Bill Gates made his fortune through sheer robber-baronry(threader.app)
threader.app
Bill Gates made his fortune through sheer robber-baronry
https://threader.app/thread/1304811968398729218
93 comments
Most people when they think innovation they think in terms of product, not process. From a process pov modern software engineering exists on a planet created by Microsoft. Commercial EULAs, shrink wrap software, platform effects, developers as customers, etc, etc were mostly Microsoft innovations.
Microsoft executed. They executed mostly well and sometimes brilliantly. Because if the processes are good enough for long enough product innovation can be secondary.
Apple eventually became Microsoft and that's how they beat them.
Microsoft executed. They executed mostly well and sometimes brilliantly. Because if the processes are good enough for long enough product innovation can be secondary.
Apple eventually became Microsoft and that's how they beat them.
If I had known how Gates would spend his fortune, I wouldn't have spent all those years griping about Micro$haft.
I believe he has the soul of a gamer. (heck, he ran a regular poker game at Harvard).
And when he was immersed into the money-making game, he was all in, willing to do anything to win.
But when you eventually beat the game, you don't get that thrilled anymore, there's no big challenge ahead. You can play for a while to see how far can you go, but it ends up being boring after a while.
So, I think he moved on to basically a real life version of reversal Plague Inc (instead of trying to infect everyone, he tries to beat a disease). This is a harder challenge in many ways, because he needs to deal with tons of geopolitics, international affairs, research and development, human behavior, etc.
If you see it from that perspective, you can still see that he is still a hard player, but this time, he is playing a game that can be beneficial for everybody, not just himself.
And when he was immersed into the money-making game, he was all in, willing to do anything to win.
But when you eventually beat the game, you don't get that thrilled anymore, there's no big challenge ahead. You can play for a while to see how far can you go, but it ends up being boring after a while.
So, I think he moved on to basically a real life version of reversal Plague Inc (instead of trying to infect everyone, he tries to beat a disease). This is a harder challenge in many ways, because he needs to deal with tons of geopolitics, international affairs, research and development, human behavior, etc.
If you see it from that perspective, you can still see that he is still a hard player, but this time, he is playing a game that can be beneficial for everybody, not just himself.
> real life version of reversal Plague Inc
To be pedantic, Plague Inc is just a reversed clone of the board game Pandemic.
But overall, I think you’re spot on with his motivation.
To be pedantic, Plague Inc is just a reversed clone of the board game Pandemic.
But overall, I think you’re spot on with his motivation.
You are assuming that the information that is publicly available is a representative sample of how Bill Gates spends his money. That may or may not be true.
It’s a fact he’s given tens of billions to charity. What evidence do you have of him spending similar amounts on other things?
Except most of those tens of billions haven't gone anywhere and are still held by a foundation fully controlled by bill gates. The amount of it that drips down to actual charities is a small percentage of these tens of billions each year.
They are currently giving away about $5 billion a year.
I too would like to donate a few billions from my 100 billion pile of cash.
I mean why would he donate everything at once? That wouldn't really make sense.
Perhaps not all at once, but there are plenty of problems with underfunded solutions.
A few years back, I was fortunate to have a random conversation with a reknown researcher from Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory. He was lucid and blunt: if we had more money we could solve fusion.
A couple days later there was news of China having done the longest running fusion reactor burst (?) to date. Two-plus minutes.
I keep thinking about that conversation and his "promise."
A few years back, I was fortunate to have a random conversation with a reknown researcher from Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory. He was lucid and blunt: if we had more money we could solve fusion.
A couple days later there was news of China having done the longest running fusion reactor burst (?) to date. Two-plus minutes.
I keep thinking about that conversation and his "promise."
Some days I keep thinking that it shouldn't be a nice oddity, that it should actually be mandatory at some point to give back wealth to humanity. I'm not sure how and how to prevent abuses, but I feel it should be oh so much more common that if one single person gets to be able make such an impact on the world for good, they must.
I don’t understand this reasoning? Isn’t it exactly the same of approval of a centralized government dictatorship if you know that after the destruction of the contenders handouts would be made to survivors?
It sounds like you're implying that in this dictatorship people have been killed and their property distributed among people who haven't been killed.
