Like HF, Bill Gates has truly made a historic impact on the high tech industry and his philanthropy work is already making an incredible difference.
Good for him.
Having said that, Microsoft has missed the internet boat big time and the Windows OS a mess. That must really hurt.
Bill Gates' legacy: A modern day Henry Ford
Summary
Bill Gates is arguably the individual who has had the biggest impact on the world of technology and his departure from Microsoft on 27 June will mark the end of an era.
Topics
Bill Gates is arguably the individual who has had the biggest impact on the world of technology and his departure from Microsoft on 27 June will mark the end of an era. Video: (Left) Bill Gates' hits and misses
During his career Gates has made Microsoft into one of the biggest companies in the world with products that have long been ubiquitous for computer users.
But the company has also suffered from accusations of anti-competitive behavior with well-publicized battles with US regulators and the European Union.
So what is Bill Gates' legacy as he departs from the mega-corporation he built from scratch and how will his time as Microsoft figurehead be remembered?
Rob Horwitz, co-founder of analyst firm, Directions on Microsoft, compares Gates to car manufacturing pioneer Henry Ford.
He said: "Gates took an arcane technology that was accessible to few and figured out how to re-engineer, extend, package and market it so that it was relevant and affordable to the masses."He added: "Henry Ford didn't invent the automobile, and Gates didn't invent the computer but the brilliance of both was in figuring out how to make their respective products ubiquitous."
ZDNet bloggers on Bill Gates
- Mary Jo Foley: How many people does it take to fill Bill Gates' shoes?
- Dana Blankenhorn: The Andrew Carnegie of our second gilded age
- Phil Wainewright: Is Bill Gates a secret cloud convert?
- Micheal Krigsman: Bill Gates' Web experience: Byzantine, idiotic logic
Mary-Jo Foley, Microsoft expert and blogger on silicon.com sister site ZDNet.com, says Gates has created legacies in both technology and philanthropy.
She said: "On the tech front, I'd say Gates will be remembered for making good on his goal of helping popularize personal computing. Microsoft did end up enabling consumer and business users to deploy--almost--a PC on every desk."
She added: "He helped create a partner ecosystem, via which a number of hardware, software and service vendors built entire businesses around Microsoft software."
But Foley also noted that Gates played a major role in putting numerous companies out of business through Microsoft's aggressive competition.
"Some of these companies claim Microsoft stole their ideas; others collapsed from being squeezed out of the market by Goliath [Microsoft]," Foley said.
In terms of what Gates will be remembered for, Foley said many will recall him as a "hard-charging competitor who was in the right place at the right time to capitalize on the personal computing boom."
On the other hand, she said others may remember a "ruthless competitor who got away with a lot of illegal monopolistic behavior."
But she concluded: "I think both sides will remember Gates as a nerd who made good--and ultimately did a lot of good with the billions he made through his Foundation work."
Forrester analyst George F Colony says the ruthless way in which Microsoft achieved its dominant position under Gates wasn't as detrimental as others would argue.
Writing on his blog Colony refers to the behavior employed by Gates as "constructive monopolist" due to the benefits it created for technology users by creating a set of standards.
Like Directions on Microsoft's Hurwitz, Colony compares Gates to another famous figure, Thomas Edison. He said both created good technologies and "worked to get them accepted by more users than their competitors."
"Gates has been a business innovator, not a technology innovator. [He] had the vision to see this future and he possessed the competitive drive to force his technologies into monopoly positions in the marketplace," Colony added.
Colony also suggests part of the reason Microsoft has failed to convincingly combat Google--and why Steve Jobs has been able to resurrect his career so spectacularly--is that Gates has been focusing much more on his philanthropic activities in recent years than the company he founded.
Colony summed up Gates' single most important legacy as: "The ability, through monopolistic business practices, to make Microsoft's products global, de facto standards for business and consumers."
David Mitchell, senior analyst with Ovum, said Gates' legacy centers on technology produced before the modern "Vista generation" of the company.
"He helped to create a generation of people in the industry that focus on usability and making computing a simpler experience that ordinary people can manage," Mitchell said.
