A Blog About Making Culture
Bill Gates, Ambition, Legacy, and Obligation
July 6, 2007
I’ve followed the history of Bill Gates and his career and work since I was a kid. Though he’s not nearly charismatic enough to inspire an army of fawning fanboys, the complexity and eccentricity of a lot of his choices makes his character endlessly fascinating to me. And of course, it is an extra bonus that most people confuse such an interest for uncritical adoration, which ain’t the case.
I’m not a Bill Gates fanboy, I just think he’s more ambitious and more likely to permanently change the world for the better than anybody else in the history of the technology industry.
Part of understanding why is having the proper perspective. I remember Microsoft’s mission from when I was a young kid — a computer on every desk and in every home. That mission, of course, had an implicit suffix of “…running Microsoft software”. About 25 years into that mission, before Bill Gates had even turned fifty years old, Microsoft had achieved that goal. Think about that — you set a goal as ambitious as you can imagine, and before your kids are even in high school, it’s happened. What do you do when you’ve accomplished your biggest goal?
It’s not a problem most of us ever have to deal with. Honestly, most of us that would even take the time to set such a goal would make it so big or so fuzzy it would be impossible to ever achieve. But by being just slightly specific, Microsoft under Bill Gates’ direction achieved a seemingly-extraordinarily ambitious goal.
So, what next? You have to go for an even bigger goal. What’s bigger than computers everywhere? How about curing malaria? And AIDS? That seems big enough. And the true innovation seems to be approaching those problems in an entrepreneurial way, with a big focus on accountability.
And after years of seeing his awkwardness in articulating the benefits of technology, it’s startling to see just how good Gates is at telling this far more important story. You might have seen a link to Bill Gates’ Harvard commencement address and probably thought “eh, I’ll read it later”. Go read it now: it’s the kind of leadership and accountability that’s been sorely missing from those in a position of power in the technology industry. Hell, it’s the kind of message that’s been curiously absent from the lips of nearly all of our leaders.
Just one highlight:
I remember going to Davos some years back and sitting on a global health panel that was discussing ways to save millions of lives. Millions! Think of the thrill of saving just one person’s life - then multiply that by millions. … Yet this was the most boring panel I’ve ever been on - ever. So boring even I couldn’t bear it.
What made that experience especially striking was that I had just come from an event where we were introducing version 13 of some piece of software, and we had people jumping and shouting with excitement. I love getting people excited about software - but why can’t we generate even more excitement for saving lives?
You can’t get people excited unless you can help them see and feel the impact. And how you do that - is a complex question.
Still, I’m optimistic. Yes, inequity has been with us forever, but the new tools we have to cut through complexity have not been with us forever. They are new - they can help us make the most of our caring - and that’s why the future can be different from the past.
The defining and ongoing innovations of this age - biotechnology, the computer, the Internet - give us a chance we’ve never had before to end extreme poverty and end death from preventable disease.
I’m sure those who make their decisions based on fashion and popularity contests won’t want to give Gates the benefit of the doubt. But I’m okay with someone uncool doing the right thing on an unimaginably ambitious scale.
Previously: Just Under Twenty Questions
Tom
“And of course, it is an extra bonus that most people confuse such an interest for uncritical adoration, so they think being interested in Gates is equivalent to those who, say, revere everything Steve Jobs does.”
(sigh)
Why is it nobody can say anything nice about Gates as a visionary without taking shots at Steve Jobs, or those interested in him?
Of course, in all fairness the opposite seems to be true as well.
I’m thrilled to be living through the “reign” of both these men. If Gates’ contributions seemed a bit more mundane at the time, that doesn’t make them any less significant. However, if Jobs’ contribution are also considered “cool,” or “toys” — as the original Macintosh, and now the iPhone, are cast in some quarters — that doesn’t make them any less significant either.
So Gates achieved his goal and is moving on to philanthropy. Good for him. He seems to be doing it with the same zeal and intelligence that characterized his leadership of Microsoft. That’s good for all of us.
Perhaps if Jobs hadn’t been ousted in ‘85 by a misguided board of directors, things would have been different for both men. As it is, Jobs re-started in ‘97, and he’s not done yet. In many ways his star has only started to rise, and is more like where Gates was in the mid- to late-nineties. It’s not exactly time for him to move on yet.
Matt Haughey
Having interacted with the Gates Foundation at a previous non-profit, I was incredibly impressed by Gates himself and the charity he has developed. I know a lot of people slag him for not giving away enough money fast enough, but his foundation really does it right, making sure you document why you need money and how you’ll use it, then you have to constantly update them on where the money went and how it helped. It was a long process but really the best approach to take.
I loved the Steve Jobs/Bill Gates interview from the D conference because Jobs got to praise Gates for his philanthropy. “Bill doesn’t want to be the richest man in the graveyard” was a wonderful way that Jobs put it.
Frode Danielsen
I would like to concur with the comment made by Tom here, although I’ll point out a different part of the article as well:
“I’m sure those who make their decisions based on fashion and popularity contests won’t want to give Gates the benefit of the doubt.”
Sure, there’ll exist someone matching that description, but considering the introduction where you basically put Jobs against Gates, this is simply another cheap shot.
You write a terrific article in general on Gates’ ambitions and philanthropy, but I don’t see either why this have to be in spite of Jobs’ “popularity”. There are both “fanboys” of Jobs and Gates. This article need not associate itself with neither.
Thomas
I’ve always given Gates this sort of begrudging, tacit, not for his business acumen. This has given me a new light on a man that I thought had made the world’s biggest fortune by spouting acronyms and selling digital snake oil.
Anil
You guys are right — the shot at Jobs is lame, especially since I respect both these guys. I’ve pulled it from the post.
Jay Neely
It’s great to hear you say the same thing I’ve been saying Anil! I wrote last week about three notable people, Bill Gates, Susan Decker, and John Chambers. I think Gates will definitely apply some innovative solutions to big problems through his foundation. In the for-profit tech world, John Chambers, CEO of Cisco, is the one to watch.
Hope you’ll write more about people! They’re more interesting than ‘companies’.
Mahesh Shetty
American billionaires and their propensity to donate so much to charity is unparalled in modern history. It speaks to the kinder and gentler side of capitalism that we conveniently ignore
nandhu
I remember picking up a book from a pavement shop on Gates. It described how Gates had continue to key in code even as mortgage people took away his computers from a garage. That incident, if at all it happened, was inspiring. however his later book speed at the rate of thought was disappointing, acutely so.
Jonathan
Nandhu - was that book “The Road Ahead”? I remember reading it many years ago, and being fascinated. So much so that I read it multiple times. Think I’ll have to go back and re-visit it yet again, and see how many of his predictions have come true. I seem to remember him saying we won’t have interactive digital TV for 50 years. Yet here we are…
In that book, he seemed to be someone who genuinely cared about people less fortunate than himself. I imagine that’s made slightly easier though when you are blessed with as much money as he.
Post a comment