If so, no it is very clearly not the same because Bill Gates is not a dictator nor is he responsible for killing people. To compare a wealthy monopolist to a murderous dictator lacks perspective, to say the least.
If so, no it is very clearly not the same because Bill Gates is not a dictator nor is he responsible for killing people. To compare a wealthy monopolist to a murderous dictator lacks perspective, to say the least.
Do you need to have dead bodies to have an evil empire? Careers denied, businesses destroyed, ideals stifled are widespread in modern dictatorships.
Erdogan haven’t executed a single person and yet Turkey has become a terrible place for people with ambition, sky high brain drain is the norm, almost all public contracts are won by the same few businessmen however the government has widespread social programs so no one is actually starving or lacks access to modern medicine.
Should people be grateful? Probably not as much as the businessmen that get all the contracts and becoming the biggest in the world.
Erdogan haven’t executed a single person and yet Turkey has become a terrible place for people with ambition, sky high brain drain is the norm, almost all public contracts are won by the same few businessmen however the government has widespread social programs so no one is actually starving or lacks access to modern medicine.
Should people be grateful? Probably not as much as the businessmen that get all the contracts and becoming the biggest in the world.
He's a good guy now, right?
Aside from the resentments of the author, I have to agree that antitrust has been weakened in recent decades. This is just simply a fact. Some of you may think that is a good thing, but you have to admit that it is the case.
"A conspiracy to modify Windows so Netscape-rendered content would appear "degraded""
This sounds like what Apple is doing right now and everyone keeps defending it when it actual fact it's even worse.
Degraded non safari web browser performance on iOS ring a bell?
This sounds like what Apple is doing right now and everyone keeps defending it when it actual fact it's even worse.
Degraded non safari web browser performance on iOS ring a bell?
I recently learned that Chrome on iOS is actually Safari in a Chrome shell.
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/11259152/chrome-ios-is-i...
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/11259152/chrome-ios-is-i...
> This sounds like what Apple is doing right now
I believe Apple rectified the third party browser performance issue in the 2015 revision of WKWebView
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2016/01/new-chrome-for-ios-i...
I believe Apple rectified the third party browser performance issue in the 2015 revision of WKWebView
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2016/01/new-chrome-for-ios-i...
That would allow a company to equal the speed of safari, not surpass it.
>> This sounds like what Apple is doing right now and everyone keeps defending it when it actual fact it's even worse
What is it exactly that Apple is doing that you are referring to (I honestly don’t know)?
What is it exactly that Apple is doing that you are referring to (I honestly don’t know)?
Apple also constantly prompts me to use their browser instead of the one I like, despite the fact that I've expressed my preference hundreds of times over the years.
Chrome does the same thing on Android. These days I prefer Safari because Google thinks it's ok to show me ads and news items based on my searches for medical issues.
Android asks you if you want to switch to Chrome when you open Firefox?
No. It asks you at first whether you want to use chrome, firefox or any other browser installed. You can choose an option once or always.
That sounds reasonable. What macOS does is from time to time it uses the notification system to ask you if you would care to switch to Safari, the choices being "now" or "later", there is no choice such as "never".
Strange, i've used macOS and Chrome for more than ten years now and can't remember ever seeing that.
A bit off topic bit it reminds me a bit of one of Louis Rossman's recent videos. Apple hampers the ability for independent repair shops to get parts, making the repair shop look degraded compared to Apple.
If someone is interested, that particular transcript can be found here:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/business/longterm/micr...
A fascinating read.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/business/longterm/micr...
A fascinating read.
Gates used Microsoft to learn to create and then play the IP monopoly game, and then used their gains to started building a bigger and bigger warchest. Does anyone have examples of dominating-intellectual-property -oriented VC-funded tech acquihires/acquisitions before Microsoft?
the digital* IP monopoly game
The concept of 'corporate personhood' is the single most damaging and unjust legal construct of the century.
Less than a couple of centuries ago, our ancestors understood that corporations were an unnatural idea which did not fit neatly within the framework of capitalism; so this status was reserved for large scale government projects and had very specific constraints and mandates imposed upon them.
It wasn't until much later that corporations became the go-to strategy for any business.
It takes 5 minutes to realize that corporations don't make sense as a concept; the main benefit of a corporate structure over private business structures is limited liability... Why in the world would we need to shield people from being held liable for decisions that they made??? This is absurd.
