Eric Nilsson writes 2/12:
>The fact that Bill Gates came to play the role he did and the rise of
Microsoft is a perfect example of "path dependency" aka historical
contingency--IBM could have easily chosen an operating system to use in
their PC that was not Gates' DOS. Absent this choice by IBM (and the
later success of Lotus 123) Microsoft and its impact (or perhaps "role")
would not have come into being. The software market might have been quite
different.<
Actually, what became MS-/PC-DOS was not Gates's development. He bought
the rights to a CPM version developed by Seattle Software (which actually
retained rights to produce at least one more generation of the system).
CPM was developed by, if I remember, Gary Kildall. IBM chose not to
adopt CPM as its favored OS because Kildall annoyed them by not being
sufficiently button-down. Gates knew how to present himself so as to
reassure IBM (and knew enough to do it, instead of valuing his
individuality above all). However, IBM did try to sell CPM -- at a
higher price than PC-DOS -- for some time before giving up.
Lotus 123 was a refinement/competitor of VisiCalc, developed by Dan
Bricklin and someone else whose name just escaped me. I don't remember
if 123 was ever available in a CPM or other non-MS-/PC-DOS version. The
fact that I can't remember suggests that by the time Lotus came along,
the contest to be the dominant OS was pretty much over. That is, I don't
think Lotus had all that much effect on Microsoft's position. Indeed,
Microsoft's development of 123-alternative Excel (including its being
relatively easy to learn and use by users of other MS applications) was,
I think, much more significant in Gates's company's ascendancy.
Which goes to show that it is not creating or writing software, but
bringing it to market in a way which most nearly matches what the market
wants (with guidance), which is Gates's true contribution -- that, and
his ability to recognize, hire, develop, encourage, and keep developers
and so on who are up to the challenges he continually throws at them, as
he continuously reads the market.
Which is to say that there was no structure to which Gates responded,
which was not also a structure which he in part created. Gates defined
the role in filling it. But he did so by recognizing and adapting to
those structures and roles which he found existing in the world in which
he wanted to move. How much he internalized the existing structure, and
how much only used it, is so unknowable that it may not even be a
sensible question to ask.
Michael Etchison
[opinions mine, not the PUCT's]
