Slashdot Mirror
Paul Allen the 'Accidental Zillionaire'
An anonymous reader writes "The Sydney Morning Herald has an interesting story about Paul Allen, "the accidental zillionaire". Allen is the owner of the world's biggest private yacht and a huge landowner in the Seattle area in addition to his traditional accolades of helping to found Microsoft along with several other companies and foundations."
zillionaire - more money than what?
Jeebus.
Anyways, I would hardly call it "accidential". It wasn't any accident that Microsoft got to license their OS to the IBM (and compatible) machines, it was cold and calculated. While they might not have known they'd end up being some of the richest people to have ever lived, they had to have known that they were never going to have to worry about money again in their lives.
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
Investing in the right company means he did something right.. That also means that he was not a rich man by accident.
Still I wonder why so many geeks are online on x-mas. Oh wait, I am too.
NO CARRIER
Anyways, I would hardly call it "accidential". It wasn't any accident that Microsoft got to license their OS to the IBM (and compatible) machines, it was cold and calculated. While they might not have known they'd end up being some of the richest people to have ever lived, they had to have known that they were never going to have to worry about money again in their lives.
Since early 1980's? Probably they knew that. But in early 1970's, Allen and Gates were just a couple of nerdy students, sharing a belief that the future is in household computers. While in that age everyone else shared a belief that a "computer" is meant to be maintained and operated only by specially trained staff wearing laboratory overalls. Yes, their deal with IBM was no accident but in order to get that deal, they had to establish their position in the 8-bit personal computing world - writing BASIC for Altair and Apple, and lot of stuff for CP/M (originally that was the IBM's system of choice for their first PC). That was largely an accident - lots of companies active in the 8-bit market (such as Altair or Digital Research, makers of the CP/M) simply didn't make it in 1980's.
Well, I don't know that I'd call it accidental, but there was a rather significant luck factor involved; if Gary Kildall had pursued the opportunity (and there are several stories about why he didn't - ranging from opting to fly his plane instead of meet with IBM to refusing to sign an NDA; according to Gordon Eubanks, Kildall just wasn't interested in porting CP/M to the 8088 processor). If Seattle Computer Products hadn't sold QDOS to MicroSoft, things also would have been pretty different.
Insanity is a gradual process; don't rush it.
last of all: "Allen has been selling his Microsoft shares since he left the company, but still owns more than $3 billion worth.", sounds like somebody started to loose faith in the company there...
;)). So what else is he going to do with it? I'm sure he'll leave more then enough to look after those he cares about.
I think it's more likely he began to want (or perhaps needed) to liquidate his funds. He doesn't actually have a job now, right? If not, then his expensive lifestyle (from his homes and boats to his football teams and charity work) is a drain on his money. I'm sure he's planned it so he'll never have to worry about money ever again, nor will his favourite family members, but that plan most likely does involve liquidating his Microsoft stock. After all, I doubt he cares enough about Microsoft to use his stock to play an active role (does his stock give him enough power to play a role? I'm not sure how much $3 billion actually is in terms of Microsoft stock, although yes, I do realise it's a lot
Well, if he wants to own anything other than a piece of microsoft, he'll have to sell those shares. Living in a shack with $3 billion in paper wealth is silly. Of course he wants to turn those shares into other things.
What really made the PC ubiquitously popular was Compaq's reverse-engineering of the IBM BIOS. This meant that you no longer had to pay top dollar for something that was truly IBM compatible. This, coupled with the adoption of the ISA bus by all of the PC manufacturers, is what made the PC the king of the hill. All of a sudden, Intel (and others) had a real incentive to make faster, more capable CPUs (because IBM wasn't the only game in town anymore for the x86), and because of standards like the ISA bus, card manufacturers had a broader audience to develop things like SoundBlaster. It was because of this opening up of the hardware to virtually anyone that the PC became popular. It had absolutely nothing to do with Microsoft or DOS. Remember, also, that Microsoft also produced the BASIC in every single Commodore 8-bit computer from the PET through the 128, and so they made money on the millions of those sold, in addition to MS-DOS/PC-DOS.
Chance favors the prepared mind.
They were lucky, but they also had some idea of what they were getting into. Taking advantage of an opportunity means recognizing that you have an opportunity to take advantage of.
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougneedham
Microsoft has broken the law and abused their monopoly position. They have been found guilty of this by the courts. So they have not just done what a company is supposed to do, they have seriously broken the law. And as anybody with a bit of understanding of our economic system knows, abusing a monopoly is about the most harmful there is to the economy. Microsoft has hindered a lot of progress and stopped many innovative companies (illegally).
It is hard to measure white-collar crime and corruption in human lives, but I think society in general underestimate the harm these crimes do.
that Paul Allen and SpaceshipOne might be just whats needed for privatized space flights to (no pun intended) take off. Why does everyone forget the good stuff like this which Allen's done?
And the good thing is, he funds ventures after deciding "if its something that he would love". I call that a rather smart way of judging what (not) to fund. Granted, that this may at times bump up pet projects when compared to something with a larger impact - but this is needed too! After all, we do have the 2 richest foundations in the world dealing with those issues (Gates and Grove).
