PDA

View Full Version : Jobs vs. Gates: Who's the Star?


MacBytes
Jan 25, 2006, 08:51 AM
http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: Opinion/Interviews
Link: Jobs vs. Gates: Who's the Star? (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20060125095136)
Description:: It's Gates who's making a dent in the universe, and Jobs who's taking on the role of single-minded capitalist, seemingly oblivious to the broader needs of society.

Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)
Approved by Mudbug

24C
Jan 25, 2006, 09:04 AM
Steve is still ahead of Bill, despite the ramblings in this guys article. Jeepers, you make money and give it away and this makes you a better person? I suppose all people who make money are bad and need redemption through some money accepting charitable cause... rollocks mate, get a life.

Woutje
Jan 25, 2006, 09:14 AM
This is ********, Gates still creeps me out!

iPhil
Jan 25, 2006, 09:26 AM
the 'author' of the report sounds like a Softie fanboi..









:eek: :eek:

mduser63
Jan 25, 2006, 09:28 AM
Gates does give a lot of money to charity, but as a percentage of his wealth, it's very little. It seems to me that with 40 billion dollars in the bank, he could give away 39 billion of that to charity and quit making money now and still be VERY well off for the rest of his life. Still, I appreciate that Gates helps organizations that he believes in. Steve Jobs may do the same. As the article points out, it wouldn't be surprising if Jobs donates money anonymously/secretly.

Applespider
Jan 25, 2006, 09:30 AM
the 'author' of the report sounds like a Softie fanboi..


Um, no. Leander is one of the biggest Mac voices on the Web.

Blue Velvet
Jan 25, 2006, 09:35 AM
But his absence from public discourse makes him a cipher.

In the context of his discussion, I think he makes a good point.

But I'm not interested in Steve Jobs: The Humanitarian so he's forgiven. :D

iMeowbot
Jan 25, 2006, 09:36 AM
the 'author' of the report sounds like a Softie fanboi..
Leander Kahney? MS fanboy? I don't think so....

Woutje
Jan 25, 2006, 09:55 AM
Leander Kahney? MS fanboy? I don't think so....
Who cares? It's a stupid article. Why does he even write this crap? It's completely pointless...

Cooknn
Jan 25, 2006, 10:09 AM
Steve is what he is and I'm perfectly fine with that - as long as I don't have to work for him ;) By creating OS X he has transformed computing from a being chore into something that actually gives us the freedom to create. For that I am very thankful. I could care less what he thinks about political issues, etc.

iPhil
Jan 25, 2006, 10:35 AM
To: iMeowbot/applespider:



"But these perceptions are wrong. In fact, the reality is reversed. It's Gates who's making a dent in the universe, and Jobs who's taking on the role of single-minded capitalist, seemingly oblivious to the broader needs of society".
^^
is from the story Jobs v. Gates


that's why i said the author sounded like a softie fanboi..


:o :o

greatdevourer
Jan 25, 2006, 10:45 AM
This is something I had to battle against an American friend with. Yes, they give more $$$ to charity, but considering how much they have (or, to be more precise, how much they spend and think they have left), it's almost nothing.

me_94501
Jan 25, 2006, 10:46 AM
While I agree that Gates has done great things, I think Kahney forgot about some of the things Jobs has done (for example, offer OS X for use on the $100 laptop project for free--some single-minded capitalist!). And it's not like Gates isn't getting any recognition--he was one of Time's people of the year for crying out loud!

Besides, I don't think Gates is the one seen as the devil of the tech industry anymore. That title now belongs to Ballmer. :p

Verto
Jan 25, 2006, 10:59 AM
Gates does give a lot of money to charity, but as a percentage of his wealth, it's very little. It seems to me that with 40 billion dollars in the bank, he could give away 39 billion of that to charity and quit making money now and still be VERY well off for the rest of his life. Still, I appreciate that Gates helps organizations that he believes in. Steve Jobs may do the same. As the article points out, it wouldn't be surprising if Jobs donates money anonymously/secretly.

Well, the man's not dead yet, and it's impossible to just give away 39 billion dollars all at once, without making sure it's going to be used the right way, etc.

Likewise, Jobs hasn't died yet either...but unlike Gates, his business hasn't peaked yet, nor become nearly as successful.

