HOW did Hollywood lose Steven Spielberg? Late last month, DreamWorks, the boutique movie studio that Mr. Spielberg co-founded in 1994, let it be known that it had found a way to exit its unhappy three-year marriage with Paramount Pictures. Reliance ADA Group, a Mumbai conglomerate, was nearing a deal to give the dream workers $550 million to form a new movie company. That Mr. Spielberg and his business partner David Geffen had found an investor wasn’t surprising. Mr. Spielberg is a superstar. DreamWorks had made it clear for months — via public comments and private grousing fed into the Hollywood grapevine — that they hated being part of Paramount and were going elsewhere as soon as it was contractually allowed. But there was still an element of shock: Hollywood could not come up with a rich enough deal for Mr. Spielberg, the most bankable director in the business and a “national treasure”? His last movie alone, “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull,” has sold $743 million in tickets and is still playing in theaters around the world. For that matter, there wasn’t anybody on Wall Street willing to write a blank check for the guy with “Jaws” and “Jurassic Park” on his résumé? The pending deal with Reliance underscores some realities about Mr. Spielberg — mainly that he has become so expensive that few public companies can afford him. Mr. Spielberg’s standard deal, on par with other blue-chip talent, is 20 percent of a movie’s gross from the first ticket sold, although he agreed to a somewhat less aggressive paycheck on the latest “Indiana Jones” installment to offset its high budget. And there’s another whisper coming from Hollywood’s highest echelons. It’s a sensitive topic — and one that Mr. Spielberg’s associates find hugely insulting — but one that bears consideration: How long before the A-list director, at 61, is a little, well, Jurassic? SUCH talk is rooted in sour-grapes justifications for losing Mr. Spielberg to Reliance, his allies say, noting his huge list of projects on the horizon. Among them are potential blockbusters like “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen,” which he will produce. He’s also pursuing more cerebral projects like an Abraham Lincoln film with a script written by the “Angels in America” playwright Tony Kushner. Even so, Mr. Spielberg’s representatives had been talking with potential backers for months, said three people involved who requested anonymity for fear of angering the powerful director. The Spielbergians had casual chats with companies including Sony and the News Corporation. Hollywood-friendly banks like JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs were also in the mix. Hollywood’s seeming inability to close a deal with Mr. Spielberg highlights the shift toward a more corporate, buttoned-down movie business. Just a few years ago, bragging rights often drove business decisions. Steven Spielberg is available? Back up the money truck. We want that jewel in our crown no matter what the cost. And studio bosses could justify such ego-driven loss leaders: In the entertainment business, talent draws talent. Associates of Mr. Spielberg say they have not seriously entertained any Hollywood overtures, something corroborated by Ron Meyer, the president of NBC Universal. “We have not been given the opening to be in business with DreamWorks,” said Mr. Meyer, adding that the studio would jump at the chance given “the opportunity and the right deal.” But now that the big studios are all firmly embedded in big corporations, profit margins are the obsession. Add in skyrocketing star salaries and ballooning marketing costs, which have hammered margins, and pop go the sweetheart deals. “Big names don’t carry the same weight they used to,” said Harold L. Vogel, an independent media analyst. DVDs also have a starring role in the reluctance to take on risk. After years of blistering growth, domestic DVD sales fell 3.2 percent last year to $15.9 billion, according to Adams Media Research, the first annual drop in the medium’s history. While DVDs are still a big business, any decline is cause for great concern, because DVD sales can account for as much as 70 percent of revenue for a new film. When DVDs were soaring, studios had an incentive to own projects outright. Recently, they’ve been going the other way, trying to share ownership to protect themselves. Indeed, the DVD situation combined with other business challenges — the arrival of widespread Internet streaming being one of the thorniest — has studios so panicked that all their executives chatter about these days is mitigating risk. Hardly a time to double down on a fat deal with Mr. Spielberg. Studios are also increasingly focused on out-of-the-park franchise films that sell overseas. The DreamWorks slate