The concept of a corporation is nothing but a way to deflect blame away from real individuals who actually exist and to redirect that blame towards a fictitious entity which is impervious to any kind of meaningful worldly punishment.
It takes 5 minutes to realize that corporations don't make sense as a concept; the main benefit of a corporate structure over private business structures is limited liability... Why in the world would we need to shield people from being held liable for decisions that they made??? This is absurd.
The concept of a corporation is nothing but a way to deflect blame away from real individuals who actually exist and to redirect that blame towards a fictitious entity which is impervious to any kind of meaningful worldly punishment.
The coastal inferno, the Gulf hurricanes, widespread protests and riots: are these actions of the invisible hand? This year's election is a choice between the status quo which brought us here, and a corrupt tyrant who will consolidate the profits to an even smaller class of elites. So, let's focus on Gates: the kindest, gentlest, robber baron. This century's Carnegie.
He's plainspoken on the issue, really. If he were a politician, he'd be restricted by laws and diplomacy and dealmaking. As a rich bastard, he can traipse around and wield unilateral power wherever he decides to shower with pennies. Of course, Bezos, Zuck et al have the same power. But they don't even bother to pretend that they give a shit about non-billionaires.
He's plainspoken on the issue, really. If he were a politician, he'd be restricted by laws and diplomacy and dealmaking. As a rich bastard, he can traipse around and wield unilateral power wherever he decides to shower with pennies. Of course, Bezos, Zuck et al have the same power. But they don't even bother to pretend that they give a shit about non-billionaires.
This is what he wrote about in a longer form here:
https://onezero.medium.com/how-to-destroy-surveillance-capit...
This is also what Matt Stoller is writing about, the "monopolisation" of the world, particularly in tech of course: https://mattstoller.substack.com/
Funnily, I've recently read "Imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism" by Lenin. Multinational companies were called trusts, monopolism was called imperialism, and train, coal and steel was since replaced with telcos and internet but it's incredibly apt at describing our world. Even the "systemic banks" were mostly the same 100 years ago : BNP, Deutsche Bank, Société Générale, JPMorgan...
This is also what Matt Stoller is writing about, the "monopolisation" of the world, particularly in tech of course: https://mattstoller.substack.com/
Funnily, I've recently read "Imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism" by Lenin. Multinational companies were called trusts, monopolism was called imperialism, and train, coal and steel was since replaced with telcos and internet but it's incredibly apt at describing our world. Even the "systemic banks" were mostly the same 100 years ago : BNP, Deutsche Bank, Société Générale, JPMorgan...
Thank you, both links led to thought-provoking articles.
> "..The rule of law against the powerful has collapsed in America."
> "Monopolism makes companies act like mafias, stupid and lazy, with an emphasis on abusive commercial practice rather than technical or organizational excellence."
> "Surveillance capitalism is everywhere. But it’s not the result of some wrong turn or a rogue abuse of corporate power — it’s the system working as intended."
---
Here's the whole pamphlet by Lenin:
Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism - https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/
I'm no Marxist by any means, but I think it's possible to appreciate some of these insights into society, without dismissing (or agreeing with) the ideology that it's become.
> "..The rule of law against the powerful has collapsed in America."
> "Monopolism makes companies act like mafias, stupid and lazy, with an emphasis on abusive commercial practice rather than technical or organizational excellence."
> "Surveillance capitalism is everywhere. But it’s not the result of some wrong turn or a rogue abuse of corporate power — it’s the system working as intended."
---
Here's the whole pamphlet by Lenin:
Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism - https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/
I'm no Marxist by any means, but I think it's possible to appreciate some of these insights into society, without dismissing (or agreeing with) the ideology that it's become.
And ever since, tech companies - for the most part - have been much less naive about what can happen when tangling with politicians, especially the W.DC type.
The loan to buy dos gets all the storytime usually. So some airing of the part about putting ibm through the ringer. Yup. The applied practices of capital.
Let's forget about the tens of thousands of companies that thrived and hundreds of thousands of jobs created for Bill Gates' horrible ways. And the fact that they willingly paid because they thought having Microsoft products was better than not having Microsoft products. No one benefited from his robber-baronry and everyone was forced to use Microsoft technology, even Apple, and those products brought no value to no one. Oh man, I can't even believe he would ever want to donate half of it to the prosperity of humanity either. What good does that do?
