zlacker

Is Bill Gates still involved with Microsoft, I thought he retired to run his foundation?

>>ration+(OP)
He's completely gone from Microsoft. To invoke Gates now on a anti-Microsoft screed would be missing the point. If anyone has beef with Microsoft about Windows, their ire is better directed at Panos Panay and Satya Nadella.

>>kjells+y1
Everything you said is accurate except for the word "completely". He's no longer on the MS board of directors or in any officer role, but there is this bit of ongoing involvement:

> In 2020, Bill Gates left the board of directors of Microsoft, the tech giant he cofounded in 1975. But he still spends about 10% of his time at its Redmond, Washington headquarters, meeting with product teams, he says.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexkonrad/2023/02/06/bill-gate... (article is from early February of this year)

Still, agreed, that doesn't really make him responsible for MS's current decisions.

>>ration+(OP)
Bill Gates' involvement with Microsoft fully stopped on June 27, 2008 -- 15 years to the date

>>kjells+y1
Eventually, only the owners are responsible. Every second they don't kick the managers that implement this crap to the curb is a moral failure on their part.

Gates owns 100x more shares than Nadella - about 1% of all shares - and thus has 100x the responsibility.

They are both guilty of greed and disrespecting their customers through their actions, or their willful or negligent ignorance and inaction.

I don't know how they can live with this, they are already rich, why not try to be better even if you earn less money in the short term?

Disrespecting your customers will get you nowhere in the long term.

>>kjells+y1
I disagree. The company's DNA and general approach to the market was set by Gates 40 years ago, the culture he established still stands, so invoking him when criticising MS for it's monopolistic practices is still valid.

>>737373+sf
Public companies are out for one thing, and one thing only.

Shareholder returns.

It has nothing to do with CEOs "already being rich", their job is literally to run the company properly so that the shareholders make more money.

Like it or not, that's how it is. Now, if this "crap" actually hurts the brand and the bottom line, they shouldn't implement it. If they are seeing more profits, and not many complaints, it's likely it will stay.

Moral faiure does not come into play.

>>ninju+J7
He was still involved after that, because he was on the board until 2020.

>>EMM_38+KI
They are not obligated to do that.

https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-co...

(arguably)