What about Ray Dalio? He dominated his industry almost as successfully as Gates and is about the same age. There is no pedigree benefit there. His dad was a jazz musician.

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.

The existence of rags-to-riches stories elsewhere does not make Bill Gates an example of one. And that's what this whole sub-thread is about: is the riches to even bigger riches story of Bill Gates an example of rags to riches, just transposed upwards, or is it an example of dynastic headstart?

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.

Ray Dalio made his money on Wall Street before striking it out on his own. He didn't drop out of school or anything.

> Drawing a blanket conclusion from a single comparison of only two samples is a hasty generalization.

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

I didn’t downvote you, but to honestly answer your edit: you’re not being downvoted because you’re asking for evidence. You’re being downvoted because it seems unlikely your question is being asked in good faith. Do you actually believe there is an empirical basis for the person’s opinion that pedigree played a part, or are you just challenging it becuase you know there is no such empirical evidence for those two specific cases?

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.

usrusr said "in my reading" and that pedigree was the factor that made the difference. It is therefore fair to ask for a reference.

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.

Apparently you have read all the same references as I: without his maternal network, it is quite unlikely that Gates would have ever been in the position to suggest Kildall. Or to later not suggest Paterson as replacement, but instead resell him/his work for the markup that made Microsoft.

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.

> it is quite unlikely that Gates would have ever been in the position to suggest Kildall

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

Even then: the Kildall negotiations evaporated because of superficial formalities (fear of signing an NDA, according to wiki), almost like a language barrier between corporate and upstart. Gates would have either not been given the same lawyer treatment or not have been intimidated by it since that culture was not foreign to him.

NDAs are normal, I sign them all the time, and I have no "pedigree" and never went to Hahvahd and my parents were lower middle class.

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.

Sure, but why was the NDA not signed? Fear that the big guy would screw over the little guy, inability to tell normal behavior from exploitative. The Kildalls were entering a foreign culture (not by nationality, but by corporateness/class) and blundered. The person who was more at home with the culture then got the deal, despite not even having a product. That's exactly how the family advantage works, not some comically evil "sorry you are not from a sufficiently important family, no contract for you".

You're delving into sheer speculation. Exactly what went wrong at their meeting is not known, many stories about it have circulated, the NDA thing is just one of them.

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.

You are absolutely right about speculation. But so is the assumption that it all did not matter at all and the WIndows dominance would have happened in just the same way had Gates been a farmboy (I'm exaggerating a bit, you never claimed that). But in dubio pro reo is not applicable, since nobody is accused: it's not a crime to get along better with some group than someone else.

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)

I remember reading somewhere that when IBM was looking for an OS and was starting to talk to Bill Gates, John Akers (IBM senior exec, maybe CEO then?) was briefed on it and said, "Isn't that Mary Gates's boy?" Akers and Mary Gates were both on the national board of directors for United Way — and reportedly Mary Gates had talked to Akers about the importance of the newer, smaller companies in the burgeoning computer industry. [0]

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

Obviously IBM was looking at Gates before noticing he was Mary's son. Don't forget that Gates was already a major player in the microcomputer software business, he didn't need any more "connection" than that. Of course IBM would go knocking on his door.