21–30 of 84 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's hardly fair to look back with 30 years of hindsight and say that BASIC was more important to a company than SoftCard. Obviously, we know that now , but that doesn't speak to their specific situation.
IIRC, Paul Allen wrote most of Microsoft's original BASIC interpreter... And the emulator they used to develop it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's hardly fair to look back with 30 years of hindsight and say that BASIC was more important to a company than SoftCard. Obviously, we know that now , but that doesn't speak to their specific situation.
IIRC, Paul Allen wrote most of Microsoft's original BASIC interpreter... And the emulator they used to develop it.
Difficult to see how publicizing this stuff could be beneficial for Mr. Allen. At that level, and sitting on top of a multi-billion dollar fortune, it almost never behooves you to say anything negative about anybody -- least of all one of your former partners. I also think complaining about not getting a bigger share of MS stock, when you've got 14 billion in the bank...not exactly the stuff of which Jedi are made.
What is the risk for somebody with 14 billion in the bank to call out other when he/she feels they've been wrong (regardless of whether it's perception or reality). Allen could have called Gates they antichrist and he'd still have people lined up around the block to take his VC money or sit in the owner's box of Trailblazers game with him. 14 billion is definitely "FU" money.
I feel like I've worked with people like Paul Allen (programmers). They tend to over value their own contributions and have "revisionist histories" when considering their relationship with their manager, but really it comes down to how much recognition they received. The quote about Paul wanting significantly more shares for his contributions to SoftCard specifically ring true. SoftCard might have been a sales succes…
It's hardly fair to look back with 30 years of hindsight and say that BASIC was more important to a company than SoftCard. Obviously, we know that now , but that doesn't speak to their specific situation.
I don't discount the importance of SoftCard, it was actually key in the development of the relationship between IBM and Microsoft in the 80s, but even more key was the building of the relationship itself, which was largely driven by Gates.
Allen's attitude at the time reminds me of software developer coworkers who over emphasis the contributions that software development makes. I can understand Gates' reaction - Gates' job was not any easier and certainly not any less important, so why redistribute shares?
Difficult to see how publicizing this stuff could be beneficial for Mr. Allen. At that level, and sitting on top of a multi-billion dollar fortune, it almost never behooves you to say anything negative about anybody -- least of all one of your former partners. I also think complaining about not getting a bigger share of MS stock, when you've got 14 billion in the bank...not exactly the stuff of which Jedi are made.
He wants to be acknowledged. Everybody knows Bill Gates and sees him as the smart and great computer guy, while Mr. Allan is an unknown. It's like 2 brothers where the lesser talented uses all his life to proof he's just as good and therefore never gets to create something.
To make an analogy with Apple, if anything, his role at Microsoft was more like that of Steve Jobs, rather than that of Steve Wozniak; he provided the vision, he made the business calls that made Microsoft. Bill Gates does have a different style than Steve Jobs and doesn't have the same distortion field and attractiveness, but his speeches at Ted are great nonetheless (which makes me think he was bored at Microsoft :)).
Difficult to see how publicizing this stuff could be beneficial for Mr. Allen. At that level, and sitting on top of a multi-billion dollar fortune, it almost never behooves you to say anything negative about anybody -- least of all one of your former partners. I also think complaining about not getting a bigger share of MS stock, when you've got 14 billion in the bank...not exactly the stuff of which Jedi are made.
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 sid…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is the risk for somebody with 14 billion in the bank to call out other when he/she feels they've been wrong (regardless of whether it's perception or reality). Allen could have called Gates they antichrist and he'd still have people lined up around the block to take his VC money or sit in the owner's box of Trailblazers game with him. 14 billion is definitely "FU" money.
Large risk as you cannot buy a rep..its earned not bought
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2006/pulpit_20060330_0008...
Edit: Beaten to the punch by about 2 hours. Oops.
Difficult to see how publicizing this stuff could be beneficial for Mr. Allen. At that level, and sitting on top of a multi-billion dollar fortune, it almost never behooves you to say anything negative about anybody -- least of all one of your former partners. I also think complaining about not getting a bigger share of MS stock, when you've got 14 billion in the bank...not exactly the stuff of which Jedi are made.
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 sid…
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.
Difficult to see how publicizing this stuff could be beneficial for Mr. Allen. At that level, and sitting on top of a multi-billion dollar fortune, it almost never behooves you to say anything negative about anybody -- least of all one of your former partners. I also think complaining about not getting a bigger share of MS stock, when you've got 14 billion in the bank...not exactly the stuff of which Jedi are made.
It's an interesting type of discrimination at play here. The rich have just as much right to free speech and human emotion as everybody else. If someone feels that they have been mistreated, it is not appropriate to belittle their concerns based on their net worth. Whether their net worth is very low, or very high.
and a greater level of privilege to free speech, imho.