[rafcavallaro]

Gates's maternal grandfather, a multimillionaire bank president, left him a million dollar trust fund; his mother was on the a United Way board with an IBM exec which is how he got the contract for DOS.

The GI Bill had little or nothing to do with Gates's success.

[adventured]

How much of that trust fund - which Gates never asked for and had nothing to do with - did Bill Gates invest into starting Microsoft? All I'm seeing here is Bill Gates bashing with no actual substance.

If Gates didn't have the trust fund, and didn't invest it into Microsoft, then why are you referring to it as somehow indicting his success?

In fact, the IBM exec is not how Microsoft got the contract for DOS. Microsoft was already a very successful software company by the time the deal with IBM was signed, they had millions in profit in 1980 (in 1980 dollars).

They already had the equivalent of $60 to $80 million in sales (2013 dollars) in fiscal 1980, with 40 employees. They did the equivalent of $130 million in sales in 1981 (DOS 1.0 was first released in August 1981). If you understand anything about the software market's history, you understand how already substantial that was at the time for a stand-alone software business. Fact is, Microsoft was already one of the biggest software companies before they ever signed that deal.

IBM was looking to compete with Apple and others in a very important, fast growing market for personal computing. A multi-billion dollar market opportunity at the time (1980 dollars at that).

Your claim is that IBM would have just given that opportunity to any 'kids' with a half-way connection to an IBM exec (that one of the most powerful companies on earth would rest a multi-billion dollar, critical, opportunity with somebody just over one modest connection). It's an absurd position to put it nicely.

[r00fus]

> How much of that trust fund - which Gates never asked for and had nothing to do with - did Bill Gates invest into starting Microsoft? All I'm seeing here is Bill Gates bashing with no actual substance.

This is specious reasoning. The safety net provided by a trust fund (even if you didn't ask for it), is quite significant and allows you to take significant risks.

Let's take the analogy of FU money. The whole point of having it is that you can take risks or breaks in the future (saying F-U to any/all VCs/Investors/bosses without impact to your financial security). You don't need to invest any/all of it, since you can generate more, but if you choose paths that don't generate that wealth, you haven't squandered your financial comfort.

[foobarqux]

It's more than the money, it's elite socialization: Rich kids learn to believe that they are pre-ordained to be leaders/rulers. That outlook helps them get there.

[lmm]

> How much of that trust fund - which Gates never asked for and had nothing to do with - did Bill Gates invest into starting Microsoft?

Would he have dropped out of university to work on Microsoft full-time if he hadn't had the trust fund to fall back on?

[codexon]

The right question is if Gates would have started Microsoft if he didn't have a trust fund safety net if MS failed.

[stormbrew]

Well, Gates' mother and father may not have gotten together at all were it not for his father making something of himself with the help of the GI bill, so it's definitely somewhat involved. It's not clear from internet searching if William Gates I was wealthy or just had a pretentious approach to naming his kids, so it could be that he'd have gone to university anyway.

That said I wasn't trying to point to it as the sole contributing factor for Bill Gates, just one of many that may play a part in the overall trend and noting that one of the most obvious has it in his family's history.