Talk:Bill Gates

Controversial Paragraph

I removed this:

Still, and in spite of all the criticism that is so frequently levied against him, it is important to remember that Gates has been instrumental in creating an important new industry, bringing compelling new technologies to the mass marketplace, and making computers available to millions of people. To put the matter in perspective, it is fruitful-- and revealing -- to compare Gates to certain executives of Enron, who ran Enron as if the company -- and all of its employees and stockholders -- were little more than pawns to be used for their personal enrichment. To be sure, Gates has made plenty of money for himself. But he has also made plenty of money for his employees and stockholders, and made significant contributions to the U.S. and world economies.

As it is riddled with errors. Taking them one by one:

it is important to remember that Gates has been instrumental in creating an important new industry. The industry came along without Gates help; there were many, many people who played significant parts. The primary contribution Gates made was to Microsoft BASIC - an important but hardly vital thing - where he was only one of three.
bringing compelling new technologies to the mass marketplace Complete nonsense. Pleae name three "compelling new technologies" that Gates was responsible for. Hell - please name one.
and making computers available to millions of people. An even sillier statement. Far from "making computers available to millions", Gates and Microsoft have been a major restricting factor. You make computers "available to the masses" by making them affordable, and the decrease in the cost of computer ownership over the last twenty years or so is entirely due to the massive improvements made to computer hardware: the cost of software, in particular operating software, has not dropped. In real terms (i.e., after adjusting for inflation/deflation) it now costs around 12 times as much to buy operating software as it did immediately prior to Microsoft finally establishing their OS monopoly in 1995 to '96. Hardware, in the same period, has gone from 66MHz to 2000MHz (CPUs), from 0.2 or 0.5GB to 40 and 80GB (hard drives), from 14" interlaced to 17 and 19" flat screen non-interlaced (screens), from 4MB at 33MHz to 256MB at 333MHz (RAM) - and costs less than half of what it did. By stifiling competition and innovation in the software indistry and by causing the flight of venture capital from the industry, Gates has held back the progress of computing (on the software side) by an unknown but large amount: somewhere between five and ten years is a reasonable estimate. By increasing the cost of operating software by an order of magnitude (as compared to free market prices), Gates has raised the financial bar to computing, and kept millions of people out, not "made computers available to millions".
he has also made plenty of money for his employees and stockholders This is undoubtedly correct. One might question if those same employees and stockholders might not have made similar anmounts of money elsewhere, doing more productive work in lean, mean freemarket companies. My assessment is that no, they would not have done: few businesses are as profitable as a monopoly.
made significant contributions to the U.S. and world economies. And here we have the greatest absurdity of all. The net result of the software monopoly on the US economy is (as monopolies almost always are) negative. It simply transfers wealth from more productive activities into the less-productive monopoly activity. Monopolies are almost never as efficient as free market competitors (because they become lazy, because they siphon off surplus funds for unproductive activity, and above all because they must devote a large part of their revenue to the task of preserving the monopoly rather than to doing something economically useful). Then there are the flow-on effects, which are far, far greater in aggregate. Because monopolies produce goods of a lower standard than are produced by multiple competitors in the dog-eat-dog world of a free market, the productivity of businesses that depend on those goods is in turn reduced. Because the quality of software produced by a monopoly is lower than that produced by a free market, businesses waste more time and create fewer results. (And because of the monopoly pricing, their ability to retain profits for investment in new plant is also reduced, of course.) As for the world economy, the points just made remain valid, but in this case, the benefits mentioned in point #4 do not apply.

Tannin 07:18 Feb 12, 2003 (UTC)

Well.... having written most of the above, I must say that I am in sympathy with the rebuttal. It's just that I wish that the rebuttal could be made part of the article! I was trying to tell the other side of the story; you've competently supplied the opposing viewpoint (which which, to be honest, I fully agree). Why not synthesize these views and add it to the article? jeez, I'm repeating myself.... pfaff de pfaffenblog

So, basically a NPOV edit? ;)

jareed 00:08 Aug 26, 2003 (EDT)

