>Silverberg writes Gates didn't engage the government and politicians early on because he believed the company was competing fairly and creating enough value for the customers. But that approach was a "disaster," he writes, as it essentially made the US government and the EU to "declare war on Microsoft."<p>This is bullcrap. Microsoft was the 800 pound gorilla and played as dirty as they could against smaller competitors using every inch of their monopoly power.<p>MS had OEM's in their leach and they used blackmail and threats against them to keep them from preinstalling anything but MS sofware in PC's.<p>Software startups in the PC-era were routinely shafted. If their product was good and MS wanted it, they had to sell to MS or MS would attack them and build competing product that was pre-installed. They also hired engineers from competing firms without requirement to work, copied the product and bled the competitor in the courtroom, hided necessary apis from competing products. MS made so much money they could afford to lose in court if it meant that competing product did not make it.<p>Government was the only instance big enough to stop dirty game MS played.
There is nothing in this article that isn't better read at the original Quora Q&A:<p><a href="https://www.quora.com/What-were-Bill-Gatess-worst-decisions-as-CEO" rel="nofollow">https://www.quora.com/What-were-Bill-Gatess-worst-decisions-...</a><p>The "journalist" should have just clicked the share button at Quora, it would have been more informative.
I really hope we can go quicker to a time when "lobbying the government" is no longer accepted as a standard business practice, but a strong signal of corruption and foul play. If that would be Gates' biggest mistake (and it ain't) then the guy would be a flesh-and-bone saint in the tech community.<p>I can see, however, why MS would be in a downspiral course with senior executives holding such opinions.
I started reading the article thinking that he made a lot of mistakes. Turns he just made two.<p>"his weak lobbying efforts and failure to take advantage of the internet early on."
Breaking up Microsoft would've created a far more competitive group of companies than what Microsoft turned into during the 00's. Nadella, to his great credit, seems to have really made Microsoft a player again. But it would've been way easier—and probably far more valuable for Microsoft shareholders—had Microsoft become Windows, Inc., Office, Inc., and Everything Else, Inc.
The article mentions:<p>> "Top of the list for me is that Bill did not engage – either himself or the company – in the political process early enough. When Microsoft’s competitors were effectively lobbying the government, Bill’s attitude was the government should just go away and leave Microsoft alone," Silverberg wrote in a Quora Q&A session held Friday.<p>And then again:<p>> Silverberg writes Gates didn't engage the government and politicians early on because he believed the company was competing fairly and creating enough value for the customers. But that approach was a "disaster," he writes, as it essentially made the US government and the EU to "declare war on Microsoft."<p>This is totally insipid and futile news, what knowledge do we gain from this? A news company that takes an article and digest for us?<p>This goes on to show what it really is: just a place to exhibit their ideology, just take a look at how they use fear to instill on the (or wannabe) businessman the idea that you must lobby to be successful.<p>Which is the most ridicule thing in the world, as these people are just the ones that defend the neoliberal stance, which they are just refuting (which was the original Bill Gates ethos).
Gates is perhaps the best business mind of the past century. The only truly dreadful decision of his career was handing the reigns to the incompetent Ballmer. Almost overnight, Microsoft went from a great innovator to a dinosaur caught flat-footed by every new development in the tech industry.