SillyKary
Jan 25, 2006, 11:28 AM
Who cares? It's a stupid article. Why does he even write this crap? It's completely pointless...
No, it's not. I think the author has a good point and I, for one, care about such things.

baleensavage
Jan 25, 2006, 12:25 PM
While I think the article makes some interesting points, I don't really think it is fair to compare Steve Jobs to Bill Gates. While Steve may be in the top 100, Bill has been at the top for quite a long time. The monetary difference between the richest and the 64th richest is staggerring. Both are shrewd businessmen, I will say that much...and Bill Gates has done a lot of very good charitable things in his life with his pocket change.

I think that one thing that people tend to forget is that Microsoft is not just Bill Gates and Apple is not just Steve Jobs. They are the CEOs and their vision made these companies into what they are, but they, as people, are not their companies. Because Microsoft is a world dominating company everyone pictures Bill as the devil, so he obviously has to make up for it by making his donations public. Apple is the underdog, and therefore Steve Jobs doesn't have to prove himself because he gets a better rep. Both of them are rich beyond most of our imaginings and both could stand to donate most of their money to charity. Of course, don't forget, when rich people donate money they get huge tax write-offs...

Bad Beaver
Jan 25, 2006, 12:42 PM
Kahney does realize that without Apple & Steve Jobs he would not even have a job?

yankeefan24
Jan 25, 2006, 12:50 PM
Kahney does realize that without Apple & Steve Jobs he would not even have a job?

very true. very true. Without Jobs, we would be working on one big computer, having to say "yankeefan24, logs on" and only one person could be on a server at one point. I think that Steve deserves more recognition than he gets. After all, he did co-invent the personal computer (I'm not using the term PC because that is too often associated with windows).

galleyhannon
Jan 25, 2006, 01:05 PM
Giving money to charity is a complex issue. To the author of this article it sounds like picking a random charity and throwing money at it would make someone a good person. I would fiercely argue that point. It is naive to believe that 'charities'='good for the world', but I won't get into that.

If someone does possess a sizable amount of the world's wealth, they have a responsibility to use that wealth wisely. Bill Gates, for all his wealth, has not made one choice for its use that I would classify as wise. In fact, I believe the world would be a substantially better place had he never acquired a cent of its wealth. Let's look at the facts. Bill Gates has used a large amount of the world's wealth to create an operating system that, in its flawed design, has cost the world an untold amount on productivity (to all industries, including health care). He has pushed hundreds of companies out of business (impeding progress) from using unethical tactics to rip off their innovations. He has pushed his company into every market with potential for profit, acquiring a large amount of those markets' revenue, and managing to add nothing to them in return. Now, to salvage his image, he gives part of his ill-gotten wealth to charities he knows little about. Let's crown him and make him our new king! (you have to wonder if there is a higher being looking down on us and slapping his head with how stupid we are)

Other tech-rich giants have done similar things with the world's wealth. Who honestly thinks commercializing space travel is more important a priority than health and education? Well, the sad news is that the people who hold the world's wealth ransom do.

So, this author is saying that Steve Jobs is a narrow-minded capitalist. Well, let's look at the facts. Steve Jobs has continually striven to make the world's technology useful and available to people. Through Apple he was a part of successfully making the computer easy enough for anybody to use, actually helping boost the productivity of the world by changing the way people interacted with a computer. Apple has also always been heavily involved in the education field, making affordable products and giving great service to our nation's schools. Through Pixar he has been a part of a renewal in animation (particularly important to myself as an animator), creating films that appeal to everyone. Pixar films are also the most moral films out today, instilling ideas of friendship, family, and truthfullness in our youth (while other studios make frequent use of fart jokes).

I have faith that, whatever Steve Jobs does with his newly acquired wealth, it will benefit the world. Charities are a way shallow-minded celebrities make themselves feel good. Greater people don't need to donate to a charity (which may end up squandering the donations they receive through poor management) when through their own work they can benefit the world more.

nagromme
Jan 25, 2006, 01:22 PM
"Bill Gates has been viewed as the villain of the tech world, while his archrival, Steve Jobs, enjoys an almost saintly reputation.

Gates is the cutthroat capitalist. A genius maybe, but one more interested in maximizing profits than perfecting technology....

Jobs has been portrayed as a man of art and culture. He's an aesthete, an artist; driven to make a dent in the universe.