He added: "He was one of the people responsible for the democratization of computing, taking it from the hands of technical elite into the mainstream of business and the home."
Just In
Henry Ford built an empire around a new technology. And then
had his clock cleaned by General Motors because he failed to
realize that consumers like style too.
had his clock cleaned by General Motors because he failed to
realize that consumers like style too.
Bill Gates contributed to writing a very simple OS (DOS 1.0). About 100k of code.
IBM brought the PC to the masses.
Apple popularized the windows-like GUI.
Everytime a developer came up with a neat utility, Microsoft incororated it in their package for free.
Gates was very slow to embrace the internet and TCP/IP core and networking in the OS.
The personal computer revolution is an industry success.
IBM brought the PC to the masses.
Apple popularized the windows-like GUI.
Everytime a developer came up with a neat utility, Microsoft incororated it in their package for free.
Gates was very slow to embrace the internet and TCP/IP core and networking in the OS.
The personal computer revolution is an industry success.
Given the size of Gates' NGO and its good works around the world
Lend me your ears, for I have come to praise BillG. BillG is the single most important person in the history of the world. I am not just talking IT here, I am talking the entire world. BillG enabled us to move into a world of connected devices. Microsoft invented the Internet and most of the communications protocols that we use today. Suites like TCP/IP would not be around today if BillG did not decide to include it with NT 4.0. Word processing, spreadsheets, gaming, mobile phones, the list goes on and on. My rep invited me to watch the Bil Gates Roast at Microsoft. Although I am not guaranteed a seat at the roast itself, I know I don't need one. BillG's aura is enough to fill up the entire campus. My rep and I will toast to BillG several times as I deploy Windows 7 pre-alpha builds on my home network this weekend.
Henry Ford was an inventor. Bill G is a hack who didn't
care if his company broke the law, who stole other
people's technology in a bad faith execution of a good
faith clause in a contract and who's entire "innovation"
portfolio was a drive to "addict" people to his products,
squashing real innovation and competition.
No one in their right mind thinks that Microsoft products
are great or that Microsoft is a great company.
Where I am proud of Bill G is his newfound philanthropy
after proving his uselessness as Chief of Software or
whatever it was.
The real geniuses are the two guys that invented and
marketed the PC. More than thirty years later, markets
move on rumours or if the one that's still working gets a
cough, or worse.
You asked what I thought.
care if his company broke the law, who stole other
people's technology in a bad faith execution of a good
faith clause in a contract and who's entire "innovation"
portfolio was a drive to "addict" people to his products,
squashing real innovation and competition.
No one in their right mind thinks that Microsoft products
are great or that Microsoft is a great company.
Where I am proud of Bill G is his newfound philanthropy
after proving his uselessness as Chief of Software or
whatever it was.
The real geniuses are the two guys that invented and
marketed the PC. More than thirty years later, markets
move on rumours or if the one that's still working gets a
cough, or worse.
You asked what I thought.
but I guess that was OK, as it was Henry Ford, and not Bill Gates.
The real geniuses are the two guys that invented and marketed the PC
IBM invented it, Bill gates "marketed" it.
Nobody wanted the blasted thing untill Windows allowed the novice to be able to use it.
The real geniuses are the two guys that invented and marketed the PC
IBM invented it, Bill gates "marketed" it.
Nobody wanted the blasted thing untill Windows allowed the novice to be able to use it.
Henry Ford invented mass production (not the assembly line).
Bill Gates invented . . . nothing.
HF paid his employees MORE than the going rate.
BG . . . nope!
HF was a bigot.
BG probably isn't.
HF was a philanthropist.
BG is a philanthropist.
HF never had a monopoly.
BG did.
HF made friends with Edison, Firestone and other great INVENTORS.
BG bought up small companies and incorporated their work - calling it innovation.
HF's company has lasted over 100 years.
BG's company probably wont.
HF's company has a $20bil capitalization.
BG's company makes that much profit in less than a year.
Just for fun:
http://www.performantsystems.com/GM.html
Bill Gates invented . . . nothing.
HF paid his employees MORE than the going rate.
BG . . . nope!
HF was a bigot.
BG probably isn't.