is a little patchy — namely because Mr. Spielberg and Stacey Snider, the company’s chief executive, believe in delivering a mix of prestige films and blockbusters. Along with “Norbit,” the sophomoric Eddie Murphy smash that sold $159 million in tickets, come films like “Things We Lost in the Fire,” a drama starring the Oscar-winner Halle Berry that sold about $8.4 million in tickets. Chip Sullivan, a corporate spokesman for DreamWorks, declined to comment. He said Ms. Snider was on vacation and unavailable. Mr. Spielberg, via a spokesman, declined to comment. Bruce Ramer, the director’s longtime lawyer (Mr. Spielberg named the mechanical shark in “Jaws” after him), also declined to comment. As for Wall Street, the firm belief in Hollywood is that the arrival of Reliance marks the end of the private equity and hedge fund boom that has propped up the industry. With the capital markets in turmoil, terms have tightened substantially for movie deals. Investors are demanding faster payback schedules, better guarantees and even a say in how movies are made and marketed. None of that is acceptable to the DreamWorks team. Mr. Spielberg, who has directed more than 50 films, also wants to control his own destiny; at this point in his career, say friends, his accomplishments have earned him the right to have 100 percent control over his movies. Autonomy and ownership are paramount, and, at the moment, overseas investors are the most likely to allow Mr. Spielberg to write his own ticket, say studio executives. In some ways, Reliance marks a return to the past. Studios have over the last decade tapped American investors — DreamWorks began with backing from Paul Allen, a founder of Microsoft — but foreign investors, notably Germans, were a big source before that. THE deal with Reliance is not done. People involved in the talks, which are private, say that work is progressing but that no deal is likely to be signed for several weeks. In addition to the $550 million in equity — which may inch higher during negotiations — DreamWorks is seeking access to a $400 million line of debt financing. And Hollywood will still have a chance to nab a piece of the storied director. After negotiations with Reliance wrap up — if they wrap up — Mr. Geffen and Mr. Spielberg will start looking for a distribution deal with one of the big studios, most likely Universal Pictures or 20th Century Fox. Will Mr. Geffen and Mr. Spielberg see a bidding war? Probably, but it depends on what kind of terms they want. Tags:INDIA INTERNATIONAL NEWS MONEY SUCCESS US WEALTH WORLD AFFAIRS

Bill Gates is retiring, sort of. He is still only 52, and he is going off to spend more time guiding the world’s richest philanthropy, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. He will still be Microsoft’s chairman and largest shareholder, but Friday is his last day as a full-time worker at the software giant, marking the unofficial end of his career as a business leader. And what a career it has been. Mr. Gates has been an animating force behind the personal computer revolution, helping to build a huge global industry and engineer blockbuster products like Windows and Office, used every day in offices and homes around the world. The Harvard dropout was the wealthiest person on the planet for years — worth more than $100 billion in 1999 — though his fortune is now about half that because of the decline of Microsoft’s shares and his continued donations to his foundation, which is focused on global health and education. Despite his success, Mr. Gates is moving on as the company he co-founded in 1975 is struggling to find its way. The center of gravity in technology has shifted from PCs to the Internet, altering the old rules of competition that were so lucratively mastered by Microsoft. For millions of users, mobile devices like cellphones are beginning to edge out PCs as the tool of choice for many computing tasks. And Google, the front-runner in the current wave of Internet computing, has wrested the mantle of high-tech leadership from Microsoft. Although Mr. Gates will spend one day a week at the company, it will be up to his successors, led by Steven A. Ballmer, the chief executive, to master the challenges of the Internet or watch Microsoft’s wealth and stature in the industry steadily erode. “Bill’s legacy is Windows and Office, and that will be a rich franchise for years to come, but it’s not the future,” said David B. Yoffie, a professor at the Harvard Business School. Still, the Gates legacy is impressive. In addition to the software itself, Mr. Gates and his company have fundamentally shaped how people think about competition in many industries where technology plays a central role. Today, there are more than one billion copies of the Windows operating system on PCs around