But these perceptions are wrong. In fact, the reality is reversed."

So.... the author is saying that people think Jobs is a creative visionary, while Gates is more interested in profits than in quality technology.

But in fact, the author insists, the reality is reversed: it is Jobs who is more interested in profits than in quality technology. And it is Gates who is the artist and the visionary.

The evidence for this reversal is as follows: Gates, the wealthiest man in the world, gives a lot of money to charity and makes this very public--while we don't know how much Jobs gives to charity. Also, Jobs didn't survive cancer the way you are supposed to: he failed to make a mission out of it like Lance Armstrong did.

Therefore Gates is the artist and Jobs doesn't care about perfecting technology.

Furthermore, because Gates is "better" in that one way--charity--he must also be "better" in every other way:

"In almost every way, Gates is much more deserving of Jobs' rock star exaltation."

Let's pretend for a moment that we have the ability connect thoughts in a rational way. Does that reasoning work? :o

It's also intriguing how his conclusion isn't so much to praise Gates for his "sacrifices" and encourage more people to give as much as Bill does... but rather to simply single out Steve Jobs and slam him:

"On the evidence, he's nothing more than a greedy capitalist who's amassed an obscene fortune. It's shameful."

Are we really to think this is an article about what a "star" Bill Gates is?

Vinnie_vw
Jan 25, 2006, 01:26 PM
Nice article. It takes guts to say something like that, and I hope there will be a widespread response, Jobs included. I agree though that Gates, being much richer and already pretty much retired, is in quite a different situation from where Jobs stands.

portland
Jan 25, 2006, 01:33 PM
hello all. long time reader, first time poster. flame on.

there are so many comments in the discussion that i'd like to tear to shreds, but whatever, i'll just pick a few.

"Now, to salvage his image, [Bill Gates] gives part of his ill-gotten wealth to charities he knows little about."

are you serious? have you heard of the bill and melinda gates foundation? do you realize that it exists, predominantly, to support health and education initiatives abroad (and to a lesser extent, domestically)? do you realize that bill and melinda gates are SERIOUSLY involved in the management and direction of the foundation and that they've endowed the foundation, along with other donors, with almost $30 billion dollars? i'm sure they know nothing about how that money or those services are managed...

"Charities are a way shallow-minded celebrities make themselves feel good. Greater people don't need to donate to a charity (which may end up squandering the donations they receive through poor management) when through their own work they can benefit the world more."

jesus. this one kills me. right. steve jobs has done more for the world by creating a "more productive" operating system than "celebrities" who give to charities... sure, there are mismanaged charities (the SEC actually does a pretty good job finding them out), but christ. those dollar a day save the children commercials? i know they're corny, but it's really not far from the truth. 35 dollars a year to UNICEF will actually save the lives of about 10 children through the purchase of iodine packets. people either will, or will not continue to physically exist based on a few dollars. the circular argument that better productivity in america because of operating system choice (a specious claim to begin with) will "do more good" than giving some of your money to charity is a non-starter.

"So, this author is saying that Steve Jobs is a narrow-minded capitalist. Well, let's look at the facts. Steve Jobs has continually striven to make the world's technology useful and available to people. Through Apple he was a part of successfully making the computer easy enough for anybody to use, actually helping boost the productivity of the world by changing the way people interacted with a computer. Apple has also always been heavily involved in the education field, making affordable products and giving great service to our nation's schools. Through Pixar he has been a part of a renewal in animation (particularly important to myself as an animator), creating films that appeal to everyone. Pixar films are also the most moral films out today, instilling ideas of friendship, family, and truthfullness in our youth (while other studios make frequent use of fart jokes)."

no, he's not saying that. did you read it? he's saying, for all the adulation that's showered on jobs, he's not exactly out there, taking a stand, using the funds he's earned making the world a better place in one (admit it -pretty narrow) way to make a contribution to the well-being of the planet or humanity in a broader sense. that's it. it's an exhortation to do something good, not an attack. how can people not get behind that sentiment? go do something good! and then after that, do some more good! (and seriously, renewing animation? yeah, it's cool, my friend works at pixar, but it's not exactly mother theresa level, is it?).

i'm off to lunch but i doubt i'll be able to eat...

