
Bill Gates – A villain who lived to see himself become a hero? (2016) - ghgr
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/3aicvf/what_villain_lived_long_enough_to_see_themselves/csd2rrl/
======
arsalanb
While what the comment states may be factually correct, it is unfair, in my
opinion. Classic example of people sitting in their couches at home to point
out everything Bill Gates did wrong in an attempt to judge him for the right
he's doing.

Business is business, he did what he had to in order to see his company
thrive. And now he's stepped back and wants to give back to society. Branding
him as a villain who wants to buy his way into heaven is a cheap shot.

~~~
js8
I disagree. Bill Gates is exactly what the title says, a villain who became a
hero.

We also have people who were heroes and stayed heroes. For example, Linus
Torvalds or Richard Stallman. It's unfortunate that our society values Gates
(the converted villain) more highly than Torvalds or Stallman (the hero from
the beginning). Or values Jobs more than Wozniak.

~~~
croon
> We also have people who were heroes and stayed heroes. For example, Linus
> Torvalds or Richard Stallman. It's unfortunate that our society values Gates
> (the converted villain) more highly than Torvalds or Stallman (the hero from
> the beginning).

I can really identify with this, but I also disagree.

We reward effort, and it takes a lot more to become good than staying good. In
the same way that we reward a struggling child who in the end manages to climb
an obstacle or finish a task, while not recognizing the other kid who has
already done both 20 times with ease.

I will never claim I'm a better person than anyone else, but I definitely was
a well behaved and quiet kid, and I remember seeing this a lot as a kid, at
which time I too wanted praise for my behavior when some frankly shitty kids
got it for occasionally not being jerks to the other kids.

But kids (and many grownups) aren't rational. I don't think kid me was right.
I think I wouldn't have grown as much, and I think my values would've been a
lot worse had I been constantly rewarded for something that came naturally to
me.

But perhaps it is different with grownups where we don't (or shouldn't) have
the expectation of shaping them. It's probably not shocking that I've always
valued Wozniak more.

~~~
js8
> We reward effort

I don't think so. Capitalism (or human society in general) isn't really
consistent in rewarding anything, and as a consequence, it is not
automatically moral. (Despite many people, for instance libertarians, making
lot of contortions to make it appear moral.)

~~~
TeMPOraL
You're looking for consistency in the wrong place. Capitalism is _very_
consistent - it rewards _whatever gives you money_. This makes it amoral,
because morality barely enters the equation (it's in the equation by proxy of
what people will pay you for, and by proxy of the legal environment under
which you operate).

RE effort - yeah, capitalism usually doesn't reward effort, because effort
alone does not bring money (unless they literally pay you to see you sweat).
In our circles, we know it through clichés like "it's null until you ship it",
or "ideas are worthless, execution matters", etc.

------
dvfjsdhgfv
This comment is spot on:

> I was a sysadmin through the tail end of the Microsoft desktop dominance.
> I'm glad that MS acted that way. It forever cemented in the minds of IT the
> danger of single vendor lock-in. [...] MS's bad behavior in the 90s and
> early 2000's bought us 50 to 100 years of lessons on what we need to avoid
> in the technology space.

~~~
KozmoNau7
And yet people are still all too willing to throw all their eggs into one
basket, with Apple or Google.