Well, as an example of bringing compelling new technologies to the mass marketplace, I name Internet Explorer. No, Microsoft did not invent the "web browser." Heck, I think Gates even wrote off the Internet early on. After they decided to exploit the web, they started bundling IE with their OS'es. Most people used IE because it was right there on the desktop and they probably wouldn't have gone to the trouble of figuring out how to download Netscape or used the Internet if the software to use it weren't so accessible. Yes, pushing their browser and making it free was anti-competetive (since everyone used MS OS's). Yes, once everyone started using the Internet with IE, it was very unlikely they would change to another browser (actually, to many people IE is the Internet!). But, by doing so, they opened up the Internet to a lot of people who otherwise wouldn't have known how to even attempt to use it. —Frecklefoot 13:54, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hmm, from what I remember, every major ISP would provide you with a CD with Netscape Navigator (go version 3 :P) on it. --Chuq 21:19, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm... An interesting argument, Frecklefoot. But, now that you cause me to cast my mind back to 94 or 95, it ain't so. In fact, if I recall correctly, Windows was the last major operating system to include webb access as a standard feature. OS/2 certainly had IBM Web Explorer and various assorted other accesory products long before IE 1.0 came out, Apple were in bed with Netscape, and in any case, most new omputers came bundled with internet access products courtesy of the OEM. Ours certainly did (Netscape and ... er .. Eudora, I think it was, plus Trumpet Winsock) and we were only going along with the indistry-wide trend. Nope: nice try, and an interesting thought, but we can't give Mr Gates credit for that one. Tannin 14:10, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Mugshot Caption

Why was my caption of mr Gates mugshot reverted as vandalism? Is it not true that this very picture is the one taken by Albuquerque, NM Police Department 13. dec 1977 after mr Gates was arrested? One can even see the string around the neck holding the nametag, and I do have a copy of the whole picture. Is it not NOPV to say that he was once (or twice, if I recall correctly) arrested? Gorm 06:03, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I may have been the one who reverted the caption. I reverted it because it looked like vandalism. The photo just looks like a photo of Gates as a teen (or young 20-something)—especially since he's smiling. But now that you mention it, I do see that string. If it is indeed a mugshot, mention the circumstances of the arrest in the article, preferably right next to the photo to give it some context. To just have a photo and claiming it's a mugshot doesn't help at all. It needs some context. Cheers! :^) —Frecklefoot 16:27, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

So I provided content. It is not intended as a personal attack. I even put the references down low in the article, so that most readers would not see it. I agree that the caption of the picture is a bit verbose, maybe only a reference to the sub page in the main aricle is sufficient.

About the sub page, I would even say that it is more comprehensive than most single articles on the net about it. See: Bill Gates/Criminal record.

...much too comprehensive... --FvdP

I also think it adds a bit of huomor to Wikipedia, and all articles should not be glorifying everyone.

The sub page was much too comprehensive. Had you intended a personal attack at Bill Gates, you would not have done otherwise. Not everyone is supposed to understand your article as humour ! Specially as there was(is?) no humour in it. And phrases like "the reason for arrest in unclear" let the reader think that maybe B.G. was arrested for something much worse than not respecting road rules. Not to speak of the subarticle title itself. --FvdP

By the way, I didn't upload the corresponding images because I thought it would not be appropriate... Gorm 08:34, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I didn't revert your latest addition, but it looks like you didn't add the arrest record next to the photo, which would have helped (you could've also moved the photo to the text that refers to it).

AFAIK, Wikipedia doesn't support subpages anymore (well, the s/w supports them, but I think it is against the recommended style). This is just an observation I've made where several sub-topics of articles are made into top-level articles, not subpages of the main article. So, if you get the green light on this, make it a top-level article with something like Bill Gates Arrest Record. Personally, I'm not against mentioning his arrest record, though being arrested doesn't make him a "crminal." Stating it as such may be why your additions were removed.

What does everyone else think? Is mentioning Gates' arrests okay? It wouldn't be slander and I think it adds some interest to the article. —Frecklefoot 16:24, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

A mention in a very short paragraph, OK. More than that (and specially a whole article, or even subarticle) borders on slander IMO. --FvdP

Any objections to changing the caption to something like Gates as a teen, image from a minor traffic violation, linking that to a summary of the incident and the two other minor incidents he's been involved in? That seems to be not unduly prominent but useful background information for the image. JamesDay 00:41, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

As long as the information is true and verifiable, it should be part of this article and not stowed away somewhere else.—Eloquence 06:03, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)