AJ Muni
Jan 25, 2006, 01:35 PM
Bill gates is indeed a star...but Steve Jobs is a ROCKSTAR !!!

nagromme
Jan 25, 2006, 01:40 PM
did you read it?
Did you?

Yes, charity is good. Maybe Steve Jobs gives a lot, maybe not, but he doesn't do it publicly. Steve Jobs SHOULD give a lot--although whether he does it publicly is unimportant.

Speaking out is also good. Steve Jobs SHOULD speak out about causes more.

But the author argues from there into other territory that makes little sense.

asthma
Jan 25, 2006, 01:53 PM
" Jobs does not appear on any charitable contribution lists of note."

stop the clock for a second here, is this guy numb in the head? i might have this wrong but didnt steve and the state of maine sign a contract for ibooks and steve gave them a hell of a discount?

otter-boy
Jan 25, 2006, 01:55 PM
Giving money to charity is a complex issue. To the author of this article it sounds like picking a random charity and throwing money at it would make someone a good person. I would fiercely argue that point. It is naive to believe that 'charities'='good for the world', but I won't get into that.

If we created systems that incorporated more people into the workforce and paid them fairly, we would not need charities as much as we do.

I think this is the main difference between Gates/MS and Jobs/Apple. Apple, while definitely not perfect, seems less interested in locking up markets* than it does in creating quality products (and I don't doubt that Jobs has some influence on this corporate vision). MS is a monopoly that has been convicted of illegally using its power (i.e. coercion as opposed to competition) to inflate prices, stifle innovation, steal technology, and force other companies out of business (or at least to lose business).

I wonder how the economic and technological innovation losses from Microsoft's practices compare to Bill Gates philanthropic giving. I'm guessing that the harm done through illegal practices by Microsoft far outweigh Gate's giving (not even counting probable future benefits, innovations, and savings prevented by MS's tactics).

Of course, we could always require that Bill and Steve give more money to the common good (i.e. publicly funded works aka government). Heck, as a percentage of their income, both men probably pay less in taxes than I do, especially when you count in Social Security taxes which stop being collected on income over a couple hundred thousand dollars and capital gains taxes (on 'unearned income') which top out in the teens instead of up to around forty percent for 'earned' income.

* I realize that locking up the digital music market with the iPod/Fairplay is going on, and I personally think they should open up Fairplay. But MS is trying to lock up everything from you computer to your stereo and refrigerator with MS/Windows Media DRM. That's why I say less instead of not interested or uninterested in locking up markets.

portland
Jan 25, 2006, 02:30 PM
Did you?

Yes, charity is good. Maybe Steve Jobs gives a lot, maybe not, but he doesn't do it publicly. Steve Jobs SHOULD give a lot--although whether he does it publicly is unimportant.

Speaking out is also good. Steve Jobs SHOULD speak out about causes more.

But the author argues from there into other territory that makes little sense.

your "did you?" is misapplied. i think i paraphrased the author accurately by pointing out that whether or not jobs is giving, he's not publicly allying himself with causes, be they charitiable, political, etc. i suppose we can agree to disagree on the subject of the importance of public giving. frankly, given the rabid attention that's paid to jobs' every move (by the media as well as apple fans/users, myself included), he could do a hell of a lot more good for the world by publicly announcing support for or gifts to charities or causes that make the world a better place; if 20% of the people jumping up to defend jobs in this instance decided to donate or get involved with a cause he publicly championed, that would be huge.
nagromme, if you could clarify what you mean by "territory that makes little sense" your argument would be sounder.

re: jobs offer to supply mac osx for free to the one laptop per child program. i would argue tooth and nail that this has nothing to do with charity. it's a very smart business move, both for PR and for market penetration reasons, but it's about 1% giving and 99% CEO savvy.

re: discounts in maine to educational institutions. it's called a volume discount. that's it.

[ed. i always promised myself i wouldn't get all hed up on forums, especially mac ones... for some reason, this topic just got my blood boiling...]

thegreatluke
Jan 25, 2006, 02:44 PM
How does buying yourself a Time Person of the Year award make you a great person? Or being a thief for thirty years?

