Idolize Bill Gates, Not Steve Jobs

Idolize Bill Gates, Not Steve Jobs(blogs.hbr.org)

30 points by hellacious 14 years ago | 23 comments

jgrahamc 14 years ago |

I wouldn't idolize either of them. Idolatry seems like a bad idea. How about just reading about their lives and seeing what makes sense for you to copy for your life?

As one Zen teacher puts it: "there are no enlightened beings, only enlightened actions". So do the actions and ignore the beings.

brudgers 14 years ago | |

From a business perspective, Gates offers some interesting lessons - bootstrapping allows a lot of your employees to get rich - even the secretaries; eating your own dogfood can help you produce successful product lines (Project, Office, Visual Studio); you don't have to sell to the the cool kids using Pascal - BASIC is fine; and if you treat consumers like your B2B customers, you will build market share.

initself 14 years ago |

"As much as I love Apple, Inc, I would happily give up my iPhone to put food on the plates of starving children."

No you wouldn't. If that were true, you would have already done it.

exit 14 years ago | |

hmm, i think what people mean when they say this is:

i would gladly trade the system which produces iphones for one which puts food on the plates of otherwise starving children

there's a mismatch between the narrow "my iphone" and the broad "plates of starving children"

13rules 14 years ago | | |

Initself's point still stands ... you have the opportunity to do something now, however small it may be, about whatever things are important to you.

Instead, the author seems to be saying, "I want someone else to change their policies that impact the world so I can feel less guilty about the fact that I am doing nothing."

pg 14 years ago |

This is not fair to Steve Jobs. We don't have a full life to judge him by. If this writer had to judge Bill Gates 10 years ago, he would have fallen short of Gates now.

acabal 14 years ago | |

I don't know about that. This year they're both the same age, had both amassed billions, and had become titans of industry. One of them publicly devoted himself to spending his riches on improving humanity; the other continued to enrich himself by developing what are at their core expensive first-world gadgets (though how much he gave to charity is I believe not known).

How much does it take before you have a "full life" that you can be judged by?

pg 14 years ago | | |

I think the general consensus is that a full life is more than 56 years.

kschua 14 years ago | |

Likewise, we don't have a full life to judge Bill Gates by.

As both of them are of the same age (actually Bill is younger in terms of months), it is a perfectly valid comparison as to how far both men had come at this particular stage in their lives (56 years), so why should the writer judge the Bill Gates of 10 years ago (at 46 years) and compare it with the late Steve Jobs (at 56 years)

ryandvm 14 years ago | |

I disagree. Apple's cultural disdain for philanthropy is well known and comes directly from the top. The most valuable company in the world gives squat to charity when compared with their corporate peers (Microsoft, Google, etc.) and they look even worse when compared with financial equals like Exxon or Walmart.

steventruong 14 years ago | | |

I think in his biography, it was mentioned that Jobs had a dislike for those doing philanthropy publicly, as in, trying to get recognition for it rather than the cause. Jobs helped and donated to certain causes quietly in areas like education and I think his wife was involved in a number of areas.

I mention the above to state only one thing... Practically everyone here does not know enough about Gates or Jobs on a personal level to make any kind of judgement. Anything you hear is all second hand information and what is displayed by the media. It could well be, relative to a lot of other rich folks, Jobs didn't play a big enough role and certainly Apple was not involved in any charity related stuff, but that doesn't mean he hasn't done his part towards causes he wanted to help out.

Metaphorically speaking, it's a lot like saying someone who has money but doesn't buy much is cheap. That's not necessarily true. They'll spend money, and lots of it, on things they actually care for and want. On other things, its not important. On this front, Jobs also is an example. All that said, it's their life, their money. Let them choose how to live it their way.

As another HN member already commented, don't idolize either but take away lessons from each and mold your own path.

davidjhall 14 years ago |

I wouldn't idolize Bill Gates either -- while his recent activities are more charitable than Jobs, he led Microsoft through some less-than-charitable activities. I worked for Sybase which, initially partnered with Microsoft, but which later Bill Gates had targeted, much like Jobs and the Android.

thedufer 14 years ago |

The problem with idolizing Bill Gates was stated most elegantly by PG: "no startup can be the next Microsoft unless some other company is prepared to bend over at just the right moment and be the next IBM[...]Microsoft is a bad data point." There is much to be admired in what Bill Gates has done with his wealth (and little to be admired in Steve Jobs by the same criteria). But if you're looking for an idol in the context if building a tech company, Steve Jobs seems like the way to go.

I guess the important thing, then, is to have different people guide different parts of your life. No one was good at everything; pick and choose their good sides.

wanorris 14 years ago | |

One of the most important steps in Google's growth was when they cut a deal to be the technology provider for Yahoo's search back when Yahoo dominated the web, so perhaps finding a big company that will bend over at just the right moment isn't as impossible as it seems?

staunch 14 years ago |

Great example of where I wish I had a downvote button. This article is fluff linkbait, but it is also on topic.

pg 14 years ago | |

I agree entirely. This is what the flag link is for.

staunch 14 years ago | | |

Here's why I've been confused about that I think:

http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

> If you think something is spam or offtopic, flag it by going to its page and clicking on the "flag" link.

Maybe we could get more flagging if you updated the guidelines or renamed it "junk".

AlexandrB 14 years ago |

The whole comparison is silly and a false dichotomy. Using Jobsian attention to detail and work ethic to drive your career/business is not mutually exclusive with donating the result to charity.

Arguably, Jobs's lifestyle is probably more suited for philanthropy because of the (relatively) spartan nature of his tastes in fashion, housing and cars.

gdonelli 14 years ago |

They both contributed to humanity in different ways.

They don't need to be one better than the other.

treetrouble 14 years ago |

This post will not be well received on HN because the taste leaders here are people who have deeply internalized the Jobs mindset for better or worse

jwallaceparker 14 years ago |

Clearly there is a lot to admire in the life and careers of both men. I don't think this is an either-or situation.

tobylane 14 years ago |

Gates has done a lot of good out of the company, so yes for that work he is better than Jobs, better than most people (bit hard to judge with billionaires, most of them want to give away 90% of their wealth but it doesn't make them charitable). In terms of business and innovation, when you look at the five-ish years around the starts of the two companies the stories I keep hearing lean a lot towards Jobs/Woz doing a better, more involved and innovative creation.

Unfortunately the line may well be "Don't make money the way these billionaires did, no-one did it nicely. When you have billions, give it away like they all do."