Discussion on:

Poll: Has Steve Jobs or Bill Gates made the greater contribution to tech?

microsoft invested in apple. They even introduced office & ie to mac and helped them be afloat.

..let's not forget WHY..!! Gates' bailing out of Apple was a self serving action. Primarily MS was in the heat of persecution for monopolistic business practices and the last thing they needed was for Apple to fold. Secondly, if memory serves correctly, Gates' investment was a huge wealth building exercise in the fact that Apple's stock (which Gates bought) jumped by more than 50% the day after Gates bought the stock. And third, let's be honest, it had to feel good to Gates to be the one to be doing the bailing out (of their long time rival). It had to be an "I WIN" moment.

Don't get me wrong, my defense of MS and Gates goes back a long time and I do believe that the standardization of MS really pushed computing technology by allowing a direction for developers to focus on, however, if you read my other post (OMG another FLAME WAR in the making) then you'll see that I personally can't answer the question at hand.

Edit = Full disclosure, I'm now a Mac guy.

Jobs (and Woz) created the Apple I and II and it's OS (with some help with the OS)
Gates (in some respects) rode on the back of the Apple II with the Z-80 SoftCard. A combination that benefitted both parties.
It was only after Jobs and Woz started the PC revolution that IBM decided to get into the game, and it was only then that Gates really entered the playing field.
This was due to a product request by IBM, not a pro-active action on Gates' behalf.
IBM approached Gates for an OS for the 8086 processor, and Gates eventually supplied MS-DOS. A product bought by Gates (under the heading "Microsoft") but not developed by him.

Rather than write decades of history, I believe it suffice to say:
Jobs is an innovator.
Jobs has done more for instigating tech.
Gates is a businessman.
Gates has done more for marketing tech.

Technology is not just h/w.
Apple is a tech company whose core philosophy seems to be to create a product that is positive to use, through the use of innovative technology.
Apple have given us:
the personal computer revolution,
the GUI to the people (without which, you might not be viewing this post on your browser in this manner),
DTP,
easy access to the internet,
and other innovations.

Microsoft is a s/w company who have given us
Office,
NT,
2003,
Exchange,
AD,
XP and
Win 7
(and also 95, 98, Vista and BSOD the %$#@s!)

But when it comes to a MAN and TECH, it's got to be Jobs.

The reason that Apple has the OS in the first place is that they do not allow anyone else to create compatible hardware (Psystar lawsuit), and they do not allow companies to create OS replacements.

Microsoft, on the other hand, builds OSes that run on thousands of different hardware configurations.

I voted Microsoft.

It's a shame that the marketing loonies got hold of DEC (AKA Digital Equipment Corporation).

Lots for the stuff we have now and what we don't I was using on DEC machines in the mid-80's, eg run-point-journals, data dictionary integration, transparent network connection-for processors and tasks, loose and tight processor integration, and file service and remote access, symmetric and hierarchically multiprocessing, zero insertion force 5 layer boards, high capacity small format disks, the MIT media lab. etc. etc.

Absolutely Right!
Actually nearly all new inventions of the wheel at Microsoft and Co. are coming (5-15 years later) from good old firms like Xerox, IBM, DEC...

Yup,

DEC was ahead of the game in so many ways - operating system, networkable hardware, the first great search engine Alta Vista, RISC chips, worlds most powerful editor (TECO).

I certainly miss that company - to be undone by bad marketing, accountant types, and a mere "IBM-PC" company in Compaq is the ultimate tragedy.

What if all Apple products will be gone today... what would be the impact to individuals, government, businesses etc?
What if all MS products will be gone today...what will be the impact to individuals, government, businesses etc?
I voted for bill gates because I can live (in an IT world) without an apple product but I can't without an MS products.

I'm just writing this on a Windows machine, but
without any problem would be able to move to Linux, OS-X, solaris, AIX, hpux, etc.

Nuf said...

Bill was old school; Think monopolistic sales practices. Example; Integrating IE into Windows so you had to have it. Why was Works bundled with every PC?

Steve is new school; Think closed door competition stifling. Example; Why are there no competing browser apps on the iPhone? Why does the iPod only sync with iTunes?

Business is business; its a tough world out there. Companies are driven by the almighty dollar (and Euro and now the Yuan) Very few companies survive by building a better mousetrap year after year. At some point the Bean Counters take over and run the company "For the benefit of the shareholders."

