as anti-Microsoft as you can get. I hate them. I hate them for making bad software and forcing zillions of people to use it instead of letting those people make a choice. I hate them for essentially undermining the best qualities of capitalism.
Many times I've wanted to believe "this is the end" and Microsoft is finally going to have the reputation in the general, non-techie public eye that they deserve to have. Heck, I'm still hoping the Vista debacle will be that trigger.
But to believe that one lawyer in Iowa is going to bring them down, when the full weight of the U.S. Department of Justice couldn't do it, and the E.U. is still trying to do it, is wishful thinking. Maybe Cringely just had to end with something dramatic.
Re:Wishful thinking (Score:5, Informative)
Actually if i remember correctly the DOJ did bring them down, had them up against the wall and could have done anything they wanted. Then the administration changed and they were let off.
Character assassination (Score:5, Insightful)
Now we'll speculate as to why he would position himself this way, about how anti-establishment he implicitly is, how visionary and rightous he is about the computer industry. By stooping so low, he is only hurting himself and attributing intent to people who obviously have better things to do. Whatever, most of us already take his pieces as entertainement anyway. Doesn't mean he didn't cross a line and isn't responsible for his actions. I don't think he's important enough anymore to be noticed by the mainstream press, but his opinions are not merely disparaging, they can be attributed to plain and simple mischief. What's infuriating is not that he wrote it, it's that people will link to it and discuss it while it's not deserving of any attention. Fool me once, you can't fool me twice as the post-modern saying tells us.
Re:Character assassination - Mud, or No Mud??? (Score:5, Insightful)
To Mud, or not To Mud, that is the Question?
Is Cringley throwing mud?
Or is Cringley reporting corroborated facts?
Or is reporting facts equivalent to throwing mud when the facts are ugly.
I don't know.
You don't know.
But I'm not the one concluding that because the purported facts are ugly that they are automatically equated with Mud.
Given Bill Gates access to lawyers, and Cringley's relative poverty and valuable reputation, I'd say RXC is certainly erring on the side of caution and has good reason to have said what he has said. Bill Gates, and Paul Allen who is also party to this, may not be as litigious as, say, Tom Cruise, but who wants to find out first?
Re:Character assassination (Score:3, Funny)
Morbid but necessary (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Morbid but necessary (Score:3, Insightful)
For anecdote's sake, this is similar to what caused my grandfather's decades-old business to go down the toilet. When his business partner died, enough control was left in the hands of the former-partner's family to effectively castrate the company. Their collective interest was in killing off the company so they could sell off its assets, and eventually they managed to do exactly that.
It really sucks to have to think in terms of looting the dead, but occasi
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)
"gay" (Score:3, Insightful)
If the point is to get people to subscribe, well, (1) this kind of juvenilia makes me even less likely to subscribe, (2) it stinks to let people pay money and thereby get the privilege of vandalizing the site, and (3) if they want people to subscribe, they might want to do a more professional job of running the site (eliminate dupes, and get people to select science articles who actually know something about science).
What a Whingely (Score:4, Informative)
I'm no fan of Microsoft (Linux here) but you don't get to where Gates is today by being a man with no talent or qualities. I'm still waiting for a lot of Cringely's oh-so-confident predictions about Google and their alleged container-size data centers to pan out. He seems to have gone very quiet on that front lately. Spinning a highly dubious yarn from yesteryear is no substitute for some journalism. Just my 2 cents, but I think Cringely is getting lazy.
Convicted Monopolist (Score:3, Insightful)
I just want to point out to anyone who wasn't following the (pre-2001) anti-trust suit that it is not a crime to have a monopoly. It is perfectly legal and what all companies aim for. What Microsoft got in trouble for (before the Bush administration basically dropped it) was that they were using their monopoly power to limit competition and leverage their way into new monopolies, i.e. Windows-->Office, Windows-->Browser, Windows-->Internet Provider...
Flamebait MS bashing. (Score:4, Insightful)
I mean other than the fact that the article is information from a friend of a friend whos like really really good friends with the friend of Paul Allen but it also sounds suspiciously made up.
Ahh hes sold shares that must mean he hates Microsoft. Nooo Bill Gates has also sold shares a hell of a lot of them. His total stake in Microsoft was less than 10% in 2005 thats been dropping for a long time and hes still selling. Doesnt mean he despises his company now does it.
What about the punishing work while ill? Maybe he actually got Hodgkins in 1982 but he was diagnosed in 1983 DOS 2.0 came out in March doesnt exactly leave a huge amount of time for his aparent slave labour and his heroic completion of the O/S.
Oh but he left the company forever, he must have had a bad experience at the hands of evil Bill. Not quite. He is still an advisor to MS to this day. Now sure that isnt exactly a large role in the company he created but how many people with billions of dollars would stay in any position at a company that, according to this site, drove you near to death and conspired to destroy you when you were there?
I mean his leaving couldnt possibly have had anything to do with the fact that he had to work really hard before, but was now a rich man recovering from a life threatening disease. Yeah I can imagine he was raring to jump back in to long shifts at MS, but theres no chance of that with evil Bill standing guard.
Finally, the oh so familiar, Microsoft is going down, comment. Take a quick look at just about every article that guy has ever written involving Microsoft. Nearly all of them contain some way of Microsoft going down. Nearly all of them are speculatory trash often including a list of 'funny' scenarios.
This is pure flamebait from someone clearly biassed against the company. I mean trying to get me to feel sympathy for the 6th richest man in the world who has spent a large portion of his entire life living off the company this site claims crushed him...
Oh and unlike his hearsay you can do a quick search in Google and youll find information backing up every point I made. (Some of which actually came from the site he used to support him, forbes.)
Character issue (Score:3, Insightful)
I think that pretty well reflects MSFT's corporate character. Petty, greedy, and paranoid.
Standing in line at a drive-in window (Score:3, Funny)
I got a kick out of this:
I did that once myself. I didn't want to drive across the street from my office to the Taco Bell late one night so I just walked. It turned out that only the drive-through was open. So I took my turn between the cars standing in line. It took about half an hour before I got to the front of the line. I felt a bit idiotic standing there.
I never saw or heard of anyone else doing that until now.
I also used to regularly go through the drive-up line in the bank on my bicycle. But that didn't feel quite as wierd as standing in line at Taco Bell.
No, we'll all be riding ponies (Score:3, Funny)
Nah, the Chinese will wake up to find they've go nothing but paper back by nothing but oil, without oil they've only got paper! We'll all be driving through the MacDonalds on our magic pink ponies, silly.
"I'll have a Big Mac, Large Fries and a Tinkerbell will have a bail of straw".
"Trott up to the Window, P
Re:Just in case (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Just in case (Score:2)
Your comment is generic enough, but also specific enough to Cringely, that it could be made regarding any of the many 'articles' by 'Cringeley' (not his real name) that have been posted to Slashdot. He is a ha
YES! (Score:4, Insightful)
The ambiguous line in my mind was:
"but it didn't go over well with Paul Allen"
Is Cringley asserting that, or is that what he heard?
Mod Parent Down (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Cry more richie (Score:2)
Why do you spend time on the stories you find pointless?
Re:Bill Gates is a better man than Paul Allen (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Where is the stock for employees and investors? (Score:3, Informative)
Stock dilution.
Here's how it works:
You (General Alcazar) have a company. GA Enterprises. You hold 100% of the shares. Lets say you want to raise money from an investor. Investor Bob offers you $50 for 20% of the company. Since you are the only stock holder, you can easily give him 20% of the stock, for a $50 investment. There are two ways you can do this, however.
1) Lets assume there a