> Meanwhile, Microsoft’s first venture capitalist, Dave Marquardt, grumbled that it didn’t make sense for Microsoft to keep operating as a private partnership, with Gates owning 64% and Allen holding the other 36%.
How does Microsoft have a venture captialist if Bill and Paul own the entire company? I thought this might be pre investment but then the article says:
> Before long, Ballmer and Marquardt presented Microsoft’s founders with a proposed new capital structure. Gates and Allen would keep 84% of the company. Ballmer would get about 8%, in return for canceling his profit-sharing clause. All other employees would split the final 8%.
SO they reorg so 3 people hold 92% of the company and the rest of the employees get 8% of the company. What was the venture capitalist buying here?
That photograph really is sensational. Gates looks wonderfully young and innocent, almost angelic. Ballmer looks like an enthusiastic understudy for Jack Nicholson in "The Shining".
Attacking people's looks is a pretty low blow. How would you like if you started a company, published a photo, and everyone started calling you names purely on your looks? As someone who is older and perpetually 15-20lbs overweight, its really unnerving to see how young people just think its cool to lash out on the looks of others so casually without regard for the other person at all. Internet cattiness has become this mainstream thing and its inexcusable. This is HN not PerezHilton.com.
Its also hypocritical, because if someone said something about the looks of Bernie Sanders or Marc Andreesen then he would be downvoted to hell and back, but because Ballmer is a controversial figure the fat/ugly/psycho-killer comments are excused and as you can see below rationalized.
Please keep the discourse at a higher level and on-topic. Thanks.
There is a world of difference between a statement like the one to which you're replying, and something like "Ballmer looks fat" (which he doesn't). There is nothing wrong with pointing out the obvious difference in stance and body language.
> Please keep the discourse at a higher level and on-topic. Thanks.
How is pointing out the difference in how the article visually represents the figures not on-topic? It seems very on-topic to me. Furthermore, highlighting an unflattering, possibly biased difference against Ballmer, is actually in favor of him in my opinion. I read the OP comment as pointing out how the article may be biased against Ballmer.
> Internet cattiness has become this mainstream thing and its inexcusable. This is HN not PerezHilton.com.
To me, you're the one being "catty" for no reason at all. This is definitely HN alright.
I for one think Steve Ballmer is a beautiful man and his speech at the Microsoft Developers Conference a few years back was better then any Steve Jobs ever gave.
Be nice to nerds ("...One day they'll be your boss", Bill Gates), be nice to anyone. There's always someone looking. I have once been the only guy who gave a job to that silent foreigner in my classroom. That got me a surprise invitation to Brazil 10 years later. There's always something to win by being inclusive.
Yes, I suppose so, and yet the largest software company in the world fell into his feckless, fumbling hands because of who he was, not what he could do; and may never regain its footing.
Needing help in a hurry, Microsoft cofounders Bill Gates and Paul Allen agreed to pay Ballmer not just an annual base salary of about $50,000 but also 10% of all the profit growth he could generate.
Well there's the obvious fact that he is a top-notch businessman who, after negotiating that deal, was a key player in building one of the world's most valuable companies. It was just one of his skills.
And they knew he was worth hiring since his credentials as a top notch business man were obvious the moment he negotiated a 10% deal! It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Ballmer is certainly not an idiot, but his main skill has always struck me as being an arrogant asshole who won't be intimidated by anyone. He's not a brilliant strategist; he's the unstoppable force that pushes to implement the strategy at all costs. You want a guy like Ballmer on your side because he gets deals done. Whether or not those deals were the right deals is another question.
Contrast him with a guy like Steve Jobs -- Jobs was a brilliant strategist who understood the complex interaction between design, customer needs, technical capability and supply chain. He was also fired from the company he founded because he wasn't able to get what he wanted in a way that ensured the people above and beside him got what they wanted. Jobs had far more success when politics were removed from the picture -- he was a de facto dictator at Apple during their most successful period. He was an effective leader and a pragmatist, but he also had absolute power within Apple so he never had to negotiate internally from a position of weakness.
33 comments
[ 6.6 ms ] story [ 131 ms ] thread1.6 more, not 16 more.
> Meanwhile, Microsoft’s first venture capitalist, Dave Marquardt, grumbled that it didn’t make sense for Microsoft to keep operating as a private partnership, with Gates owning 64% and Allen holding the other 36%.
How does Microsoft have a venture captialist if Bill and Paul own the entire company? I thought this might be pre investment but then the article says:
> Before long, Ballmer and Marquardt presented Microsoft’s founders with a proposed new capital structure. Gates and Allen would keep 84% of the company. Ballmer would get about 8%, in return for canceling his profit-sharing clause. All other employees would split the final 8%.
SO they reorg so 3 people hold 92% of the company and the rest of the employees get 8% of the company. What was the venture capitalist buying here?
Private partnerships do not generally have equity, per se. Perhaps they meant private-corporation.
A corporation can have several issuances of shares. These may be equity (ownership) or non-equity (preferred).
Perhaps the VC held non-equity shares. Perhaps the grumbling was pre-investment.
In any case, it could've been better written.
Marquardt's venture firm, TCI bought 5% of Microsoft in 1981. Link is here: http://www.techntechie.com/early-investors-in-microsoft-you-...
I'm thinking that the Gates/Allen stake settles post re-org at 79% once TCI is invested. That gets the percentages to add to 100% (always wise.)
Its also hypocritical, because if someone said something about the looks of Bernie Sanders or Marc Andreesen then he would be downvoted to hell and back, but because Ballmer is a controversial figure the fat/ugly/psycho-killer comments are excused and as you can see below rationalized.
Please keep the discourse at a higher level and on-topic. Thanks.
How is pointing out the difference in how the article visually represents the figures not on-topic? It seems very on-topic to me. Furthermore, highlighting an unflattering, possibly biased difference against Ballmer, is actually in favor of him in my opinion. I read the OP comment as pointing out how the article may be biased against Ballmer.
> Internet cattiness has become this mainstream thing and its inexcusable. This is HN not PerezHilton.com.
To me, you're the one being "catty" for no reason at all. This is definitely HN alright.
Please, the person you responded to put in two paragraphs of their reasoning.
HN indeed.
(I actually think he looks quite youthful here, but it's hard to spot at first, because he has the hairline of a man 20+ years his senior.)
But how did he get such an insanely sweet deal?
Ballmer is certainly not an idiot, but his main skill has always struck me as being an arrogant asshole who won't be intimidated by anyone. He's not a brilliant strategist; he's the unstoppable force that pushes to implement the strategy at all costs. You want a guy like Ballmer on your side because he gets deals done. Whether or not those deals were the right deals is another question.
Contrast him with a guy like Steve Jobs -- Jobs was a brilliant strategist who understood the complex interaction between design, customer needs, technical capability and supply chain. He was also fired from the company he founded because he wasn't able to get what he wanted in a way that ensured the people above and beside him got what they wanted. Jobs had far more success when politics were removed from the picture -- he was a de facto dictator at Apple during their most successful period. He was an effective leader and a pragmatist, but he also had absolute power within Apple so he never had to negotiate internally from a position of weakness.