If Bill Gates had a dime for every time a Windows box crashed...oh, wait a minute - he already does.
You are a naive dumbass
My, what an articulate rebuttal of my statement. You must be one of those sore losers I keep seeing around here.
Rich people buying the votes of morons is not democracy.
Rich people spending their money on propaganda isn't buying votes, paying people cash for their votes is. If you have evidence of vote buying, tell the relevant authorities; it's a felony, and you have a duty to report it.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Are you a woman? Because there's no benefit to a man in marriage. Besides, with > 50% of all marriages ending in divorce these days, a pre-nup is simply good preparation. Rather than accepting, "If you loved me, you wouldn't ask me to sign a pre-nup," turn it around on her and say, "If you loved me, you'd want to sign a pre-nup," instead.
As for not "[loving] a woman enough to risk losing some money," what the hell is wrong with you? There's absolutely nothing wrong with spending money on a woman (within limits of course, though those limits relax a bit once she's a wife rather than a girlfriend), but that doesn't mean you should be willing to give up half or more of your worth (or worse, your potential worth). Consider it this way: A man gets nothing concrete out of a marriage (assuming the "average" man who is making a living for himself, not some freeloader who marries a rich wife). There are some benefits, but you're much less likely to find a woman today who will follow the three-Fs: feed me, fuck me, and fold my laundry. Women, on the other hand, stand to gain a lot. Assuming she plays her cards right (again, staying away from the freeloading losers), she can basically get a free ride, quit her job (assuming she had one in the first place), bloat up, cut her hair, and not have to do one lick of work around the house (that's what maids are for!). And a couple years into the marriage, when she gets bored, she can up and leave and take half or more of your stuff ("or more" meaning any vaginamony money she's "entitled" to, as well as any child support if you were stupid enough to get a kid on her).
You think marriage is about love? Wake up, buddy! Maybe you're worth nothing, with no potential earning capacity either. Go ahead, get married. Those of us trying to make something of ourselves know better. Beyond that, a few simple rules will keep you safe:
But then, hey, what do I know? I'm not married. I don't have those blinders on my eyes yet ...
Wow, whatever has happened to make you so bitter, I'm sorry man. Believe it or not, not everyone shares your materialistic, misogynistic view of the world. You would do well to learn how to look at things from a perspective other than your own.
You have made a choice -- you find that the single, childless lifestyle suits you. Great. You know what? It doesn't suit everyone. Some of us tried it and found that, despite the benefits it may afford, we weren't happy. Having another person involved in your life can (gasp) enrich it in ways that toys and cars just can't.
I actually agree with you on a lot, it seems. Getting married too young is usually a big mistake. Children should be born into a stable, supportive situation (whether or not it's a marriage). Fair prenups are a good thing.
On that last point -- I don't at all share your view that marriage is a universally a windfall for the woman and a burden for the man and that the purpose of the prenup is to protect his assets from being stolen. At least, it should not be. When you get into a marriage, you're forming an agreement that (in most cases) is going to set up a partnership to build and support a family. One aspect of that is that someone is likely going to have to forego a financially motivated career in order to maintain the household and rear the children. The agreement is normally that the one who doesn't give up that career compensates for this by supporting the other partner. That is absolutely fair and reasonable.
If the marriage doesn't survive, it's hardly unreasonable to share some portion of the assets and/or demand that the partner who maintained his/her career at least temporarily help support the homemaking partner. The assets belong to the family, regardless of whose name was on the paycheck that paid for them. Maintaining a home/raising children is a non-trivial contribution to the family's well-being.
A prenup that specifies exactly what the agreement is with respect to these sorts of things is, IMO, a good thing. It protects both partners and, since it's drawn up when everyone is on good terms, can be a fairer agreement. If you can't get together with your spouse-to-be and come to a reasonable, honest agreement about the terms, that's not going to be the biggest problem in your marriage.
If marriage is not about money, why do women compare engagement rings?
I don't know - I told my fiance not to buy me an engagement ring. There are women to whom ostentatious displays of wealth are not the most important thing. If you are only willing to look, you would find them.
And let's not forget the benefits of being single. Completely aside from not being tied to any single woman, my money is my own to spend.
This I find a kind of selfish observation. The value of money is in its use, and lots of people clearly feel that using their money to raise a family is money well spent. If you don't feel that way, that's ok, but there's no reason to imply that one choice is better than the other.
You also seem to underestimate the number of working wives and mothers - I hardly know anyone who was a stay-at-home mom. The stereotypical housewife arrangement from the 50s was a bad idea all around, not least for all the smart, educated women who gave up any hope of a career to become mothers. (That includes both my grandmothers, who had postgraduate degrees in science and later became unhappy housewives.) Being a full-time-parent is also a valid choice, but the emphasis is on the word choice - both partners need to agree that it's what they want to do.
Anyway, I agree with your basic point that prenups are a good idea, mostly because it is always a good idea to have a clear backup plan. My own parents had a messy and angry divorce, and I feel that anything to smooth the way would have been a good thing. What I don't agree with is that marriage itself is not a good value for the money.