P.S. As Monopolistic as Google is becoming I have to applaud their being the only company I know willing to stand up to China's bullying. I wish Obama and the US Government had their balls. Somebody has to stand up against their blatant disregard for Patents and Trademarks.

I remember way back when Lotus 123 ruled the spreadsheet world, WordPerfect ruled the word processing world, Harvard Graphics ruled the presentation world and DBase ran the Database world; All ran on PCs. Word, Excel, Powerpoint, and Access were quirkly little products that ran on the Mac. Yes Virginia, MS Office got its start on Apple computers... Today we might argue that iTunes is what it is because it ran on PCs.

Around the same time I remember how often the Admins screamed in anguish when the little bomb showed up on their Macs. (Apples equivalent of the blue screen of death) It happened so regularly that the admins taught ME the value of save often. I used to laugh on my high horse about how I could not say I ever remember the PC locking up back then. Then a decade later the shoe was on the other foot. Today I'd say they are pretty close to the same reliability. (As much as people bash PCs about the BSoD, I honestly have not seen one in years)

"The more things change, the more they remain the same"

I didn't vote for either of these two people for improving technology. I see both of them as impeding it.

Gates was able, through marketing, to foist a complete train wreck of a standard operating system on the world. While it got improvements up to XP, who would argue that Vista or 7 are anything but revenue streams and do nothing that cannot be done in XP. This business strategy is at best described as scam, at worst as outright theft.

Jobs is at least as bad. When Woz left the company, the moral standard fell through the floor. The Macintosh came out without expansion capability and with too little RAM and no simple means of installing more. This was done with malice of forethought to force early adopters to buy updated models as soon as Apple decided to put them out. That concept goes on even today with the iPhone that not only fails to have a user changeable battery, guarenteeing a 1 year failure of the phone, but they are now putting that battery behind screws that cannot be removed without a factory only tool. This isn't planned obselesence, this is a built in time bomb.

These men shouldn't be lauded as innovaters, they should be imprisoned as criminals.

Tough call, but I voted Bill Gates. Steve Jobs and Apple have been more creative, but Microsoft (despite Jason's comment on overpricing) really made computing affordable and put it into the work place. Kind of like Henry Ford -- Microsoft didn't invent the computer, WYSIWYG or a lot of other things, they just helped make it more affordable for the masses.

I know, we have to credit the hardware makers that run MS stuff as well, but they weren't an option here.

While I agree that Steve Jobs and Apple have revolutionized consumer devices, much the same could be said about Sony of past.

Bill Gates and Microsoft have made computers accessible to billions of people and brought computing into the mainstream of everyday life.

However you look at it, both individuals have made tremendous contributions to our world and have advanced humankind immeasurably.

Bill Gates did a tremendous job of copying everything Apple ever did (while doing a poor attempt at getting things to work). Apple has "innovated" much more than Microsoft ever has, though Apple also got many of their ideas from PARC.
i realize that i'll be flamed unmercifully for this thought, but i've got my asbestos underwear on.

Apple's "innovations" were stolen, I mean gotten/copied from Xerox.
Realistically, Douglas Engelbart was the real visionary.
Jobs did revolutionize the black mock-turtleneck, however.

You don't know what you are talking about! Watch this video, then come back here to discuss:

Triumph of the Nerds Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, etc by PBS.

Then you would understand what happened really between Apple and PARC.

Apple's superior design and enduring quality is paying off in spades. Their creation of the new will secure their future. Microsoft is at risk of becoming irrelevant as an organization as they keep looking for ways to shore up bad "first to market" designs and code from a by gone era.

Both Gates and Jobs have contributed tremendously to the expansion of technology in our culture. It may boil down to whether acquiring and copying and expanding are more beneficial or seeking new approaches and struggling with implementing them for better use by the general public. Innovation sits on Jobs' shoulder, not Gates. Aggressive business practice sides with Gates. This is rewarded heavily by our western culture. Both men are definitely giants in their field.

None is my guess....

Remember Mag.nolia? They had mac-minis as their server infrastraucture and look at what happened! Point to Microsoft!

Macs were not targeted for the Data Centre - they were targeted for the desktop. I'll give you that Windows server is in the Data Centre, but you've got to live with that and support it.

I think that you should ask the question, "Of Mac / OS X users how many are happy with their OS platform and direction of the company as compared to those happy with Windows and MS?" I'm a Windows user because the masses dictate this to me, just as elections dictate leaders, but the winner doesn't always go down in history as a winner.