Daniel, faces of people are how they are normally recognized - you can expect to find one or more of them in all biographies eventually. They are useful parts of this type of article. A small number (or more if showing things like cosmetic surgery) are helpful and good. Jamesday 16:17, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Another Gates portrait

I think the Gates profile picture from the Hebrew Wikipedia should be restored. Perhaps its him from the early 1990's, though I am unsure. If anyone has objections to this, please talk about it on the talk page. WhisperToMe 21:48, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Social Security Number

Why the constant reverts without any discussion here? I've protected the page until the matter is settled in some way other than reverting. Cheers, Angela . 02:43, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I've presented the question in the Village Pump, as presence of social security numbers on pages extends beyond this article. If there's a better place to ask this, feel free to let me know. --Metasquares 02:46, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

That seems a good place for now, though it'll probably be moved to Wikipedia:Current disputes over articles when the Village pump is next archived if it isn't sorted out by then. Angela . 02:54, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The last edit claims, clumsily, that Microsoft ported QDOS from a "CP/M" (by which I presume the writer means the 8-bit Z80 platform) to the "x86 platform" (which I suppose at that stage meant the Intel 8086/88 processor). This is inconsistent with the QDOS article, which describes QDOS in some detail. Hence I'm going to revert unless somebody provides evidence to the contrary. --Robert Merkel 11:05, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Opening Name

Bill has lately (for several years since the birth of his son) been Calling himself William H. Gates, Sr.. I propose changing the name in the first paragraph to this style, and moving the {henry III) data to his birth and family detail. Thought I'd note it here first, and wait a while for comments before proceeding. Thanks for your consideration, Lou I 08:42, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Please show your source. I believe you're confusing him with his father. Anthony DiPierro 04:27, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I apologize for leaping to a conclusion. The AAAS award and note was a piece of trivia I didn't research enough. ;-(. OTOH, thanks to you my mistake got WP a great new article about Bill's dad. :-). About sources: I was working on the article for the American Academy, saw the 2003 inductees, and asked a friend, who is a member of AAAS, if that was the Microsoft Bill Gates. His reply was what I echoed in the above comment. He'll remain nameless here, the fault is mine for not checking. Lou I 08:37, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Codex Leicester

Article says

the Codex Leicester, a collection of writings by Leonardo da Vinci; as of 2003 it was on display at the Seattle Art Museum.

Press release from the museum seems to imply the Codex when off display around August/September of 2003. If so, the as-of link should be replaced by as of 2004 & new location (storage?) determined. --Jerzy 08:53, 2004 Feb 17 (UTC)

Open Letter to Hobbyists

The original phrasing made it seem like Gates just strolled in, pulled the rug out from under these poor Ham radio operators, and created a commercial empire at their expence. I know, this being the wikipedia, that there is some bias toward the open source way of things, but the entry for Bill Gates should not become propaganda for open source. Promote open source by making good articles and good software, not by putting your bias into the articles. Please, keep my recent changes, which are both described as NPOV, and, honestly, are quite subtle anyway.

You might be taken more seriously if you get a username and sign your messages. ;-) — Timwi 09:47, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hey, I would love to log in with my username, but this is too controversial and I really don't want to get mail bombed for even suggesting open source propaganda doesn't belong in the entry about Bill Gates... can you guys at least put these opinions on a separate page... for example, the Open Letter page, which is pretty sparce.

Also, I was there in person, and yes, people were shocked. It's a misrepresentation to try to make out that it was no big deal at the time. Stan 16:08, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Not everyone was shocked, please try not to represent the world through only your eyes.

I've made another pass at the wording. It's important because it represented a significant change of direction in the PC industry, too soon to know whether it's a permanent change or a detour though (the retail software market turns out not that great of a business to be in unless you are a game publisher or a monopoly, something that a lot of commercial companies have had to learn the hard way :-) ) Stan 16:50, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I specifically don't like the wording of "freely" and "shocked". When someone creates proprietary software, they get more freedoms than if they open sourced it. Also, when there is a market, consumers get more freedom of choice. Sure, it's popular to use freedom when talking about GPL, but not everyone sees it that way. Stop creating a false dillema between freedom and propriatary software. I would be much happier if you put the bias in the Open Letter page.

