So, Bill Gates is retiring to enjoy the bucolic life as Microsoft's chairman and "advisor" on key projects - albeit a couple years down the road. It's makes you wonder about his legacy as he ever so slowly walks away from the software giant he co-founded. in 1975 with Paul Allen. Should we look at Gates as an innovator, super-salesman or brilliant, but ruthless, strategist? You could make an argument Gates is under-appreciated because Microsoft has become the high-tech company people love to diss/dismiss, which is what happens when you're top dog for so long. If we want to "praise Caesar, not to buy him" (apologies for the Shakespeare mash-up), we should focus on how much he's able to accomplish next with this philanthropic work around the world with all his billions of dollars. Unlike a lot of young, super-successful high-tech executives, Gates has been an active philanthropist, who has focus on issues such as AIDS, tuberculosis and immunization.
Update: Business 2.0 has a column on why CEO Steve Ballmer should step down, citing his many "gaffes" and the stock's lacklustre performance.

The Canadian telecom industry is rumbling full-throttle towards a deregulated environment. While the carriers and cablecos want the freedom to operate, market and price how they want, the federal government still wants to encourage competition and protect the interests of consumers. The problem, however, is it's very difficult to have it both ways. You can't set the carriers and cablecos free and then expect them to play nice with rivals who want wholesale network access to offer competitive services. Why should Bell Canada, for example, provide sell access to MTS Allstream in Toronto so Allstream can do business with a large corporate customer? It makes no strategic sense. But if this becomes the new competitive landscape, it means a carrier or cablecos that wants to service a particular market may have to build their own facilities - a costly and, arguably, inefficient market strategy. Of course, the carriers and cablecos will argue they built their networks so why should they share their facilities. But this approach doesn't appear to jibe with the federal government's desire for a healthy competitive landscape. As much as everyone is excited about deregulation, there will have to be regulated exceptions, and it appears wholesale network access may have to be one of them if the federal government is really intent on competition. Perhaps MTS Allstream CEO Pierre Blouin (above left) s the voice of reason when he calls for wholesale access at reasonable prices.

According to TeleGeography, VoIP's on a roll in the U.S. as the number of subscribers jumped 189% to 5.5 million by the end of the first quarter, compared with 1.9 million a year earlier. Telegraphy expects there will be 9.6 million customers by year-end and 23.7 million by 2010. Meanwhile, revenue is expected to climb to $2.6-billion in 2006 and $8.1-billion by 2010 compared with $1-billion in 2005. Telegeography does point out the $2.6-billion this year only accounts for 7% of total local and LD revenue in the U.S.
  So what does this data mean to Vonage, which has seen its stock drop 40% to $10.12 since its IPO debut? Likely nothing given the Vonage story is not about customer and revenue growth but profits. The big problem for Vonage is the cablecos are gaining more momentum with 57% of subscribers at the end of Q1 2006, up from 47% a year earlier. This means Vonage likely needs to maintain its aggressive marketing activity to remain competitive, which is not good news for anyone look for Vonage to make a profit or, at least, reduce its large losses.
  By the way, Vonage shares look like they will crack the $10 barrier (the wrong way, mind you!) pretty soon. It does raise the question about when Vonage becomes available as a takeover target. Its market cap is now $1.59 billion but what happens if the stock drops to $5 and Vonage can be picked up for $750 million? Does anyone go for it at that price?