“Any government action that would derail or delay Windows 98 would hurt the American economy and would cost American jobs.”
— Bill Gates (5 May 1998)
Lest we don't forget about DRDOS, BeOS and other victims of his monopoly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AARD_code
You use incorrect reasoning.
You should think in the terms of opportunity cost.
I'm convinced that there would have been more jobs and innovation without MS monopoly. MS under gates killed and slowed down progress in personal computing. They didn't innovate.
You should think in the terms of opportunity cost.
I'm convinced that there would have been more jobs and innovation without MS monopoly. MS under gates killed and slowed down progress in personal computing. They didn't innovate.
I actually don't think it was a monopoly. I think it created an opportunity for someone else to create better software. But instead we wanted to get rid of the so called monopoly and we secured Microsoft's position in the market. So if you want to talk about opportunity cost and state that Microsoft had a monopoly, then the opportunity cost is that we didn't let another better company take its place naturally and we spent a lot of tax payer money in politics to take care of a problem that didn't need intervention. I firmly believe we wouldn't be forced to use Microsoft today if we chose to do nothing.
What I mean is, we secured it by forcing them to create better products, so we made Microsoft more desirable for consumers. If someone dislikes Microsoft's monopoly and Bill Gates' fortune, then I'd argue intervention made it worse.
My opinion is that this is not something limited to software. Think about rain forests, and about how difficult it is to connect money with nature. Free Software will always have aspects like this.
It would be better to focus on individual actions that may have been nefarious, on Bill Gates's part, than the overall fact that everyone started to use MS Windows. I think this is the only way to have some sort of audit of opinions. It is not clear to me that humans are able to en masse adopt actions that are always mutually beneficial.
You could also say that humans have universally adopted a stance that gold is valuable. The question of whether gold should be valuable or not is rather difficult to answer, and indeed this is what cypherpunks were thinking about in 2007.
I have a somewhat unpopular opinion that leather is more nature friendly than synthetics---since many hides, globally, are often discarded due to the cost of tanning---and if I were to make leather products more popular, on average, then it may become difficult to say whether it should be popular or not. And at that point one would need some sort of critical appraisal of individual actions and the individual intention and results of actions.
It would be better to focus on individual actions that may have been nefarious, on Bill Gates's part, than the overall fact that everyone started to use MS Windows. I think this is the only way to have some sort of audit of opinions. It is not clear to me that humans are able to en masse adopt actions that are always mutually beneficial.
You could also say that humans have universally adopted a stance that gold is valuable. The question of whether gold should be valuable or not is rather difficult to answer, and indeed this is what cypherpunks were thinking about in 2007.
I have a somewhat unpopular opinion that leather is more nature friendly than synthetics---since many hides, globally, are often discarded due to the cost of tanning---and if I were to make leather products more popular, on average, then it may become difficult to say whether it should be popular or not. And at that point one would need some sort of critical appraisal of individual actions and the individual intention and results of actions.
News?
“THE ENTIRE TECH INDUSTRY FITS AROUND A SINGLE TABLE.” Is incredibly reductive.
Threader is pretty interesting. It not only makes it generally easier to read (save from any mistakes in the scraping or formatting) but also allows for reading a twitter thread without the distraction of twitter itself, designed to pull you into their ecosystem after you've finished the thread.
> without the distraction of twitter itself,
https://nitter.net/search
https://nitter.net/search
It's reasonable to ask about the exact meaning of the word concerned given the situation.
Also all the things mentioned are pretty standard these days.
Also all the things mentioned are pretty standard these days.
Has the term been used to describe some other behavior since I learned about it in 5th grade History class? I’d love to learn what else it’s used for, if so
It's not clear who "you" refers to in this context. Is it Bill Gates? Microsoft? Does concern mean, "I sure hope they don't succeed" or does it imply active steps?
In fact the meaning is completely clear in the context of the recording and the events that preceded it.
You cannot get ahead in society without making someone somewhat worse off.
How many you made worse off, and how much you made them worse off is a function of how much you got ahead and in how much time.
