Gates, Legacy and Historical BlundersMedia, chat sessions and Internet (publish) is full with news of Bill Gates exit from Microsoft. Its too early to say whether “Chairman” Bill Gates will act as “American corporate” chairman or “active” board leader.
My views,
In Hindi, there is a saying, “
Der aye, Durast Aye”… “
Although the happening is late, but finally is here”.
I was strong proponent of Bill Gates exit and for making him a visionary who “was”. Microsoft did the historic blunder in keeping the company intact during anti trust case. The left over company could have kept its product evolutions without “super czar” sitting on the top.
The technology industry history is full of “Legendry” creating utter chaos in their dawn,
The gold medal for the blunder should go to
Wang Industries. Does anyone now remember this company? Only mention on internet you can find is,
John Chambers (Current Cisco President and CEO) was once executive of that company. You can write books on this company. I am pasting the Wikipedia link,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wang_LaboratoriesFather of innovation in manufacturing,
Henry Ford, single handedly gave the #1 auto crown to general motors. Reason, he was thinking only he had vision and capabilities to make auto a mass product. He was right when he was thinking “he had” but was squarely wrong when he was thinking “only he had”.
Fast forward 80 years and you will have Déjà vu: Microsoft, Bill gates and Windows/Office/Explorer… (Ford industries, H. Ford & Model T).
The list can go on and on…. But I want salute Bill Gates for his vision which he had 20 years back and which he had shown now by taking himself out of Microsoft daily routines. He should stick to his wording.
And he has time and money along with geeky brain; why not try to create another intellectual powerhouse. Software is one industry, and now he is free from shackles of this particular domain... Go ahead…
Any discussion of China evokes political reaction. I have written about that elsewhere. China also has language, IP protection issues buyers worry about.
However, India is a victim of its own success. Some bank auditors are already concerned about risk concentartion around IT systems with Indian firms. I have written elsewhere about wage/rate inflation and staff turnover and infrastructure issues in India. You would be naive to think a competitor would not harp on these weaknesses.
The overwheleming advantage is firms like Infosys have done over 20,000 global delivery projects - Chinese firms barely in the hnudreds. That discipline counts for a lot. But the Chinese have shown they can compete in many different markets on price. I can see a market where Indian firms move to the middle band and the Chinese get more of the bottom."