the world. Industry experts and economists say that Windows is not necessarily the best or most admired software for running the basic operations of a personal computer — Apple’s Macintosh can claim the most devout fan club. But Mr. Gates grasped and deployed two related concepts on a scale no one ever had in the past: the power of network effects and the value of establishing a technology platform. Put simply, the network effect describes a phenomenon in which the value of a product goes up as more people use it. E-mail messaging and telephones are classic examples. A technology platform is a set of tools or services that others can use to build their own products or services. The more people who use the tools, the more popular the platform can become. Mr. Gates took advantage of both notions and combined them to build Microsoft’s dominance in PCs, spreading its influence with computer makers and software developers. Today, there are many thousands of software applications that run on the Windows platform, not just word processing and spreadsheets but also the specialized programs in doctors’ offices, factory floors and retail stores — a very broad network on a nearly ubiquitous technology platform. “Gates saw software as a separate market from hardware before anyone else, but his great insight was recognizing the power of the network effects surrounding the software,” said Michael A. Cusumano, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Sloan School of Management. That, Professor Cusumano added, was the essential difference in the paths of Microsoft and Apple, the early leader in personal computing. Apple, he said, focused on making outstanding products alone, while Microsoft nurtured a growing ecosystem of outside software developers who use, and are dependent on, Microsoft’s technology. The result, he added, is that, while Apple continues to make outstanding products, more than 90 percent of personal computers run Microsoft software. In the early years, it was unclear how much Mr. Gates was pursuing each opportunity as it came, as opposed to carrying out a grand strategy. He certainly had large ambitions. When he was a Harvard undergraduate, Mr. Gates lamented that so many of his fellow students pursued a “narrow track for success” instead of being willing to “take big risks to do big things,” recalled Michael Katz, a Harvard contemporary who is now a professor at New York University. In a Harvard Business School case study, published in 1994, Mr. Gates spoke of Microsoft’s strategy in terms of network effects and technology standards that, combined, enabled the company to command markets. “We look for businesses where we can garner large market shares, not just 30 or 35 percent,” he said. In the past, Microsoft has beaten back challenges and vanquished rivals, even when it came late to markets, as it did in the first wave of Internet technology. Mr. Gates’s shrewd 1995 decision to embrace Internet browsing technology and attack the early leader, Netscape Communications, started a pitched antitrust battle with the government. “But he extended Microsoft’s hegemony for a decade,” said Mitchell Kapor, a longtime rival. However, Microsoft is lagging badly in current round of Internet competition and, analysts say, is facing more formidable challengers this time — notably Google. Microsoft’s share of Internet search in the United States is less than 10 percent, while Google holds more than 60 percent and Yahoo has about 20 percent. And search is only part of the new platform on the Web, which includes social networks like Facebook and MySpace and Internet-based alternatives to traditional desktop software, including e-mail messaging, word processors and spreadsheets. Traditional desktop software — and the technology standards Microsoft controls there — matter far less when more software is accessed with a Web browser and delivered over the Internet from vast data centers run by Google and others. The new approach is known as “cloud computing,” and the business model behind it is typically to sell online advertising and software services. At Microsoft, there is scant sign of panic, despite its trailing position and its failed bid to buy Yahoo for $47.5 billion as a catch-up strategy. Microsoft sees an evolution in computing, not a disruptive revolution that will imperil the company, said Craig Mundie, Microsoft’s chief research and strategy officer. Mr. Mundie said Microsoft is preparing for a widening world of both cloud computing and “client” machines, not only personal computers but also cellphones, cars, game consoles and televisions, all running Microsoft software. “The next big platform is the union of the clients and the cloud,” he said. Tags:INTERNATIONAL NEWS Internet MONEY ONLINE SUCCESS US WEALTH WORLD AFFAIRS