HF was a philanthropist.
BG is a philanthropist.
HF never had a monopoly.
BG did.
HF made friends with Edison, Firestone and other great INVENTORS.
BG bought up small companies and incorporated their work - calling it innovation.
HF's company has lasted over 100 years.
BG's company probably wont.
HF's company has a $20bil capitalization.
BG's company makes that much profit in less than a year.
Just for fun:
http://www.performantsystems.com/GM.html
BG bought up small companies and incorporated their work - calling it innovation
Apple took different existing technologies, incorporated them in one product and called it "innovation", why not here?
Apple took different existing technologies, incorporated them in one product and called it "innovation", why not here?
Apple's genius isn't WHAT they do, it's HOW they do it.
It's not a hard concept, but some people still refuse to get it.
MP3 players existed before the iPod. And they all sucked.
Operating Systems existed before MacOS. And they all sucked.
Smart phones existed before the iPhone. And they all sucked.
Ford existed before GM, and their cars sucked. That's why GM
came along and wiped the floor with Ford.
It's not a hard concept, but some people still refuse to get it.
MP3 players existed before the iPod. And they all sucked.
Operating Systems existed before MacOS. And they all sucked.
Smart phones existed before the iPhone. And they all sucked.
Ford existed before GM, and their cars sucked. That's why GM
came along and wiped the floor with Ford.
yes, starting with the iPod, which is very unreliable (frequently breaks after 1 or 2 years). By the way, don't they have to pay Creative to license their technology?
You say other OSs sucked before Mac OS? You must be dreaming really. UNIX existed way before and I quite frankly don't see how it sucks. In fact in any OS textbook you find more material about MULTICS, UNIX, etc. that of "Mac OS". What do you mean by that? Pre OS X? OS X? Pre OS X sucked, and badly, it was totally unstable and unreliable (bomb icon anyone?). OS X is a decent OS, but far from perfect or in many cases innovative. Perhaps you meant UIs instead of OSs? That at least is debatable, but OSs? no way!
Also, smart phones pre IPhone don't suck at all. At least Palm Treo and Blackberry are very good phones.
Finally, regarding Ford and GM, if MS is Ford, who is GM? Apple? come on, that sound ridiculous really, or at least I do not see what are the parallels.
P.S. You forgot: "video game consoles existed before the Pippin, and none sucked as badly"
You say other OSs sucked before Mac OS? You must be dreaming really. UNIX existed way before and I quite frankly don't see how it sucks. In fact in any OS textbook you find more material about MULTICS, UNIX, etc. that of "Mac OS". What do you mean by that? Pre OS X? OS X? Pre OS X sucked, and badly, it was totally unstable and unreliable (bomb icon anyone?). OS X is a decent OS, but far from perfect or in many cases innovative. Perhaps you meant UIs instead of OSs? That at least is debatable, but OSs? no way!
Also, smart phones pre IPhone don't suck at all. At least Palm Treo and Blackberry are very good phones.
Finally, regarding Ford and GM, if MS is Ford, who is GM? Apple? come on, that sound ridiculous really, or at least I do not see what are the parallels.
P.S. You forgot: "video game consoles existed before the Pippin, and none sucked as badly"
Bill Gates did create millions of jobs due to the Windows ecosystem. He didn't invent the technology but he did accelerated the technology world to an point it just have gotten so fast that no one cannot keep up. I doubt no one will. In this industry...you have conquer and destroy anyone that threaten your bread and butter because if you don't, you will end up getting crushed. Ask Henry Ford about not protecting an good lead will do to you (Third place in the auto industry, on the verge of being bankrupt). Microsoft slapped on the wrist for slowing down Netscape as an cloud os. At least that brought Microsoft another twenty years of profits.
And did it long before Henry Ford was born.
Look it up.
Look it up.
Almost 99.99% of the folks who hate Bill Gates haven?t the slightest idea of what he has accomplished. I have worked with computers for 36 years and wish I was able to do 1/1000th of what Bill Gates has done. One plea to all the current ?geniuses? out there: Stop wasting your ?talents? trying to ruin everything (trojans, viruses, etc.) and see if instead, you can create some new technology or improve existing technology. Maybe one of you criticizing Bill Gates here, will one day be one of the few who are remembered along side him, as someone who had a huge (positive) impact on technology and society.
