Had his ethics really changed he would acknowledge what he did before, at the helm of Microsoft, was wrong and pressure his successors not to repeat his past misdeeds.
I think the only thing he apologized for was the plan to seize Allen's part of MS while he was dying (luckily, he recovered). And he did so after Allen found out about it.
Have you ever heard something like an apology for all the rest? Me neither.
I guess the question is - would Allen have made the same decisions had he been in charge of Microsoft? It is very possible he would have made different decisions that would have made his 64% share not worth as much as his eventual 36% share. This is a really interesting bit of history.
Since it's important to be accurate when you're condemning someone -
Gates never tried to take back Paul Allen's shares. That isn't merely a bit of nuance. It never happened.
The only thing that ever happened was the infamous discussion between Gates and Ballmer, which Allen overheard. Gates offered to purchase the shares in 1983, which Allen rejected. Allen is quite clear about what happened in his book Idea Man.
A detestable conversation by Gates, certainly. And yet Allen checked out of Microsoft in 1982 and kept his enormous fortune from it and Gates never tried to take it from him.
Everyone on HN would spontaneously combust if they were judged by their worst thoughts or conversations, without exception.
I think, crucially, the point is that he wasn't 'not mean' when he was actually in charge of things at MS. He was actively horrible from the beginning; there've even been suspicions for years that MS-BASIC, the very thing the company started on, was stolen.
It's hard to argue that the man who was the world’s richest for decades could have somehow done better for himself or his shareholders, or the world at large.
Easy - if he had pushed Microsoft to release an open standard instead of .doc, .xls, et cetra, he would have done better for the world at large by leaving a competitive market for office products.
Another - if he had insisted IE6 were standards-compliant and open source, he could have saved companies in web development a whole lot of time and money, and done a lot more good for the world at large.
In the long run, this would also have been great for MS shareholders, as the short-term gains of dominating the office and web browser markets are offset by the long-term damage to the MS brand.
He screwed the company's owners out of many millions of dollars. Microsoft may well have killed and gutted the fish, but the CEO's responsibility is to the shareholders.
I don't think BG feels he or Microsoft did anything wrong, so I agree he in not trying to atone for anything. He is just doing good because he can, and that is great. It is likely he doesn't care what some bitter geeks thinks, since was already considered a hero by larger parts of society on account of being extremely successful. (And non-geek people generally like MS products like Office, especially if they have tried the competition.)
That said, we are still allowed to judge. Just saying "business is business" can justify anything and is akin to saying nothing is unethical as long as you make a profit.
You can understand and even state that these changes are a consequence of a new CEO that has different ideas and behavior compared to previous CEOs. And you even "blame" by describing the previous CEO as a "madman" but still don't want to give Microsoft a chance because at one point in time some previous higher-up made a decision with which you did not agree. Makes PERFECT SENSE!
As someone who has spent time at Microsoft, Ballmer did good for the company post-gates for awhile, but hit a plateau. He continued too long and thus brought in the stalled time that some refer to as the Ballmeriam era. And have qualms about how things were handled during that time. I have no public opinion on that.
That said, Ballmer addressing employees, he bled the company on his sleeve. Even having disagreements on how things were, the genuine feeling coming from him - in person or on video - was actually contagious - for a time.
Things are not black and white.
My only knowledge of Paul Allen outside of stories about Vulcan ventures was knowing people that worked at one of his properties having to sign NDAs, which is understandable.
No one is black and white. Faults should not be washed over, achievements over blown, hopefully we all add something net positive in our finite time.
I think he is still responsible for creating this monster. And he never apologized for the consequences of his actions that are still unraveling like today. Remember Ballmer was placed because he was always following his lead and counsel, as reported.
His problem, as an executive, was not "trying to do what is best for Microsoft". His problem, as an executive, was failing to do what is best for Microsoft.
I think the only thing he apologized for was the plan to seize Allen's part of MS while he was dying (luckily, he recovered). And he did so after Allen found out about it.
Have you ever heard something like an apology for all the rest? Me neither.
reply