"Free-market is not a zero sum game", is a lie that morons that go by the name of 'economists' like to tell you. The world economy is growing by a minuscule amount of 4% every year. Yes it's pretty much a zero-sum game, when some grow way more than 4%, and others less, or even grow negative.
When CD tech became widespread, the VCR industry went out of business. When DVD tech came along, CD industry went out of business. Online streaming put pretty much everyone else out of business.
Do you not call this making people worse off? I do.
Is it a bad thing? that's a different question.
How many you made worse off, and how much you made them worse off is a function of how much you got ahead and in how much time.
"Free-market is not a zero sum game", is a lie that morons that go by the name of 'economists' like to tell you. The world economy is growing by a minuscule amount of 4% every year. Yes it's pretty much a zero-sum game, when some grow way more than 4%, and others less, or even grow negative.
When CD tech became widespread, the VCR industry went out of business. When DVD tech came along, CD industry went out of business. Online streaming put pretty much everyone else out of business.
Do you not call this making people worse off? I do.
Is it a bad thing? that's a different question.
While inventing the printing press certainly put many scribes out of business, few would call it zero-sum or robber-barony. The amount of new wealth generated was exponential. That is still happening. 4% growth per year is over 10x in an average person's lifetime. Even accounting for inflation, the amount of wealth per capita is always increasing with technology and innovation.
You allude to the fact that you don't consider it to be a bad thing at the end, but even calling it a zero sum game is plainly wrong.
You are right about one thing, though. The incumbents are made worse off by a better innovation. Sometimes that comes in the form of mom and pop shops, sometimes big slow corporations. However, the positive net wealth gains and the fact that this is the only way to achieve progress makes it seem worthwhile.
You allude to the fact that you don't consider it to be a bad thing at the end, but even calling it a zero sum game is plainly wrong.
You are right about one thing, though. The incumbents are made worse off by a better innovation. Sometimes that comes in the form of mom and pop shops, sometimes big slow corporations. However, the positive net wealth gains and the fact that this is the only way to achieve progress makes it seem worthwhile.
There has been no economic growth at all over the past 5 years and possibly much longer (if you account for possible market manipulations by reserve banks).
If you measure the market cap of the biggest corporations relative to any scarce commodity like Gold or Silver, the charts would be totally flat.
If you measure stock prices in terms of cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin, then stock prices have been dropping rapidly.
It doesn't make sense to measure stock prices in terms of fiat currencies anymore because the Reserve Banks of the world can and have printed unlimited amounts of it. You should only measure the price of stocks relative to the value of scarce assets which have a stable intrinsic value (which is not the case for the dollar or any fiat currency).
In Venezuela, the stock market yields hundreds or even thousand of times your investment per year if returns are denominated in the national Venezuelan Bolivar currency; this is way higher than any ROI you can get from any modern stock markets in the US or anywhere else... It doesn't mean that these companies are good investments and are actually growing (they're not; they're tanking just like Venezuela itself).
If you think this is not what's happening in the US, just consider that the price of US stocks are strongly correlated with each other... This is totally consistent with what's happening in Venezuela; the degree of correlation in price of unrelated stocks tells you the degree to which the so-called 'growth' can be attributed to currency inflation.
It doesn't make sense to measure stock prices in terms of fiat currencies anymore because the Reserve Banks of the world can and have printed unlimited amounts of it. You should only measure the price of stocks relative to the value of scarce assets which have a stable intrinsic value (which is not the case for the dollar or any fiat currency).
In Venezuela, the stock market yields hundreds or even thousand of times your investment per year if returns are denominated in the national Venezuelan Bolivar currency; this is way higher than any ROI you can get from any modern stock markets in the US or anywhere else... It doesn't mean that these companies are good investments and are actually growing (they're not; they're tanking just like Venezuela itself).
If you think this is not what's happening in the US, just consider that the price of US stocks are strongly correlated with each other... This is totally consistent with what's happening in Venezuela; the degree of correlation in price of unrelated stocks tells you the degree to which the so-called 'growth' can be attributed to currency inflation.
Try benchmarking the latest and greatest desktop computer from 5 years ago against what you can build today. Try using a 5 year old smartphone versus a new one. Count how many skyscrapers have been erected in big cities that didn't exist 5 years ago. You are arguing about some different topic, such as currency manipulation and the implications of government debt.
