Originally posted by: yellowfiero
Bill Gates is the world's most powerful computer mogul according to Alvin Hall, presenter of World's Most Powerful. But should it have been Steve Jobs?
Text
Originally posted by: illusion88
Micro$oft!
developers developers developers delvelopers...
Originally posted by: GhettoFob
Originally posted by: illusion88
Micro$oft!
developers developers developers delvelopers...
developers developers developers delvelopers
Originally posted by: Kanalua
Originally posted by: GhettoFob
Originally posted by: illusion88
Micro$oft!
developers developers developers delvelopers...
developers developers developers delvelopers
developers developers developers delvelopers
Originally posted by: ViRGE
Jobs. Gates is great, he has a very distinct and powerful buisness sense, but Jobs flat out has more charisma(see: Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field), and more importantly, Jobs and the team he leads are far more the innovators than Microsoft, and I'd rather take the later than the former.
Considering the open-ended nature of the question, I think charisma's a valid thing to list; let's face it, Bill Gates is about as exciting to listen to as paint is to watch dry. As for Apple's innovation, I really don't see an argument here; they do have a lot of innovation(and a lot of copying them as a result), but even I'm going to agree that their machines are slow for the price, but that's PPC development holding them back more than their own fault(they could switch to x86 mind you, but for numerous reasons, that's a bad idea), so in the mean time they'll sell slower machines at a higher price to bankroll their innovation.Originally posted by: thomsbrain
Originally posted by: ViRGE
Jobs. Gates is great, he has a very distinct and powerful buisness sense, but Jobs flat out has more charisma(see: Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field), and more importantly, Jobs and the team he leads are far more the innovators than Microsoft, and I'd rather take the later than the former.
charisma has nothing to do with someone's success. it might help them become successful but having it doesn't equal success. and if apple are such innovators, how come they've had the slowest, most expensive computers on the market for decades? although i guess you could call tricking people into buying them despite those things being pretty successful.
and of course, the end all: microsoft owns a big-ass chunk of apple. not the other way around.