Gates, Jobs

I have been re-reading Hard Drive – the very old and rather rare biography of Bill Gates. the book was published in 1992, so it doesn’t cover most of ‘modern’ Microsoft products. Rather, it’s a story of the foundations, because by ’92, Microsoft had already become a little behemoth, and Gates was still a very young man then.

Nowadays it is very fashionable to like Steve Jobs. It’s almost as though just invoking his name makes you ‘cool’. I know a wannabe entrepreneur who told me, ‘I treat my employees like shit and I am impatient with my developers… I am like Steve Jobs.’ Yeah right.

I haven’t read Steve Jobs’ biography (yes, the famous one) and I intend to read it sometime in the near future, but I doubt that it will change my mind about Gates being the real hero of the computer revolution. In fifty years, both Jobs and Gates will probably be forgotten by the unwashed masses; but for computer scientists and computer historians, Gates will be the revolutionary, the visionary. Jobs will be one of the multitude of fads and trends that will go in and out of fashion between now and then.

I like Gates a lot more than Jobs (this is, I hasten to add, purely judged by entrepreneurship and engineering) because Gates focused on problems; Jobs focused on solutions. In other words, Gates seems to me to be the kind of guy who went out into the world and looked at what people wanted, and used that as a starting point. Jobs went into himself and tried to discover what he could do well, what would make him happy, and used that as a starting point.

I do not see anything wrong with Jobs’ approach and certainly he deserves a lot of adulation for his ‘internal courage’ and consistency of expression. But let’s face it. Jobs’ career was about making pretty white boxes and selling a lot of them. Did the iPod revolutionize the world? No, it didn’t. True, it opened up a new industry of digital music. But today, downloadable music exists, the iPod hardly does. Even the industry has faded out – who buys MP3 players any more? Jobs was possibly motivated by the fact that he knew that he could make an MP3 player better than everyone else out there. And he went ahead and did it.

On the other hand, Gates made his career by building permanent stuff: languages. compilers. operating systems. office applications. He did not do it because he knew how to make a perfect operating system – in fact, he didn’t. A lot of early Microsoft software was buggy, and it took till the 3rd or 4th iteration before it became world-class. But Gates deserves respect for identifying a problem and providing a solution – not just out of the need to scratch an intellectual itch, but out of a vision to make computing ‘fuller’, to solve all the unsolved problems, to create (however imperfectly) a brave new world, this world today, where computers and software are ubiquitous. When he made his billions, he started looking at bigger problems: water. disease. education. And there, too, he isn’t perfect — but he is the man in the arena, he isn’t afraid of trying, and he is driven not by the elegance of the solution but by the importance of the problem.

Real engineer, real entrepreneur.

The economies of war

Of the various things that I have little knowledge of, such as law and biology, the subject I most wish I knew more of is economics.

I was reading The Ascent of Money by Niall Ferguson today. It isn’t a very great book but I did find some parts that were very interesting. Particularly the analysis of how economics drives war, more than anything else.

Ferguson talks about money and war in the context of his discussion of Nathan Meyer Rothschild, the patriarch, really, of the Rothschild family. During his time, Napoleon was the terror of the rest of Europe, and as one country after another fell to his armies, the British tried desperately to bring him under control – first sending expeditionary forces to Portugal, and then finally defeating him at Waterloo. These stories are fairly well known to those of us who have a historical bent of mind, but what is less well-known is the monetary angle.

Wars cost money. And the British and the French had two completely different ways of raising money for their battles. The French way was through taxation. They taxed the people whom they conquered – from Egypt to Portugal – and that paid for Napoleon’s army.

The British raised money through debt – specifically the sale of Government bonds. Anyone could buy them, and the Government would pay a certain coupon rate on them. And the money raised from the sale of the bonds was used to fund the army. And Rothschild was the man who arranged for the issue of the bonds, sometimes backing them the way today’s investment banks back IPOs.

After the spectacular success of British bonds, Rothschild helped the Germans (Prussians, more precisely) raise bonds for their wars. He introduced a very cool innovation, though: the German bonds would be sold in pounds sterling, but the interest could be collected, not just in London, but anywhere in Europe. He was able to do this because his far-flung family ran centers of business in Austria, Italy, France – everywhere worth mentioning in 18th-century Europe. One successful bond sale followed another, and Rothschild made millions off the commissions.

More importantly, Rothschild could influence wars. If he wanted to discourage a country from going to war, all he had to do was to refuse to issue bonds to fund the war of that country. This he did to devastating effect in the US Civil War. The Confederates needed money to build their army; Rothschild decided they were too risky to bet on. The Confederates went ahead and issued bonds in Europe anyway, backed, not by interest, but by cotton (which had enormous demand). Rothschild’s prudence served to ensure that the bonds had a lukewarm response, and in any case it proved to be a good decision – when New Orleans was captured by the Union Army, none of the Confederates’ creditors could ship their cotton out of the South. And when the North won, they promptly repudiated all Southern debt – so the holders of the Confederate bonds were left with a total write-off.

The chapter on bonds is fantastic. Similar stories about Germany’s efforts at raising bonds after World War 1 (leading to hyper-inflation) and about Latin American debt defaults, and how defaulting actually helped save the Argentine economy in the 1980′s.

 

Blog at WordPress.com.
Theme: Esquire by Matthew Buchanan.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 40 other followers