The History of Computing
The Deal That Shaped Every Screen You've Ever Touched
The entire personal computing industry pivoted on a single handshake between a college dropout and a Harvard dropout — and the one who walked away thinking he'd won had actually lost everything.
The Idea
In 1980, IBM needed an operating system for its new personal computer and approached Microsoft. Bill Gates didn't have one — but he knew someone who did. He bought a scrappy OS called QDOS (Quick and Dirty Operating System) from a small Seattle company, licensed it to IBM, and kept the right to sell it to other manufacturers. IBM, fixated on hardware, thought the software was the throwaway part of the deal. Gates understood something IBM did not: in a world of commoditised hardware, the software layer would become the chokepoint — the tollbooth everything had to pass through. Steve Jobs, meanwhile, was building something philosophically opposite. Where Gates licensed broadly and let chaos reign, Jobs insisted on controlling both the hardware and the software. Apple's machines were more elegant, more coherent — and more expensive. The Mac launched in 1984 with a graphical interface that genuinely astonished people. Gates had already seen it, having visited Xerox PARC alongside Jobs, and Windows would follow. What's genuinely underappreciated here is that these weren't just different business strategies — they were different theories of what a computer was for. Gates saw it as a universal tool that should reach everyone, even at the cost of consistency. Jobs saw it as an extension of human intention, something that should feel inevitable in the hand. Both were right. Both were wrong. And the tension between those two visions still defines every product debate in tech today.
In the World
The sharpest illustration of this divergence played out not in a boardroom but in a courtroom — and then, strangely, in a moment of quiet reconciliation on stage. In 1988, Apple sued Microsoft, arguing that Windows 2.0 had stolen the 'look and feel' of the Macintosh interface. Apple lost. The judge ruled that individual interface elements couldn't be copyrighted, and Microsoft marched on. By the mid-1990s, Windows had roughly 90% of the PC market. Apple was weeks from bankruptcy. In 1997, at Apple's developer conference, Jobs announced a partnership with Microsoft — a deal that included a 150 million investment from Gates to keep Apple solvent. When Gates appeared on the giant screen behind Jobs via satellite link, the audience booed. Jobs let the booing settle, then said something that surprised people: 'We have to let go of this notion that for Apple to win, Microsoft has to lose.' It was a remarkable sentence from someone who had spent two decades treating the rivalry as existential. But Jobs had grasped something clarifying in Apple's near-death experience: his company's survival depended not on defeating Gates, but on rediscovering what only Apple could do. The iPod launched four years later. The iPhone four years after that. The détente didn't end the philosophical rivalry — it just freed Jobs to pursue it from a position of strength rather than resentment.
Why It Matters
The Jobs-Gates story is often told as a rivalry between two giant egos, which is true but not the interesting part. The interesting part is that they represent a genuine, unresolved debate about how technology should relate to people. Gates's model — open, licensed, available everywhere — democratised computing faster than any alternative would have. The fact that billions of people had access to personal computers by the early 2000s is, in no small part, his doing. Jobs's model produced tools that felt like they understood you, that reduced friction between thought and action, and that changed what people believed a device could be. Neither model won cleanly. The smartphone era blended both: powerful ecosystems that are simultaneously closed (Apple) and open (Android). The debate now surfaces in AI, in social platforms, in the question of whether your tools should be maximally interoperable or maximally coherent. When you find yourself choosing between the flexible option and the polished one, between the open platform and the walled garden, you're still living inside the question these two men posed in the 1980s and never quite answered.
A Question to Ponder
When you use a piece of technology that frustrates you with its constraints, is the constraint a failure of design — or evidence that someone made a deliberate bet about what matters most?
Get a new one of these every morning.
Start learning with Thinkable