Really, it seems all Bill Gates has done is send out money so he can get some positive light on him. This is coming at a time when he's being ignored and looked down upon so he spends a percentage of his vast fortune so people notice him again. A real charitable person would donate privately. Because it's not about the glory that gets shined on you, it's about being a charitable person and good for society. He may have done this to be a good person, and I'm not doubting that he has somewhat good intentions, but it seems all this glory swayed his decision dramatically.
I mean, who's the better man: Someone who racks up an obscene amount of money he doesn't need who then starts giving some of it away, or a person who wants to change the way people work and do business for the better?
If I had $30 billion dollars, I guarantee to you that I would donate 99% + away.

Though I'm not denying that Steve Jobs likes his money, I'm quite certain he's the better man here. For thirty years, starting with HIS invention of the personal computer, he's done nothing but innovate, innovate, and innovate some more. Bill Gates seems like he's been firing up a Xerox machine after seeing all of Apple's nice products.
Where would computers be without Steve Jobs? We'd probably be looking at boring beige boxes running a "slightly better!" version of Windows '95.

Also, I'm quite pleased that the Jobses are Democrats. Though I thought it was true all along (come on, he was a hippie and he's almost vegetarian), this makes it seem valid.
Smart man, that Steve. :D

galleyhannon
Jan 25, 2006, 02:46 PM
portland,

"Now, to salvage his image, [Bill Gates] gives part of his ill-gotten wealth to charities he knows little about."

are you serious? have you heard of the bill and melinda gates foundation? do you realize that it exists, predominantly, to support health and education initiatives abroad (and to a lesser extent, domestically)? do you realize that bill and melinda gates are SERIOUSLY involved in the management and direction of the foundation and that they've endowed the foundation, along with other donors, with almost $30 billion dollars? i'm sure they know nothing about how that money or those services are managed...

I didn't say that they were unaware of how their charity is managed. I was saying that he doesn't know anything about charities in general. Do you think Bill Gates is in a position to know what needs to be done to help the world's hunger and education problems. Yet, he thinks he can manage a charity that will help anyone but his own self-image?

"Charities are a way shallow-minded celebrities make themselves feel good. Greater people don't need to donate to a charity (which may end up squandering the donations they receive through poor management) when through their own work they can benefit the world more."

jesus. this one kills me. right. steve jobs has done more for the world by creating a "more productive" operating system than "celebrities" who give to charities...

YES! Do you think that the health care industry (or any other industry you want to associate with improving the world's quality of life) hasn't benefited from the innovations in the graphical user interface brought to the world through the first Mac? Charities are a band-aid. They can stop the wound from bleeding, but they don't actually heal it.

sure, there are mismanaged charities (the SEC actually does a pretty good job finding them out)

I wasn't refering to just corrupt charities, but also charities that waste money due to poor management.

the circular argument that better productivity in america because of operating system choice (a specious claim to begin with) will "do more good" than giving some of your money to charity is a non-starter.

Operating system choice? What does that have to do with anything I said? I was talking about innovation, by which I mean techonological progression. How much has Gates done for that? His efforts have done NOTHING to progress techonology (unless maybe you count the Office Assistant, lol).

"So, this author is saying that Steve Jobs is a narrow-minded capitalist ..."

no, he's not saying that. did you read it? he's saying ...

Uh, those were his exact words.

jkhanson
Jan 25, 2006, 02:50 PM
he's saying, for all the adulation that's showered on jobs, he's not exactly out there, taking a stand, using the funds he's earned making the world a better place in one (admit it -pretty narrow) way to make a contribution to the well-being of the planet or humanity in a broader sense. that's it. it's an exhortation to do something good, not an attack.

You make some good points, but it is hard to see how the author is doing anything other than attacking Jobs when he says, "On the evidence, he's nothing more than a greedy capitalist who's amassed an obscene fortune. It's shameful. In almost every way, Gates is much more deserving of Jobs' rock star exaltation."

The author, by the way, admits that Jobs might well be making charitable donations anonymously. Yet, that doesn't stop him from calling him a "greedy capitalist" and "shameful." That is just way out of line given that he doesn't know what Jobs may be doing. I may be wrong, but it just doesn't seem to me that Jobs is solely motivated by money. There's just too much interest in design and in building really cool things. In contrast, I think of Michael Dell, building drab machines and driving down supply costs to build them as cheaply as possible.

I think it's great that Bill Gates doesn't just hoard all his money for himself and I admire his stand on the estate tax. Nonetheless, there is great public relations value in doing what he is doing, especially when his company is a convicted monopolist. He wouldn't have acquired so much wealth if it weren't for predatory business practices. No amount of charitable giving excuses that.

