I had the confidence to believe in myself for the long run but also always knew mum and dad would have my back in the short run should anything go awry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Kildall

In fact, IBM first went to Gary Kildall for DOS.

Lots of people got rich off of software in those days, hardly any of them went to Harvard.

(Now I'm off to reminisce about GEM)

Drawing a blanket conclusion from a single comparison of only two samples is a hasty generalization. Downvoting somebody out of comfort for your fallacy is kind of assholish.

When you look at that pivotal moment when MS and DR were sent off on completely different trajectories by the 800 pound gorilla that IBM was at the time, it's unquestionably the headstart one. While Kildall was just trying to get a good price for their product/expertise (solid middle-class thinking at its best, nothing wrong with that), Gates was already playing the high-level game, brokering between IBM and SCP by merit of a foot in the door via family ties.

It seems unreasonable and uncharitable to imply that people are building their worldviews off of the stories of Gates and Kildall alone.

Edit: how rude of me to ask for evidence!

Moreover it’s kind of missing the forest for the trees...yes, pedigree might not have literally been the differentiator between these two specific entrepreneurs. But do you have any meaningful critique to the basic idea that people with better than average starts in life have better than average outcomes? That is what is primarily under discussion here, not Bill Gates in particular.

IBM knew about Gates, and went to Kildall first (in fact, Gates suggested Kildall to them). Why would they have gone if "pedigree" was what they cared about? Kildall had what they wanted, Gates did not. It dropped in Kildall's lap, and he botched it. IBM went back to Gates, and Gates didn't need to be asked twice.

Even if that network wasn't actively involved at all (e.g. by notifying Bill of the opportunity to supply BASIC, I think it is highly unlikely that it want involved at least that amount), the buyers at IBM would definitely have been aware of his family ties and unconsciously or not have awarded more default trust than to a random stranger. It is also not unlikely that Microsoft was given a chance in hope of currying favors with a certain person high in their own org chart or in fear of negative repercussions. Both the hoping/fearing and the favors/repercussions don't even have to happen voluntarily or consciously, it's hard enough to suppress those effects when you become aware of them and don't want to be that kind of person.

IBM was looking for microcomputer software. Microsoft was the biggest player in that field at the time. Why would IBM not have contacted Gates?

The fact is IBM passed over pedigree Gates and went to Kildall FIRST and Kildall was offered the deal FIRST. All Kildall had to do was say "yes". The notion that one had to be born wealthy to get that deal is simply false.

Kildall was not some ignorant yokel from the backwoods. Besides, titans of the computer industry do deals with yokels all the time.

In fact, Kildall did later make a deal with IBM to sell an IBM branded CPM/86 for the PC. Consumers had a choice between IBM PC-DOS, and IBM CPM/86. The former was $40, the latter $240. People (like me) chose the cheaper one, because nobody could explain what was better about CPM/86. And the rest is history.

Maybe that is the misunderstanding that kept this discussion alive for so long: I'm not trying to privilege-shame anyone, just questioning the claim that it did not make a difference at all. (Actually I think that privilege-shaming is a really stupid concept, it won't ever achieve more than make its targets bitter or cynical, if it has an effect at all. It's not wrong to take an opportunity, just don't force it through improper means)

[0] https://hbr.org/2005/12/how-to-build-your-network

The 70s and 80s were also great times to start a computer related company, that's for sure.

Edit: Gary Kildall could have done everything Gates did, and Tim Patterson wrote DOS, not Gates.

Tons of people knew how to program and had access to computers. Computers were not invented in 1975. The lower middle class neighborhood public high school in my neighborhood in 1975 had a computer and offered programming classes.

There's a reason Allen raced to show Gates the Popular Electronics issue - he knew there'd be others doing the same thing right away.

Allen had already written an 8008 emulator on the same model of mainframe as the one at Harvard. And that made it possible to update the emulator while at Harvard and then use it as the basis of their version of BASIC.

Edit: There were many thousands of computers at the time, and programmers to run them. The 8080 instruction set is trivial:

http://pastraiser.com/cpu/i8080/i8080_opcodes.html

and any semi-competent programmer can write an emulator for it in a few hours. The magic ingredient Gates and Allen had was Recognizing The Opportunity, and then Acting On It. There was no technical wizardry involved, and no resources that were not also available to thousands, and soon tens of thousands, of others.

The Jobs and Wozniak story makes this even clearer. Wozniak showed his designs to HP and offered it to them. HP's engineers were utterly uninterested in it. (And remember that the Apple 1 was built with off-the-shelf parts anyone could buy.)

A counterexample would be someone from a poor background dropping from college to found a startup.

You've misinterpreted what he's saying. He's saying "that isn't a valid counterexample".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Petersburg_paradox BTW.