However, total wealth certainly hasn't been stagnant, which is what this thread is about.
However, total wealth certainly hasn't been stagnant, which is what this thread is about.
Wealth is about value. Personally I never cared much about the latest smartphone, I wouldn't mind going back to my phone from 5 years ago.
As for skyscrapers, as COVID19 has shown, we don't need most of them (since people can just work remotely). The money would have been better spent on giving millenials higher salaries (or better, investing more in independent startups) so that they could afford to buy their first house in the suburbs instead of keeping them enslaved to their landlords and their corporate paymasters in the city centers.
In terms of the things that actually matter, wealth hasn't grown at all.
I can stack millions of rocks on top of each other into a giant pile but that doesn't mean I've been productive or that I created any wealth if nobody benefits from my pile of rocks or if people are coerced into accepting its legitimacy as a measure of wealth.
I can stack millions of rocks on top of each other into a giant pile but that doesn't mean I've been productive or that I created any wealth if nobody benefits from my pile of rocks or if people are coerced into accepting its legitimacy as a measure of wealth.
Wealth is about perceived value. What you personally perceive as valuable is different than the majority of participants in the economy, so trying to enforce your judgments upon the system to show that no value was created is pointless. You clearly have many gripes with various aspects of the economic system, but my point is that value is still being created. I've created a ton of value since 2015. The professional hardware and tools I use have improved tremendously since that time. While the exact value below the paper wealth numbers may be difficult to ascertain, it doesn't mean no wealth was created. It should be obvious that things are still advancing to someone in the tech space.
I can, watch me: I code a webpage for a business. Or make any other software for a business.
Let me know in 30 years.
If you had more than 4% annual growth the whole time (on average), and the world grew only 4% (on average), yes you did make someone somewhat worse off. You may not know who that is, or where, or how many, but they exist.
edit: The one who you made worse off might be a billionaire, while you a middle class person. That's why I said it's a different question if it's a bad thing. But the fact remains.
If you had more than 4% annual growth the whole time (on average), and the world grew only 4% (on average), yes you did make someone somewhat worse off. You may not know who that is, or where, or how many, but they exist.
edit: The one who you made worse off might be a billionaire, while you a middle class person. That's why I said it's a different question if it's a bad thing. But the fact remains.
To make someone worse off, they need to perceive it as such (not absolutely, but mostly yeah). If I helped them get ahead, they don't think I made them worse off, it's an exchange - and I exchanged value that I created, I didn't need to make someone worse off.
That his gains made someone else worse off because he beat the average is a bad assumption.
I cannot believe that people would downvote this comment. It's completely reasonable and I agree 100%.
HN has a really strong "rich people bad" attitude coming up lately (~ since the last US election) which is also prevalent on sites like Reddit. On the other hand HN is the site where I think probably most commenters are in the top 1% in the US by salary [1]. It's a really strange phenomenon and as an outsider it's also interesting to observe.
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/money/2020/07/01/how-much-you-...
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/money/2020/07/01/how-much-you-...
It's not just HN and reddit. It's anyone who's not living alone in the woods. Class consciousness is thankfully becoming more prevalent, and these days how could you not notice: the rich get richer, the 99% is worse off, the planet is being destroyed, there's no accountability, and electoralism is failing.
There's a large swath of pro-capitalism sentiment on HN because it's overwhelmed with people who've "won" the game at the expense of everyone else. I wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't thousands of millionaires that read this site at least once a week.
There's a large swath of pro-capitalism sentiment on HN because it's overwhelmed with people who've "won" the game at the expense of everyone else. I wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't thousands of millionaires that read this site at least once a week.
You think most californian commenters on hn make more than $659k a year? Hmm.
Elon Musk, or Steve Jobs have probably been just as brutal but at least they innovated and created cool stuff. They have/had vision.
MS under Gates was special in that they didn't come up with anything very innovative. MS totally lacked vision. They first killed innovative competitors, then maybe incorporated parts of that innovation after delay. Gates was incredibly knowledgeable and intelligent, but not visionary. Tech was only secondary consideration to business. MS under gates was technologically underwhelming and super dull. After Gates resigned from his position as Chief Technology Officer in MS, Microsoft's as a tech company started to improve almost instantly.