IMHO there is a big difference between Apple and Microsoft, Bill Gates was surrounded by suits, Steve Jobs is surrounded by Engineers and Designers...
You know very little about Microsoft. You're right there was a difference. Jobs was surrounded by engineers and designers. Gates was surrounded by engineers. Gates top business guy was a math geek from Harvard with not much in the way of business experience (Ballmer).
If you look at Gates's colonels you'll see they were mostly engineers. Allchin was a widely respected developer prior to MS. Silverberg was a dev on the Lisa project. Rudder, Muglia, Sinofsky, Maritz, all rose through the ranks at MS in enginnering.
It wasn't until Ballmer became CEO did "suits" start moving up the ladder.
If you look at the execs that Gates surrounded himself with, you'll have a hard time finding a stronger team of executive engineers than he did. It even puts Google's current execs to shame (w/ respect to engineering horsepower).
I'm not sure where you got your info on Ballmer. Yes, he has a degree in Mathematics and Economics from Harvard, but he was a P&G marketing guy before coming to Microsoft.
That P&G gig is pure business, and though I think Ballmer has some understanding of technology and engineering, he doesn't have the near the depth that gates has.
I also disagree with your comments re: the executive engineers, though I'm sure you could convince me otherwise.
Executive Engineers or Designers isn't important, it is a leader with a clear vision which is needed. Gates was able to envision the future technology and push to get it done, same with Jobs. Ballmer just doesn't have that, and Microsoft has missed that over the last few years.
Re: Ballmer. He worked less than two years at P&G, which is why I said "not much in the way of business experience".
I also disagree with your comments re: the executive engineers
I'm not really sure what you're disagreeing with. I agree that Ballmer is no Gates. My first post in this thread was how Apple/MS aren't the same companies w/o Jobs/Gates. The follow-up poster made the point that Gates was surrounded by suits, and my point about engineering execs was that Gates wasn't surrounded by suits, but rather by engineers.
Magna cum laude typically represents about the top 20% of a class, with summa cum laude often around the top 5%. Although I'm unclear why the distinction mtters in this discussion.
Those people who knew him seems a good guide. In that video, he's talking about accounting math. Actually, I assumed "math whiz" meant proficiency in proving theorems, but the ordinary meaning of being good at arithmetic is reasonable, and probably what's meant here.
Although he's a maths geek in that sense, and he also went to Harvard, I think combing those two as "math geek from Harvard" suggests the theorem proving meaning.
To clarify: that wikipedia article says he graduated magna cum laude. I think to be a maths whiz, you need to be really good at it.
You know very little about Microsoft. You're right there was a difference. Jobs was surrounded by engineers and designers. Gates was surrounded by engineers. Gates top business guy was a math geek from Harvard with not much in the way of business experience (Ballmer).
If you look at Gates's colonels you'll see they were mostly engineers. Allchin was a widely respected developer prior to MS. Silverberg was a dev on the Lisa project. Rudder, Muglia, Sinofsky, Maritz, all rose through the ranks at MS in enginnering.
It wasn't until Ballmer became CEO did "suits" start moving up the ladder.
If you look at the execs that Gates surrounded himself with, you'll have a hard time finding a stronger team of executive engineers than he did. It even puts Google's current execs to shame (w/ respect to engineering horsepower).