But you must forget that Virginia Tech created the 11th most powerful super computer with a couple hundred G4 based Mac desktops.

Let face it Windows is basically a me-to product created off the innovations of Apple. There use to be a joke out there that went "test the next Windows operating system today...buy a Mac." This was actually pretty accurate.

I will give it to MS that they are one hell of a marketing machine.

If I were limited to a single word describing Steve Jobs it would be Visionary. His contributions go beyond merely computers. Think Mac, iPod, iTouch, iPhone, and Pixar. The list goes on. I used a Mac from 1984 to 1998. As a Systems Engineer, I felt that it was time to feel the pain my clients felt. Once my Tech career is over, I plan to go back to my roots...back to the Mac. Godspeed Steve. Hope you beat it.

If it was left to Steve Jobs then computers would be only available to people with large incomes. Bill Gates made technology truly available to all.

I absoulutely agree with you, since I am not a rich one too)))

Gates has not been innovative he raided/pirated stole most of what he makets in the name of Microsoft.

Sorry but this is my choice and yes I do use (FOR NOW) Microsoft products.

My leaning is presently towards Google Cloud REASON COST to my users. Each MS seat NZ$ 2500.00 Google Cloud NZ1250.00 (we use MS Offcie 2003 PRO and Goggle Cloud

I voted for Bill Gates. I think Windows (however much of a rip-off it may have been of the Apple graphical OS) got more people using computers than any of the cool computers and gadgets Steve Jobs has had a part in marketing; though Apple has done a lot, and kept Microsoft from being completely complacent.

Tough call. They both have had similar careers in technical and business development. I'd have to give the edge to Jobs, though, since he/Apple seem to have developed more and better technologies overall, although Gates/MS have spread technology usage to a wider area.

One of the problems in evaluating which one did more for technology is that Bill Gates retired 10 years ago. Steve Jobs was also doing other things in exile; Pixar is definitely a good company but NeXT did not make that much of an impact.

It was close but I picked Bill Gates. The reason is that each new OS upgrade tended to push the limits of hardware and support such a wide variety of hardware. Gates' philosophy was to have a version of Windows on every kind of computer; the results are mixed but mostly good.

Steve Jobs contributed more to the style than the tech. He also chose to sell a specific set of hardware to use with Apple's OS; this created a narrower range of hardware available for Mac users.

I have to laugh at the picture with Jobs leaning forward and Gates leaning away. They are both smiling but the body language says other things.

..and sacrificed their lives so their children could go to college. Jobs and Gates just got lucky.

His vision of how the Internet was going to revolutionize how we deal with computers, with Windows 95 being the first "Internet ready" consumer OS (yes Linux and Unix were already using the Internet, but they were mostly in the "geek" domain). How long was it before MacOS became Internet friendly?

Looking at what most people have said in previous posts, they are looking at the last 10 - 12 years, and sure the iPod, iMac, etc have had HUGE impacts on the industry, I don't think that they would be where they are without BG and MS bailing them out at a crucial point.

Oddly, I was on the internet with an Apple II. I didn't buy my first Mac until '92 and even then it was a 7-year-old Mac Plus--which I put onto the internet almost immediately. Yes, I know the iMac was considered Apple's first 'Internet' Mac, but the differential here is that the iMac wasn't "Internet Ready," but rather "Internet Centric." Unlike any previous desktop computer, the iMac was the first machine to actively seek and configure itself for internet access.

That was 12 years ago, but Macs and Apple computers in general were 'Internet ready' almost from the beginning, even before the internet existed and everyone used BBSs and services like PC-link and Apple-link.

Microsoft claimed that this Internet thing was just a fad that would pass. When they eventually joined in the party, it was late and to react to competition. IE created and tcp/ip added after other's demonstrated that the Internet was here to stay. IE bundled to block fair competition from the growing success of Netscape. Where possible, standard protocols extended with MS only features (eg. MS-HTML vs HTML).

Microsoft did eventually embrace the Internet but it was only after everyone else and begrudgingly because of new market competition.

but visionaries shape the future

That's incorrect to say dime a dozen!
If you think it's correct then could you show me another Jonathan Ive?

visionaries are worthless without the brains to develp and design

Really tough question! I voted Bill because he kept the PC from being IBM only. If IBM still had control of DOS, the PC would have been mired down in the enterprise which would have stiffled innovation. On the other hand, Bill's "Monopoly" I think was a good thing; It would have been hard for developers to pick a platform to work on (Osborne? Apple? PC? The 6 versions of Unix (Sys 5, BSD in Ksh, Csh, Bsh) Dec, etc.) and the Office Monopoly helped create an standards. (I remember having to learn about a dozen word processing programs from Word to Kedit to Doc, to Wang ...) and it was a bear at the time to have interoperable files. I think this was one of the enabling technologies for the internet. Just think of all the issues people are having now with IE, Chrome, Safari, Firefox etc. and HTML is a standard! Bill's ultimate failure was to make some of the technology usable by non-tech types. I remember trying to teach my Dad (abanke) DOS...