... and in a 100 years' time when they are building statues for the great IT minds of our era they will be building them for Richard Stallman and Linus Torvalds; and maybe even Steve Jobs. But Gates will be only remembered in economic lectures when they discuss how monopolies hinder technological advancement.
[Robber Baron: "Robber baron was a term revived in the 19th century in the United States as a pejorative reference to businessmen and bankers who dominated their respective industries and amassed huge personal fortunes, typically as a direct result of pursuing various anti-competitive or unfair business practices." - Wikipedia]
[Robber Baron: "Robber baron was a term revived in the 19th century in the United States as a pejorative reference to businessmen and bankers who dominated their respective industries and amassed huge personal fortunes, typically as a direct result of pursuing various anti-competitive or unfair business practices." - Wikipedia]
If you look around, he has had quite an impact on the computer world as we know it..
For those of you that blow the legality/monopoy horn, he also showed how staying in the gray, and sometimes red lines can be a quite profitable business venture.
Whine all you want, he has the cash.
For those of you that blow the legality/monopoy horn, he also showed how staying in the gray, and sometimes red lines can be a quite profitable business venture.
Whine all you want, he has the cash.
"For those of you that blow the legality/monopoy horn, he also showed how staying in the gray, and sometimes red lines can be a quite profitable business venture.
Whine all you want, he has the cash."
Are you saying that having a lot of money justifies how you make it so long as you are not in prison (i.e. you "got away with it" or "the ends justify the means")? Or are you saying that by having lots of cash (of which some was made illegally) excludes others from questioning whether the gains were moral? Or that by doing either of the above people are "whining"?
Frankly, he made lots of money from his company Microsoft -- some of which was made illegally -- and the man is better compared to Jeffrey Skilling than Henry Ford.
Whine all you want, he has the cash."
Are you saying that having a lot of money justifies how you make it so long as you are not in prison (i.e. you "got away with it" or "the ends justify the means")? Or are you saying that by having lots of cash (of which some was made illegally) excludes others from questioning whether the gains were moral? Or that by doing either of the above people are "whining"?
Frankly, he made lots of money from his company Microsoft -- some of which was made illegally -- and the man is better compared to Jeffrey Skilling than Henry Ford.
"Are you saying..."
Im saying at the end of the day, he walks away with the money and unparallelled market share.
Any business on this scale is built on the remains of those who simply can't, won't, or don't. I give you the moguls of the industrial age as example.
We can all look back with 20/20 jurisprudence and morality. When the time to act came, he did it, and he did it with extaordinary business sense and most likely a lot of luck.
Like him or not, if the game is money and market share, he is definetly a winner. If the game is feeling good and hugging everyone.. well.. no, he didnt win there I suppose.
Im saying at the end of the day, he walks away with the money and unparallelled market share.
Any business on this scale is built on the remains of those who simply can't, won't, or don't. I give you the moguls of the industrial age as example.
We can all look back with 20/20 jurisprudence and morality. When the time to act came, he did it, and he did it with extaordinary business sense and most likely a lot of luck.
Like him or not, if the game is money and market share, he is definetly a winner. If the game is feeling good and hugging everyone.. well.. no, he didnt win there I suppose.
The computer entrepreneur most comparable to Henry Ford is actually Steve Jobs, co-founder of Apple, who before the advent of the IBM PC, successfully mass marketed the personal computer to home users (remember that IBM originally targeted business users and did it after personal computers had already become popular).
Gates is not comparable to Edison either because he invented very little, whereas Edison was a prolific inventor all his adult life.
Gates is not comparable to Edison either because he invented very little, whereas Edison was a prolific inventor all his adult life.
It is true that Henry Ford is a sheer king and most respectable person than Gates. thats the reason ford is in books and gates on commercials.
Henry Ford did, indeed, place the automobile in the reach of the North American middle class.
He also presided over the growth of the largest car manufacturer in the world, at the time.
Until...