~~~
bennyelv
In my anecdotal experience, consumers yes, businesses less so.

~~~
TeMPOraL
Large businesses maybe; small and medium ones are more like consumers in this
regard.

------
usermac
Ah yes, not mentioned in that narrative is a personal experience that happened
twice in the 90's. I used a couple of tools to help fix software on PC's. MS
bought them and took them off the market.

------
Nokinside
It's hard to describe the ruthlessness of Microsoft in the 80s and 90's and
how ruthlessly Gates ran the company. Bill Gates was 'Gordon Gekko' of
technology. He was an angry office bully and nightmare boss (he admits this
himself).

Gates didn't run Microsoft as a technology company. Technological merit was
very low in the decision making. It was all about "Embrace, extend, and
extinguish" (phrase used by U.S. Department of Justice to describe Microsoft).
MS threw lawyers and dirty tactics against competitors. OEM's had to follow
directions from MS. Only after Bill Gates resigned his position as a Chief
Architect you started to see technological quality improve.

Software startups and VC companies in that era needed so called "Microsoft
Strategy". What to do when MS shows interest? Immediate sell out or fight
until death. If you demo them your product, they can make a copy. You can sue
them, but they just throw in more lawyers, buy out your chief architects with
millions. If the company wins the court battle years later it's too late. MS
could afford to lose in the court and still win.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguis...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_litigation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_litigation)

------
adrian_mrd
Also worth a read, for context:
[https://www.computerworld.com/article/2534391/microsoft-
wind...](https://www.computerworld.com/article/2534391/microsoft-windows/for-
bill-gates--antitrust-fight-was-a-personal-crucible.html)

------
mchahn
Ironically, the evil businessman Bill Gates was always a nice guy. I had
several business meetings with both Steve Jobs and Bill Gates and they were on
the opposite ends of the spectrum. I was on the same dais with Jobs at a
conference and had a personal dinner with Bill in Tokyo. Steve was the biggest
ahole on the planet while Bill was very personable.

So I am convinced that Bill's current good deeds are reflections of his
inherent personality and not related to his business persona.

P.S. Sorry about the name-dropping.

------
crdoconnor
I wouldn't say that all of Bill Gates' charity work necessarily grants him
"hero" status:

[https://www.alternet.org/education/how-bill-gates-and-his-
bi...](https://www.alternet.org/education/how-bill-gates-and-his-billionaire-
pals-used-their-enormous-wealth-start-privatizing)

------
bernardlunn
Don’t think “villain” works - its just business. But I have forgiven years of
dealing with crappy software as he has since saved so many lives

~~~
majewsky
> Don’t think “villain” works - its just business.

The biggest trick capitalism ever played on us is all the horrible behaviors
that are justified as "that's just how the system works".

~~~
smcl
Yeh I'm saddened by how easily "it's just business" seems to be used to
justify all manners of behaviour from petty bullying to ruining lives, or
destroying careers or companies.

------
vanderZwan
There are two things that I consider important to keep in mind when discussing
this kind of stuff: the issues with celebrity culture, probably best captured
in _" celebrity is not harmless fun – it’s the lieutenant of exploitation"_ by
George Monbiot, and (criticisms of) Great Man theory and how that highlights
the importance of distinguishing the individual from the structural[0][1].

From Monbiot's writing:

> _Corporation means body; capital means head. But corporate capital has
> neither head nor body. It is hard for people to attach themselves to a
> homogenised franchise, owned by a hedge fund whose corporate identity
> consists of a filing cabinet in Panama City. So the machine needs a mask. It
> must wear the face of someone we see as often as we see our next-door
> neighbours. It is pointless to ask what Kim Kardashian does to earn her
> living; her role is to exist in our minds. By playing our virtual neighbour,
> she induces a click of recognition on behalf of whatever grey monolith sits
> behind her this week._

Of course, Bill Gates isn't just a nerd-celebrity, he was the actual boss of
Microsoft, and as such has a big impact on its culture and vision and all of
that. Nevertheless, equating Bill Gates with MS is akin to saying that I am my
neocortex while ignoring every other part of my body. With giant companies
like MS and Apple, neither Gates nor Jobs _were_ the company. A lot of
faceless people steer the whole thing.

Which brings us to Great Man theory:

> _You must admit that the genesis of a great man depends on the long series
> of complex influences which has produced the race in which he appears, and
> the social state into which that race has slowly grown.... Before he can
> remake his society, his society must make him._ — Herbert Spencer, The Study
> of Sociology

"Bill Gates, head of evil Microsoft", did not happen in a vacuum. Microsoft
and its people also enabled him.

Now, I'm not saying that Bill Gates should be excused for all the shit that MS
did when he was in charge there, but using a person as the personification of
a giant company is really "primal", appealing to our tribal instincts. I
actually do not think that this is bad! Creating complex social structures by
repurposing old instincts is an efficient tactic, since it literally comes
naturally to us. However, the risk is that we may not be aware of it. This can
make a difference between us using our instincts to our benefits, or being
exploited through them.

It is important to become aware that _individual_ and _structural_ processes
are linked and influence each other greatly, but that they not the same thing.
The importance of this can be seen in modern discussions of racism or sexism:
people often get defensive because they feel _personally_ attacked when
_structural_ problems are raised, because they do not see the distinction.

So on this topic: I am much more interested in the _structural_ problems of
MS, Apple and the tech industry in general. Debating whether Bill Gates is a
villain or a hero is less interesting than looking at what his impact on all
of this was, what to learn from that, and what can be done to address current
structural issues.

[0] [http://www.monbiot.com/2016/12/22/imaginary-
friends-2/](http://www.monbiot.com/2016/12/22/imaginary-friends-2/)

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_man_theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_man_theory)