That's why the author goes overboard both in saying that Gates deserves rock star adulation and in saying that Jobs is shameful. He might have a point, but what he says is just way over the top.

whocares
Jan 25, 2006, 02:51 PM
While I agree that Gates has done great things, I think Kahney forgot about some of the things Jobs has done (for example, offer OS X for use on the $100 laptop project for free--some single-minded capitalist!). And it's not like Gates isn't getting any recognition--he was one of Time's people of the year for crying out loud!

Hmmmmmm No. It's like drug dealers giving out free drugs to get kids addicted.

thegreatluke
Jan 25, 2006, 02:56 PM
Hmmmmmm No. It's like drug dealers giving out free drugs to get kids addicted.
Do you think people in third-world countries who try out OS X on a free laptop would go out and buy OS X and a new iMac?

These people can barely afford to feed themselves. It's an entirely different thing.

Steve did that out of the pure goodness in his heart.

portland
Jan 25, 2006, 03:01 PM
Do you think people in third-world countries who try out OS X on a free laptop would go out and buy OS X and a new iMac?

These people can barely afford to feed themselves. It's an entirely different thing.

Steve did that out of the pure goodness in his heart.

dude, seriously. steve offered osx so a free, o/s linux distro WOULDN'T be on those machines...

thegreatluke
Jan 25, 2006, 03:01 PM
dude, seriously. steve offered osx so a free, o/s linux distro WOULDN'T be on those machines...
Who says that?

And even if that is true... so?

baleensavage
Jan 25, 2006, 03:07 PM
i might have this wrong but didnt steve and the state of maine sign a contract for ibooks and steve gave them a hell of a discount?
Yes, he did, however, this can also be looked at as a marketing ploy. You get kids hooked on your computers early and when they buy their computers later, they buy Apples. Also, education typically buys from the lowest bidder, so if Apple hadn't of offered such a deal, Maine may have gone with Dell or some other computer manufacturer. And despite the deals that were cut, Apple made a hefty profit off of the whole deal. Just ask all the Mainers (myself not included) that think that the whole laptop program was a waste of state money (and there are a lot of them).

Silencio
Jan 25, 2006, 03:15 PM
Steve Jobs did have a philanthropic foundation way back when: their office was in an office building I worked at in Menlo Park back in the late 80s. It was a pretty small organization - just two people, and I have no recollection of who they were giving their money to. Since this was such a long time ago, I have no idea whether or not the Steve Jobs Foundation is still in existence; I'm just saying that it did exist at one time.

And no, I never saw the Steve there. Sorry.

portland
Jan 25, 2006, 03:18 PM
Who says that?

And even if that is true... so?


well, the OLPC program was designed around a thin linux os, if i'm not mistaken. ever since the first rumblings of the program, it was talked about as an open-source centric project (which makes sense if you're sending these things out to economically depressed areas all over the world...). steve came in late with the offer, once the project started gaining traction (bill gates offered the same thing with windows, btw). i think that proves the "even if that is true" part. the "...so?" is exactly what i said in my previous post: the offer wasn't about charity, it was about PR and market penetration...

me_94501
Jan 25, 2006, 03:20 PM
dude, seriously. steve offered osx so a free, o/s linux distro WOULDN'T be on those machines...
So you can read Jobs' mind?

I don't know Jobs' motives (and neither do you!), but all I know is that he did make that offer. Motives to keep Linux off those machines or no, there are few for-profit companies that would offer to do such a thing.

By the same token, we don't know Gates' motives either. Tax writeoff? PR? Genuine concern? I can't say, but I'd like to give both of them the benefit of the doubt.

thegreatluke
Jan 25, 2006, 03:28 PM
well, the OLPC program was designed around a thin linux os, if i'm not mistaken. ever since the first rumblings of the program, it was talked about as an open-source centric project (which makes sense if you're sending these things out to economically depressed areas all over the world...). steve came in late with the offer, once the project started gaining traction (bill gates offered the same thing with windows, btw). i think that proves the "even if that is true" part. the "...so?" is exactly what i said in my previous post: the offer wasn't about charity, it was about PR and market penetration...
Okay, I understand the lack of Linux thing.
But, I mean, it still is true that most third-world children won't go out and buy an iMac, so it still basically is charity.

