On Tramiel thing, Commodore built some very popular personal computers that were incredibly capable for their prices. Many of us (I am not among them) got introduced to personal computers with Commodore boxes. He later moved on to Atari and brought some of the cheapest 32-bit home computers one could buy, years before 386s could be called home computers.
Attributing to Gates what others did does not help further your argument.
Yet how one may deny that Gates brought the PC to the masses with knowledge of the above are beyond me. Maybe a comparison with GEOS is in line..
I don't think so. You had a handful of self-sufficient ecosystems to work in. Apart from having only one software ecosystem, I can't see why you may think we are better off now.
> how one may deny that Gates brought the PC to the masses with knowledge of the above are beyond me
Since it's your own assessment of your own shortcomings, I assume you must be right.
PS. Also, there are plenty of "digital ecosystems" for us to play with, even today. Billions over billions of ad hoc, embedded, portable, desktop, mainframe and all the other platforms in between. Thankfully some unification now exists (where it matters).
Look how loved the company is today. Was what he did really the best he could have done for Microsoft? Wouldn't a kinder, gentler Microsoft, one that helped a healthy market thrive, be better? Would the smaller slice of a larger pie be larger than Microsoft's current pie?
> they get a job in finance doing nothing of benefit to society
I suppose you assume VCs exist in a vacuum. No.
> He helped bring computers to the masses.
No. Jobs and Wozniak did. Jack Tramiel did. Gates did nothing like that.