By the late 20s and early 30s GM had taken over as the largest car manufacturer and seller by doing things differently and better. GM was never bound by "any colour you like as long as it's black" Model T philosophy. (This is not to say the Model T was a bad car for its time by any stretch of the imagination.)
The analogy then, could be stretched (if painfully) to Microsoft and the position it finds itself today. It still stands over the computing world like a giant but there are competitiors out there now who they are having increasing difficulty dealing with. Google, Linux, (for the moment) Apple and others don't seem affected as much as older competitors did.
Microsoft doesn't seem anywhere near as inventive and nimble as it once was or its partners are a lot more careful than they used to be about being embraced, extended and extinguished out of existance.
It suffers from the syndrome that, sooner or later, affects all monopolists or near monopolists that there is nowhere to go but down. It's arrogant almost beyond belief.
At some point, like Ford Motor Company, it will become one among many. Still strong, powerful and influential but no longer able to dictate the market.
I think that point is coming sooner than most think it is particularly the more vocal Microsoft defenders out there.
The reason this is such an important and, often, passionate event is that Microsoft did, in fact, succeed in "a computer on every desk" goal. There would be no Linux debates or OSX debates without it.
While late to the World Wide Web party it did sort of get it; Microsoft never dominated that sphere as they have the desktop and laptop.
They never have dominated the mobile space and there seems little chance they ever will.
All of this is nothing but good for us as users to have Microsoft competing with something and someone other than just themselves. And for Microsoft too.
Microsoft isn't going to disappear nor would I want it to. It does have to adjust to a world it didn't, for all practical purposes, invent as it did for the desktop/laptop.
That seems a difficult adjustment for them to make as it was, for different reasons, for Henry Ford (and, as he's been mentioned, for Thomas Edison).
Microsoft's biggest challenge now is to adjust to a competitive world and platforms that aren't beholden to them and are, frequently, downright resistant to them.
It has to learn a new set of rules.
ttfn
John
He also presided over the growth of the largest car manufacturer in the world, at the time.
Until...
By the late 20s and early 30s GM had taken over as the largest car manufacturer and seller by doing things differently and better. GM was never bound by "any colour you like as long as it's black" Model T philosophy. (This is not to say the Model T was a bad car for its time by any stretch of the imagination.)
The analogy then, could be stretched (if painfully) to Microsoft and the position it finds itself today. It still stands over the computing world like a giant but there are competitiors out there now who they are having increasing difficulty dealing with. Google, Linux, (for the moment) Apple and others don't seem affected as much as older competitors did.
Microsoft doesn't seem anywhere near as inventive and nimble as it once was or its partners are a lot more careful than they used to be about being embraced, extended and extinguished out of existance.
It suffers from the syndrome that, sooner or later, affects all monopolists or near monopolists that there is nowhere to go but down. It's arrogant almost beyond belief.
At some point, like Ford Motor Company, it will become one among many. Still strong, powerful and influential but no longer able to dictate the market.
I think that point is coming sooner than most think it is particularly the more vocal Microsoft defenders out there.
The reason this is such an important and, often, passionate event is that Microsoft did, in fact, succeed in "a computer on every desk" goal. There would be no Linux debates or OSX debates without it.
While late to the World Wide Web party it did sort of get it; Microsoft never dominated that sphere as they have the desktop and laptop.
They never have dominated the mobile space and there seems little chance they ever will.
All of this is nothing but good for us as users to have Microsoft competing with something and someone other than just themselves. And for Microsoft too.
Microsoft isn't going to disappear nor would I want it to. It does have to adjust to a world it didn't, for all practical purposes, invent as it did for the desktop/laptop.
That seems a difficult adjustment for them to make as it was, for different reasons, for Henry Ford (and, as he's been mentioned, for Thomas Edison).
Microsoft's biggest challenge now is to adjust to a competitive world and platforms that aren't beholden to them and are, frequently, downright resistant to them.
It has to learn a new set of rules.
ttfn
John
He's more like the Fuller Brush man--selling other people's ideas and products. He won't be missed.
Join the conversation!
The best of ZDNet, delivered
ZDNet Newsletters
Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox
Vendor Showcase
