<p>Well, actually, live, it wouldn't be unprecedented. There are some examples of fantastically successful computer companies founded and led by people who had minimal engineering knowledge. </p>
<p>For example, consider IBM. Most people today don't realize just how fantastically dominant IBM used to be in the industry. But as some pundits put it, in the 1960's and 1970's, IBM wasn't just the flagship of the US computer industry, it was the whole fleet. Basically, IBM at that time dominated absolutely every single piece of the computer industry. Hardware, software, applications, networking equipment, computer services, peripherals, printers, etc. etc. You name it, IBM dominated it. IBM did everything. IBM invented the disk drive. It made its own microprocessors. It made its own memory. It made its own motherboards. It pieced them all together into its systems (its mainframes). In fact, IBM invented the idea of a 'compatible computer system' (as opposed to individual custom-made computers that were not compatible with any other computer in the world). It wrote the operating system for those mainframes. It wrote application software to sit on top of the operating system. It made networking equipment to connect the mainframes to terminals. It made those terminals. In short, IBM used to be far more dominant than Microsoft ever was, and probably ever will be. </p>
<p>Yet the fact is, IBM's early leaders were not engineers. The legendary Tom Watson Sr, who took over the Computer-Tabulating-Recording company, and then later changed its name to IBM, was not an engineer. He was a salesman. His son, the equally legendary Tom Watson Jr., who took over IBM from his father, was also a salesman, not an engineer. (Granted, the CTR company was founded by a mechanical engineering whiz, but it sold tabulating machines, not computers at the time that it was taken over by Watson Sr.) </p>
<p>The point is, it's not unprecedented for a computer company to achieve great success while being led by a person who is not a computer whiz. I doubt that the Watsons knew a whole lot about the intricacies of computer engineering, yet that didn't prevent IBM from rising to dominance. </p>
<p>Don't get me wrong. I agree with you that Bill Gates is a pretty darn good coder, and almost certainly far better than most of the leaders of most computer companies out there. I'm just saying that you don't personally need to be a good coder to run a successful computer company.</p>