I think Steve's contribution was to help make the technology usable by the masses. Windows helped but the icon driven interface of the iPod/iPhone is easy for the technophobes to embrace. And Steve also made the retailing of apps with the app store a quick and easy process. All the Microsoft updates are daunting to non-tech types. Purchasing an app from the app store and having it show all the apps that need updating is way simpler than updating Quicken, Word, IE, Windows, etc...

A very tough choice indeed!

It's a tough call. In one sense I think Microsoft, and therefore Gates, has had contact with more people, and has spread the idea of common people owning computers far further and deeper than Jobs/Apple. I feel the reason most people feel they can own and use a computer at home is in great part because of the ubiquitous business PC, and on that front Microsoft has done more than Apple, particularly with Windows Server (it might not always work right, but it convinced every business that they could afford a network server...with deserved cudos to Novell and Sun). However, even though Microsoft went further and deeper, Apple set up the environment for them with the Apple II series. Say what you want about Macs, GUIs and who does better graphics, in the days of Altair, Commodore, Pet, Osborne, Timex/Sinclair, with the "real" computers being IBM, DEC, Unisys and the like in refrigerated mainframe rooms, the Apple II kicked down the door and said, "I'm the computer revolution for the rest of you!" When Jobs and Woz decided that the computer should not be only for kit builders and tech weenies, they changed the paradigm. Everything since has been evolution.

Regardless of how you slice it this is surely going to lead to some intense debate. I personally don't see how anyone can have definitive answer to this question. Both have done tremendous things to push technology forward and without either one of them technology would be set aback (assuming no one else filled in the gaps).

Gates gave a standard that the industry has been built upon. Unfortunately that standard has plenty of issues which have in a since opened the door for many of the contributions that jobs has made. As a user of both Windows and OS X I can say without a doubt (again, this is MY opinion) that OS X runs much smoother and without many of the headaches associated with Windows. Yes, Jobs' way of doing things has created a lot limits by the exercising of a massive amount of control over the operating system, but it's that control that has created a protective bubble of sorts. But, then again it was Windows that MADE computing an everyday reality.

Of course, one could say that without Gates, Jobs' success would have never come about (he did bail out Apple at one point, even if it was for self serving purposes). Then again, some could say that Jobs picked up the ball when Gates set it down and has run even farther with it than Gates did (iPods, the iTunes market, the iPad, a more stable operating system platform, super stylish products, etc).

In my book, they have both contributed immensely, and to me there is no way to say that one has done more than the other, though I'm sure there will be many folks to tell me otherwise (hence the "flame war" remarks).

Jason,

This poll is somewhat confusing when you insert the word, tech.

Most of the great contributions have come from the industry giants such as IBM and Intel. They enabled people such as Gates to play his moves rapidly, and in the right direction. Microsoft was never actually a true tech. company whereas Apple's story was legendary in terms of a great tech. company under the able minds 'double' Steves.

As as far contribution is concerned, in terms of Software Gates delivered it because of Microsoft's absolute monopoly over the PC industry and its various good and bad trade practices (recent Dell's SEC case). Apple's story was different here. Apple rose to the greatest heights and took the slump. Jobs left company, which was driven to horrible mess thanks to that ex-Cola company guy! After a good time, Jobs returned and took the reigns of his baby again. Apple got its second lease of life and started covering the ground slowly but it was breaking new grounds at an explosive pace with revolutionary products such as new MacBook line up (Intel), Digital products, Software (Mac OS, iTunes etc) and so on. So, if you look at the Technology by Hardware definition then Jobs contributed to the tech sector a lots than Gates. But in Software, Gates did the most.

Bottom line: Jobs and Gates are two sides of the coin called Technology and both deserve their places as true 'Greats' in their own right. But they shouldn't pitted against each other with such stupid polls.

where would the ipod be without a PC to sync it to??? No one could afford an apple if it didnt have pc to compete with. most still cant.