Sad times for Bill Gates

I remember reading that Bill Gates was going to give his children BARELY any of his fortune after death?

 

I thought he was sticking to his mid-1990's assertion he'd leave them only $10m.

 

yeah its like .001%

 

I beleive this is in fact a cycle in all walks of life,

I worked with a banker once who specialised in Farmers and the cycle was

1st Generation established the farm and a little wealth
2nd Generation worked hard to make it grow and get more wealth
3rd Generation would spend it,
and the cycle would repeat

the same seems to go in normal life situations also (i think im in the 2nd generation)

and also in the super rich society.

Its human nature i think

 

As previously noted, its only $10 million, from a fortune that was worth nearly $100 billion.

Its not like they'll be struggling, but after growing up in his houses that have shifting walls that adjust to the personality of someone entering, being shuttled around in Gulfstream jets, and having any resource at your fingertips, it is a bit of a shock that once your father dies...you're all of a sudden relatively "poor." Possibly an incentive for them to keep him alive and not try to take his money when he becomes incapacitated or barely able to walk on his own?

 

Thats what i always thought yeah 10 mil is alot but not when your used to billions

 

Realitically its a lot of money because interest alone would still leave you to a fairly nice life, but its just a shock that his life ending sends them back into relative poverty.

I have a feeling that by the time he passes away, he'll leave them $50 million or so because of inflation and other factors.

 

Or a trust beyond their reach that watches out for them, while they have the $10mm to spend as they will.

 

Do you think it will be 10 mill cash and the house and all of his things Or after everything is sold or whatever 10 mill becasue his house is like 70 he has documents from da vinci as well as the cars art all that is worh well over 100

 

If he were to hand down the house alone, you'd be set if you sold it...

Look at the total value down at the bottom..
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Dan, that is exactly right.

Furthermore, a guy like Gates would have been extremely successful in any era. Luck contributed to him being the richest guy in the world, but not to him becoming very, very rich.

As for Rockefeller, he was the greatest philanthropist the world has ever known, except possibly for Gates. The amount of money John D. Rockefeller gave away is staggering. The fact that his heirs continue to live off the remainder of his fortune is only a testament to how large his fortune was, not to any lack of generosity. It's also a testament to the fact that many of the Rockefellers continue to work to maintain the fortune.

 

Bill Gates is one of the last people that should be idolized, he's a crook of the highest magnetude.

He conned Apple into giving him the source code for its operating system letting them think Microsoft would partner with them, once they got the code they dumped Apple and behold out came Windows. He's done the same thing over and over to many other companies, thats how Microsoft got big, he probably gives to charities to help with the guilt he has, my dad was involved with many computer companies for years and saw first hand how the real Gates operates, not the crafted media propaganda image of him.

 

Is this a new thing? I'm pretty sure everyone knows this. He is still a business machine, and did it all relatively legal.

Would you blame someone for getting in on an investment in land at rock bottom because the seller didn't know the true value, and that person just so happens to be sitting on a goldmine (literally) and the land appreciates 100 times?

 

Business machine not quite, he's a con artist and his word means nothing.


Gates courted Apple making all kinds of promises about partnering with their company but all he wanted was the source code for the Apple OS, once Apple gave them the source code they copied it and made Windows and dumped Apple, he's a con and crook plain and simple, he's done that with most every company or people he's dealt with for all the Windows products, or he'll play dirty to destroy a competitor.

 

No, what Gates does is buy a code below its market value, because the people he buys the codes from are incapable of developing them like Microsoft does and insterting them into commerce. There's a vast difference. It really is better with his method, even though most people wont admit it, and call him a crook or cheat. Those are likely the same people that would call the U.S. a hinderance to free trade and production in third world countries.

 

Below market value by getting it free as he did with Apple?

 

I have a Ferrari for you. Its free. Would you pay me $200k for it anyways because you felt guilty about accepting it for free?

 

I'm sorry, but that is flat out wrong. I've been involved off and on with the computer industry since the early 90s, and I've worked with both Microsoft and Apple in minor ways, and your statements are simply incorrect.

If you are just using exaggeration (i.e. "stole" = saw a demo and decided to make something which used the same ideas), then there is a nugget truth in what you say. Of course, by that definition of stealing, Apple is just as guilty-- they stole from Xerox.

Bill is a tough competitor, and he can take things to the legal edge (and maybe exceed the boundaries of "fair play") but calling him dishonest or a "con artist" is simply not correct.

Incidentally, I'm writing this on a Mac, using Safari. I don't think I have a functioning Windows box in the house at the moment.

 

Windows did not just copy Apples OS they mirrored it from the source code, Microsoft tried for years to make a similar interface OS as Apples as it was superior at the time. The source code is they key, it can't be hacked or reverse engineered Apple gave Gates its secrets on the promise of partnering with them but Gates first wanted to view its source code which was Apples mistake as they allowed it, then Gates dumped Apple after he received it. He's done the same with many other programs that are under the Windows name today, Microsoft did not invent Word or Excel they took it as well from other software companies.


My dad has been in the computer software programming business since the late 60s through the 90s and dealt with Gates first hand.

 

how about if I told you I wanted to buy your Ferrari, we took it out drove the crap out of it, then I asked you to sign over the title now and i'll get you a check tomorrow, then I take your car and the title and you never hear from me again. Thanks for the free car!

 

J.P., I like you. But you're wrong. Apple's source code would have done Microsoft no real good, because they used different processor architectures, which had different problems which needed to be solved. Microsoft also had to deal with the whole DOS compatibility issue, which Apple did not have (Apple just junked their Apple II software base, which turned out to be the right decision).

What Microsoft "stole," arguably, was the look and feel of the Mac OS. That is what was litigated, and IIRC Apple lost in the end.

Furthermore, Microsoft has supported the Mac OS with software products to this day (I have current versions of MS Office on my Mac right now). Any market success, or lack thereof, by Apple, had far more to do with Apple's execution and strategy than anything Microsoft did.

 

I'd tell you that scenario doesn't apply and you're very bad at making analagous arguments.

 

The scenario does apply since its exactly what Gates did.

You seem to think its okay to manipulate and take advantage of someone simply because they can do it better supposedly or they were dumb enough to let it happen.

 

Its proper to provide some hard evidence. I've always seen the accusations that he completely stole it at no cost, but why wouldn't Apple be suing him and MSFT? Seems like a pretty lucrative lawsuit.