He isn't doing it to benefit himself. He probably doesn't care whether you like him or not, and he definitely doesn't need your money or respect.
I guess Paul just wants the world to know that the image of Gates as our benevolent patron of philanthropy is itself revisionism, lest anyone forget that Bill Gates was one of the least loyal and trustworthy friends a person could ask for.
It doesn't surprise me that HN sides with the victor in cases like this, but I would argue that any serious business person should watch and learn carefully from the lessons of two close friends who changed the world and ended up disliking each other.
People change with time, and are not necessarily the same as they were in the past. Forming a collective of ones entire life and cherry-picking various moments simply gives you highlights, both good and bad. They don't speak to what the person is right now.
Probably your best bet to gage someone is to look at what they've been doing recently, going back maybe no more than ~5 years. Here you'll see someone whose learned from their past mistakes, likely acting differently due to life lessons, and are essentially the most authentic "version" of a person they currently are.
You are absolutely right, but just because he has changed and the world has forgiven him doesn't mean we should forget his past self. There are still lessons to be learned. And, his philanthropy doesn't justify his past bad behavior.
Yeah, I completely agree. I'm sure he doesn't need my or anybody else's money or respect. But I wonder if the message he's trying to get across is the one that's actually getting across. Looking at it from a gaming standpoint, can his play here can ever have a positive expectation?
By what measure? If Paul Allen wants people to remember that Bill Gates used to be a dick, and people read his book and do so, maybe that's all the positive expectation he needs. Even if it hurts his own reputation maybe it is worth it to him.
I don't doubt Allen's claims, but years and experience can change a man. The person Paul was complaining about, probably doesn't exist anymore except in distant memories, albeit rather painful ones. People can change for the better.
I have always thought the relational dynamic between Jobs and Woz was instructive for similar reasons.
(Not that these two founders aren't friends anymore, but I think it's pretty obvious that it isn't what it was)
"least loyal and trustworthy friends a person could ask for": citation?
Are you referring to the discussion Gates and Ballmer had about diluting Allen? That seems to be a way to dilute a founder who was slacking off. The word partnership is used several times; this may imply that everybody was 100% vested already. If so, this is the only thing they could do to somebody who wasn't pulling his weight.
Are you seriously asking for a citation to show that Bill Gates is (was?) a ruthless person with questionable ethics? Forty years of ripping off other people's software, berating and humiliating his own team, buying and shutting down competitors, and impeding progress in the name of vendor lock-in, plus the newly-published "insider" memoir of his co-founder isn't enough for you?
I've met Bill Gates, so I'll stick with my personal opinion. You're entitled to yours.
The parent claimed "least loyal and trustworthy friend".
Where have you supported that claim? If you've "met" BG, I invite you to post some already-known anecdotes etc about his conduct as a friend, which is exactly what I asked about.
That comment was based on Allen's account of Ballmer and Gates plotting to dilute him – a dick move by any measure, esp. after Allen showed his good faith on a number of occasions.
Gates and Allen were friends at when they went to school together. I went to the same school some years after them, and drew my own opinions based on first and second hand experiences with both of them.
No matter what you believe about the quality of their friendship, there's a teaching lesson for co-founders in their story.
Heartless as it sounds, it is absolutely fair to think about how to protect the business and yourself in the event that a fully vested founder were to be unable to do the duties one has reasonably assumed they would do.
Ownership shares are not like salary (imho): they're not just for past work, but also for future contributions.
Without specifics on to what extent exactly they were planning to dilute him, I am not prepared to condemn BillG. YMMV.
Jobs' actual cheating through a straightforward lie to Woz wrt how much they got paid for Atari's contract job they did is FAR worse than a planning conversation BillG had. IMHO. http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/hackers/steve-wozniak/
I guess Paul just wants the world to know that the image of Gates as our benevolent patron of philanthropy is itself revisionism, lest anyone forget that Bill Gates was one of the least loyal and trustworthy friends a person could ask for.
It doesn't surprise me that HN sides with the victor in cases like this, but I would argue that any serious business person should watch and learn carefully from the lessons of two close friends who changed the world and ended up disliking each other.