So market penetration doesn't quite work there.

baleensavage
Jan 25, 2006, 03:28 PM
It's interesting all the opinions about this poorly written article that are flying here :eek:

I agree with the many who have said this article was really just an excuse to slam Jobs. However, as much as I hate Microsoft, I will argue that Bill Gates has done a great deal of good with some of his money.

But, donating what amounts to pocket change to charity does not make you a saint. And as for Steve Jobs not publicly donating, there are MANY more billionaires out there who don't donate either and it really is unfair to compare Jobs and Gates whose wealth varies vastly.

And frankly, most Americans can't complain about how much money is donated by the wealthy. Sure Bill Gates is only donating pocket change, but how many people here have actually donated anything recently? I know I haven't donated as much as I could to charity, and while I may not have as much money as Bill Gates (because no one does ;) , I'm still guilty of not giving enough.

I also get a kick out of people that say, if I were rich I'd give 99% of my money to chartity. No you wouldn't. You would buy yourself a car or two, a house, pay your kids way through college, pay off all your debt, then you would put your parents in a nice nursing home and give your Aunt the money for that surgery she needs and so on. There are very few Buddhas or St. Francises in the world. I'm sure most of us would donate more to charity than Bill Gates, if just to not be the richest man alive (god who would want to be in the spotlight like that all the time), but very few people would actually choose to live in poverty if given the choice.

whocares
Jan 25, 2006, 03:32 PM
Okay, I understand the lack of Linux thing.
But, I mean, it still is true that most third-world children won't go out and buy an iMac, so it still basically is charity.

So market penetration doesn't quite work there.

With economic growth, they may be purchasing OSes in the not so far future ;)

thegreatluke
Jan 25, 2006, 03:32 PM
It's interesting all the opinions about this poorly written article that are flying here :eek:

I agree with the many who have said this article was really just an excuse to slam Jobs. However, as much as I hate Microsoft, I will argue that Bill Gates has done a great deal of good with some of his money.

But, donating what amounts to pocket change to charity does not make you a saint. And as for Steve Jobs not publicly donating, there are MANY more billionaires out there who don't donate either and it really is unfair to compare Jobs and Gates whose wealth varies vastly.

And frankly, most Americans can't complain about how much money is donated by the wealthy. Sure Bill Gates is only donating pocket change, but how many people here have actually donated anything recently? I know I haven't donated as much as I could to charity, and while I may not have as much money as Bill Gates (because no one does ;) , I'm still guilty of not giving enough.

I also get a kick out of people that say, if I were rich I'd give 99% of my money to chartity. No you wouldn't. You would buy yourself a car or two, a house, pay your kids way through college, pay off all your debt, then you would put your parents in a nice nursing home and give your Aunt the money for that surgery she needs and so on. There are very few Buddhas or St. Francises in the world. I'm sure most of us would donate more to charity than Bill Gates, if just to not be the richest man alive (god who would want to be in the spotlight like that all the time), but very few people would actually choose to live in poverty if given the choice.

I understand that a car and a house are basically needs for Americans and other people of first-world countries, but there is something the very rich do.

NOBODY, and I mean nobody, needs a billion dollars. Ever.

nagromme
Jan 25, 2006, 03:40 PM
nagromme, if you could clarify what you mean by "territory that makes little sense" your argument would be sounder.
My first post covered that :) So I didn't repeat in my second.

The article makes statements that go beyond just the ones you agree with. Tying in technology and artistry etc.

re: discounts in maine to educational institutions. it's called a volume discount. that's it.]
True--that's business not charity--plus it's Apple the company, not Steve Jobs anyway.

portland
Jan 25, 2006, 03:42 PM
But, donating what amounts to pocket change to charity does not make you a saint. And as for Steve Jobs not publicly donating, there are MANY more billionaires out there who don't donate either and it really is unfair to compare Jobs and Gates whose wealth varies vastly.


i don't have statistics offhand, but i remember listening to an all things considered segment last year with the editor of forbes discussing wealth and giving. as a percentage of his yearly income, bill gates gives a higher percentage than nearly anyone earning over a million dollars a year. that's hardly "pocket change." i'm not a bill gates fan in the world of computing in the least, but his humanitarian efforts are far from just an attempt to spit-shine his image, or a token gesture; i have a hard time faulting anyone who's demonstrated that level of commitment to giving.