So I'm biased, but you're not? Uh-huh... If you don't like "shocked", how about "stunned" or "astonished"? Saying "the community was shocked" doesn't necessarily mean 100% - as far as I know, nobody took a poll at the time - but there were very few people who reacted at the time with "hey, makes sense". By the end of 1976, there were a lot more people excited by Bill's vision, and jumping into software business. But tell ya what - WP is supposed to be a secondary source relying on published original research, so let's find a reputable history of early micros and see what it says. I wouldn't worry about anonymity; unless you're bgates himself, no one is going to be interested in mailbombing you. I've been in plenty of heated controversies in the past year, got a total of three mail messages, two of which were asking for help, the third was a complaint from some guy who thought he had the right to post copyright-violating text. Stan 20:46, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

OK, so why not say it drew mixed emotions from the crowd: some were shocked, others were excited... and eventually more and more people grew to like the idea. And, trust me, my minor revision isn't as biased as the current one is: I admit that I believe some open source rhetoric goes way off the deep end, but I'm not letting that difference opinion get in the way of how I re-edited it. I think I was even handed; I'm not exactly jumping up here saying how capitalism will save the world. I mean, why not add something like "Some hobbyist were intruged by the idea that they could make a career from what they enjoyed."?

I also object to "freely". It isn't needed and just acts like Mr. Gates was ruining freedoms. As the GPL shows, no such thing was done; Gates did not destroy the possibility for GPL, so don't act like he was the cause of the fall from the garden of eden utopia of freely shared software. That's just not historically accurate.

Interesting bits from Case Western [1]:

[...] Gates' letter was very unpopular and set off a huge controversy among computer users. Most published letters were against it, although some programmers who wrote software for a living sided with Gates. [...]

and Lee Felsenstein, in Salon [2]:

"I read it aloud from the floor of the Homebrew Computer Club. To great derision. I read it to the multitudes assembled in the SLAC auditorium. Everybody thought that was hilarious, and they were damned if they were going to send them $500."

So whatever the underlying reasons for the reaction, we don't want to whitewash the negative reaction that Gates had on the community of the time. Stan 05:24, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ok, let's get rid of the word "shocked" and put in "unpopular with some" and created "controversy." Controversy gives it a fairer light, because it implies there was debate on either side about it, not just one side. Also, the entry has gotta describe the people who liked the idea. You cannot possible consider it NPOV unless you mention that.

Also, can you please tell me what's so critical about the word "freely" being in there? Gates wasn't limiting anyone's freedom. And, in fact, the term used today for copying software without permission is called stealing.

Hey Stan, I think you make a good case for the wording as is. I made changes that further discuss Gates's point of the letter (i.e. that he felt the hobbyist were pirates). Also changed the awkward sentence that said "Although legally correct" to "While legally correct" and introduced the concept that it was "unprecented." MShonle 11:05, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Wealthiest

I don't know, according to the List of billionaires the Ikea guy (Ingvar Kamprad) actually doesn't have the wealth Forbes says he does. I say we change the entry to show Bill is the wealthiest again, and then link to List of billionaries. MShonle 20:46, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Source for this Paragraph?

It is incontestable that Gates has played hardball in the software industry. It has also been established in a court of law, and unanimously affirmed on appeal by a pro-business appellate court, that his company, under his leadership, repeatedly and egregiously engaged in business practices that violated U.S. laws.

Is there a source for these claims? I think backing them up would be advantageous. --Slowking Man 01:10, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)

No one will ever need more that 16k

What was that quote? Why is it not here under quotes?

Every version I've ever heard has 640k. It's never sourced, and Gates denies saying it. Gazpacho 00:13, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Paragraph on business practices

This article is about Bill Gates. Material about the history of Microsoft, but not about Gates personally, should be in Microsoft.
I am aware of the accusations regarding Lotus 123 but have never seen it substantiated with details about how Microsoft was breaking the program and why it was considered malicious.
"crushed competitors" is patently POV language.

Please note that Gates is a major public figure, and inevitably there are many unsubstantiated rumors about him. In particular, Robert Cringeley has been approached twice, by two different writers about Microsoft, to explain where he got the "ice cream story" in Accidental Empires. He either refused to respond, or said only that the story sounded plausible, without describing his source. Wendy Rohm's The Microsoft File is a basic hack-job and soap opera which frequently has Mrs. Rohm playing mind-reader. Hard Drive, although careful about sourcing, contains material that has been outdated by subsequent research. Which book did you use, AAAAA? Gazpacho 00:13, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)