31–33 of 33 posts
One prominent chief executive told Fortune he'd heard from someone close to Gates that he might be considering such a move. It's hard to imagine a less reliable source. And that sentence is the only real news in the article!
That's a news speak for "Balmer said that Gates told him" but he wouldn't be cited on the record.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a news speak for "Balmer said that Gates told him" but he wouldn't be cited on the record.
How did u conclude that?
But this is a device often used in media, when somebody would like to release some information, but would obviously loose face doing so in person.
Whenever you read/hear that "sources close to X said...", It usually means that X said it, but would not be cited on the record. It's all about plausible denial and controlling one's image.
The device can be used to prepare public for some unpopular shift of policy, to test the reaction of people to information or just to prepare ground for some change.
To echo what some others have already said, I don't see how coming back to Microsoft could be more personally satisfying for Gates than what he's doing now. Sure, it would probably feel pretty nice if he could right the ship and get lauded in the same way Jobs has been as of late. Let's be honest though: the stuff Gates is doing today is way more important than any of the things Jobs did over the last decade. We can…
Some counterpoints to consider: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123758895999200083.html http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=3781
That said, a lot of the things his foundation is working on are more immediate-need types of issues, like access to doctors and medication for malaria and other diseases. In these venues, charities can have a much bigger, more immediate impact than trying to grow a market to deal with the issue.