Also, it's not just that rich people can takes risks that poor people cannot. It's that they never risk a minimum standard of living. Poor people making decisions like that do.

Steve Jobs

Edit: Jan Koum is another

According to the original argument, that directly contradicts the assertion that only highly priviledged people linked to the elite are able to succeed.

Unless the goalpost is moved further away to the point that middle class is now part of the elite, it's quite clear the original argument doesn't hold water.

Is some luck involved? Sure. It also helps greatly to not have to worry where their next meal is coming from, but that is very different than having to start in the elite.

He joined the HP Explorer's Club and got to see world-leading new products ahead of release at a time when HP were creating incredibly impressive calculators and personal computers.

He also attended lectures on the HP campus - which wasn't just educational, but also contributed to his relatively fearless approach to networking.

The family may not have been rich, but it's just plain wrong to say he had no connections and no advantages.

The notion that Jobs was in some unique position is not correct.

Also, they had a nice single-family home with a yard in a suburban area.

Not just wealthy, but extremely well connected through his mother, who sat on several University of Washington, corporate and charity boards, including the United Way boards through which she knew John Opel (CEO and Chairman of IBM… right around the IBM PC's development).

So yeah, Bill cam from a well to-do family but he also was extremely {insert here}...

Imagine how many potential Bill Gates are majoring in CS from average to good state universities that have the potential to do so much more in academia and industry, but come from poor families/no one to help them. You’ll probably never hear of them/know they exist.

I think you underestimate how much a proper background can help you in terms of admissions to elite schools. I know someone that scored a 1600 out of a 1600 on their SAT, but came from more of a modest background than Bill. They were denied from Harvard. Harvard receives plently of high SAT scoring, high achieving applicants. Smart people from poor backgrounds have a lot more to overcome in life to get to the same point as others with more resources. A head start with a secure background can make a large difference later in life. I'm sure if my friend didn't go to one of the worst high schools in the state, and went to a better STEM school, they could have been admitted to Harvard. Who knows how that would have changed their life for the better. Now we will never know.

In this day and age, I would argue that access to education is actually nearly ubiquitous when it comes to STEM. Lack of encouragement/emphasis on education from parents and the rest of the social circle is a much bigger problem. That, and smart poor kids just don't apply, because they wrongly think they don't stand a chance.

Arguably, a smart kid growing up in a poor family, but with parents that put great emphasis on education, has an advantage over a rich kid - the rich kid is unlikely to have the same kind of drive to succeed.

A "proper background", outside of legacy, is generally a negative thing when applying to elite institutions as applicants from 'improper backgrounds' will receive bonus points on their applicant score. All other things being equal the guy who went to Bodunk High is generally going to have a better admittance score better than the guy who went Carnegie College Preparatory Academy.

The one issue of course is that all other things are often not equal. The guy who went to our imaginary prep school is probably going to have had greater resources to enable his endeavors and often a better family life at home. And that's why the guy from Bodunk High is given a boost on his score.

And in my opinion, having been somebody who came from a poor background and was able to go to a top tier university, I don't think it really makes much of a difference. The crazy high overachievers who go on to become the Bill Gates didn't achieve that because of Harvard, and obviously in Bill Gates case as he dropped out - he would have done phenomenal whether he went to Harvard or Party U. It's a similar story with people like Michael Dell. He came from an upper middle class family but nonetheless worked jobs ranging from dish washer to telemarketer. In college at UT he started what would become Dell literally from his dorm room. He would drop out his freshman year once it became clear the business was viable.

Elite universities just have this sort of win-win feedback scenario going for them. They attract all these sorts of individuals and then get to implicitly take some credit for their achievements, which then affirms the university's elite status. Meh. I would fully agree though that if your ambition is just to go send out resumes and gradually work your way up for other people, then an elite university degree would help you eventually end up with a somewhat nicer white picket fence than somebody who went to a less premier institution. But these are not the sort of people we're talking about.

Exactly! Bill Gates success is tied to much more mundane things like sales strategies and close business relations to major businesses like IBM (thanks to his mother) to the point that Bill Gates decided that he'd be better off just getting contracts at any cost even if it means over-promising and in the end buying software from Tim Paterson and merely ported it over to whatever IBM was selling at the time.

"poor" people go to university. Rich people take advantage of their connections.

If Bill Gates weren't from such a well-connected family, it is also likely Microsoft wouldn't have been selected to develop the OS for the IBM PC.

He was never considered an especially talented developer. He bought the OS that was used for the IBM PC.

For example, if Lebron James wasn't born with such great genetics, it's likely he wouldn't have been a "once in a generation" NBA superstar, and instead just a really good rec league player.

Or, if Marilyn Monroe wasn't so attractive, it's likely she wouldn't have been a cultural icon, and instead just an average D-list actress.