Bill Gates Rules Out a Full-time Return to Microsoft
Gates has shot down rumors that he plans to make a comeback at Microsoft.

Bill Gates has ruled out the possibility of him returning to the company he founded. Gates stepped down as CEO of Microsoft in January of 2000, but remained at the company as chairman of the board and chief software architect. He announced plans to transition to part-time work in 2006, and had his last full day at the company in June of 2008. Though he remains non-executive chairman at Microsoft and continues to work there on a part-time basis, Bill is now working full-time on his philanthropic efforts at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
This week, Gates ruled out a return to Microsoft following rumors that he could be considering doing just that. Earlier this week, Fortune reported that Bill, tempted by the success of other CEOs that have done the same, could be considering a return to Microsoft after watching the company he founded "muddle along for half a decade." However, Gates has said in an Australian interview this week that his part-time status at Microsoft is not going to change and that his foundation is what he plans to do "the rest of [his] life".
"I'm part-time involved with Microsoft, including even being in touch this week to give some of my advice but that’s not going to change – the foundation requires all of my energy and we feel we’re having a great impact," he told Fairfax media, according to the Sydney Morning Herald. Gates later reiterated, "So, part-time Microsoft, but full-time Foundation for... For all my future."
Fortune sparked rumors with its report that Bill was looking at the likes of Steve Jobs and Howard Schultzman (of Starbucks) and was inspired by their returning to the companies they had founded to make things better. Do you think Microsoft would benefit if Bill Gates were to return? Let us know in the comments below!
I stopped there.
Not a corporate person.
He helped make Microsoft great, and their products worthwhile.
If he returned, he could help get Microsoft back on top.
Bill Gates and Microsoft thrived because IBM chose them for their initial operating system. An operating system Bill Gates and Microsoft did not even write. After that, they used the monopoly to get into other businesses, often times illegally by using monopoly power. Without their monopoly leverage, Microsoft almost invariably fails. Anyone remember Microsoft Bob?
Not that Bill Gates is an idiot. He's a good business man, but a terrible visionary.
Steve Jobs did the opposite. He fought AGAINST the monopoly, created products that almost invariably succeeded, created markets, and did it all without any of the leverage Microsoft had.
Apple, incredibly, is worth more money than Microsoft, despite having none of the advantages Microsoft leveraged since 1981. And despite being in very bad shape in the 1990s. Does anyone doubt Steve Jobs is responsible for most of that? What product did Bill Gates create? What market did Microsoft create under his reign? Nothing.
He'd keep Microsoft profitable, but they already are. He's not a visionary. He's a good, if sometimes illegal business man. But, they're doing fine from that perspective.
Either way, he's changing people's lives.
I stopped there.
Taking Unix and slapping your own coat of paint on it is not innovative or visionary. Taking mp3 players (which already existed) and slapping your own coat of paint on it is not innovative.
Taking smart phones with touch screens (which already existed, Ericson R380) and slapping your own coat of paint on it is not innovative. Taking tablets which have been around for years is not innovative. How is Jobs any different than how you painted Gates???????
Are you 17? You realize that IBM and IBM compatibles were the monopoly, either running DOS or Windows later on. Apple was the one company that never copied them, or went into that market. They kept doing it their way.
That they succeeded and were successful in other markets shows how good Jobs was. But, in no case did they have a monopoly. They still don't. People like to whine, but having 40% of a market isn't a monopoly. There are a lot of Android phones and even tablets out there, and they sell well. Apple doesn't approach a monopoly in either of those categories. Now, Microsoft with Windows and Office, that's a lot higher a number. So is Intel with processors. So, outside of personal hostility to Apple, why would anyone say they have a monopoly when it's painfully obvious that people can buy any number of attractive alternatives? Is it just irritating that people want their products, even though you think they shouldn't. That's not a monopoly, that's a personal problem.
I agree, Bill Gates has done a ton of good with the money he's made... donated billions to charity, Steve Jobs.... not so much. Also he designed products with function ahead of style, not the other way around.
This is the same Steve Jobs who started the worldwide onslaught of lawsuits and has tried to gain a legislated monopoly on tablet sales using dubious patents and photoshopped evidence. Please pull you head our of your A$$ before you type cause the gibberish you just entered makes no sense.
yes he's better than jobs, the cheapest person ever
Because you're completely oversimplifying everything, and missing what's important. Not because you believe it, but because you're trying to change reality to meet what you want.
Gates never created a market. Jobs brought GUIs to the market (yes, they didn't invent them, but they made them relevant). He brought the mouse. He created the tablet market. Tablets existed before, but no one wanted them. iPod was a big success. iPhone changed the market almost overnight.
These were all markets that Steve Jobs created, or transformed. He created products that worked the way people wanted them to. That created excitement. That created whole new industries.
Don't get me wrong, I don't buy Apple stuff, and I had the displeasure of using a Mac about a week ago, and was disgusted by it. Almost as much as I was disgusted by having to use Windows years ago after using OS/2.
By the way, the Mac OS was not always based on Unix.
But, the reality is, Microsoft never created a market. Operating Systems? Guess not. GUI? Ummm, nope. Office software? Hmmmm, late to that party. Browsers? Nope, again. Wait, game consoles! Ummm, damn, no again. What market did Microsoft create? NOTHING. They used monopoly power to destroy the office market, other operating systems, and even browsers for a while. They destroy, not create.
You really can't see any difference? You can, you just don't want to.
don't forget he wanted to spend each penny of apple's billions to destroy android
Wow, where do idiots like you come from? Are you implying that Microsoft never sued anyone for patents? What?????
Do you even know what Microsoft did? Did you know they would charge PC makers license fees for every PC they sold, whether it had Windows or not? So, let's say you sold a PC with OS/2. You'd have to pay for the Windows license, and the OS/2 license, even if you didn't ever have Windows on that machine.
So, not only did the sue early and often, they used illegal tactics, proven in court, to stop competitors. They did everything they could to kill competition, not only legally, but illegally!
So please, stop talking about things you don't know anything about. You're just embarrassing yourself.
Also, keep it in context. We're talking about guys leading a company, not what they do in their personal life. I'm pretty sure Bill Gates would be a really good guy to meet, but, he wasn't the business leader Steve Jobs was.