baleensavage
Jan 25, 2006, 03:45 PM
NOBODY, and I mean nobody, needs a billion dollars. Ever.
Very well put. I agree wholeheartedly. Which is why, in my mind, Bill Gates will never be a saint even though he has done some good.

baleensavage
Jan 25, 2006, 03:51 PM
i don't have statistics offhand, but i remember listening to an all things considered segment last year with the editor of forbes discussing wealth and giving.
That wouldn't have happened to have been on MSNBC, would it have? Just kidding. Actually, that was what I was trying to say with the second half of my post. Most people won't even give pocket change to a charity. Bill Gates gives a lot more than most Americas do proportionally. However, that still doesn't make him a saint, just someone who has done some good in the world.

thegreatluke
Jan 25, 2006, 04:01 PM
Very well put. I agree wholeheartedly. Which is why, in my mind, Bill Gates will never be a saint even though he has done some good.
Honestly, if I were given the offer to receive either $1 million or $30 billion (and I'd never be able to donate money), I'd go for the former.

With $1 million, I'd be able to support myself very comfortably for my life. College, house, food, cars, extras, kids.

Nobody ever needs luxury. It's nice, I'm sure, but there is a point when you have so much money (like $40 billion, for example) there's nothing to do with it but piss it away or donate it.
I'm not saying Bill Gates is a bad guy, but he had to do something with that money. I'd probably go crazy if I had $40 billion in the bank account and I had everything in the world.

And maybe if one donates it, one can get some extra spotlight one's self. ;D

(And those people who say they'd give away 99% of their fortunes - even if that "fortune" is $100 million, like most big-business CEO's probably have, that 1% left over is still $1 million.)

portland
Jan 25, 2006, 04:28 PM
That wouldn't have happened to have been on MSNBC, would it have? Just kidding. Actually, that was what I was trying to say with the second half of my post. Most people won't even give pocket change to a charity. Bill Gates gives a lot more than most Americas do proportionally. However, that still doesn't make him a saint, just someone who has done some good in the world.

all things considered is NPR's evening news program. just fyi.

MacFan782040
Jan 25, 2006, 05:36 PM
Apple donated $1 Million after 9/11.

And they were first to have the Red Cross + donate link on their website after the hurricanes.

Jobs is a good guy, Gates just has more money to give away... It says Steve is #164 on the World's Richest People... well whatabout the other 163 people in this world, are they All giving more than Steve? Comon...

saurus
Jan 25, 2006, 06:18 PM
This article and the other Saint vs Sinner articles are quite amusing since they only appeared after Jobs made a $B3.7 windfall. So now everyone is assuming Jobs should start being a saint?

When someone wins the powerball (or other large lottery) is he one of the many losers who try contacting the winner to try to get "donations" out of them too? Makes you wonder.

Gates only started donating because the majority of his Windows users started expecting it, and that was only because he had surpassed $20B. In reality, Microsoft barely ever donates anything but "free" software and limited support, and I don't recall any sizable contributions for 9/11 or Katrina coming from Redmond. So nothings new here.

jkhanson
Jan 25, 2006, 06:39 PM
all things considered is NPR's evening news program. just fyi.

NPR gets sponsorship from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, does it not? I am not saying the report was not factual. Just pointing out the connection.

macnulty
Jan 25, 2006, 06:50 PM
So what I gather, the author judges character based upon the money one gives (or charitable works - Bono) - publicly.

angelneo
Jan 25, 2006, 08:26 PM
I think it is difficult to judge a person by how much he or she gives. For all you know, that person might be doing it for the publicity. Unless we know them personally, I don't think we can start calling whether a person is a capitalist or a charitable person by what we know from the media. Bill Gates might still be a good person, or Steve Jobs might be donating anonymously, we don't know. I think it's rather absurd for the author to write on this issue.

Marble
Jan 25, 2006, 11:35 PM
I don't understand the sentiment. Surely the greatest argument for Jobs is that he's made his job one and the same with what he feels is right and good? Everything that he does at Apple is about streamlining the way people express themselves. He is an artist. Why aren't other artists criticized for wasting their time improving their art?

And what does Gates do? What is his job? It's not making the world a better place, no matter how much money he throws around. If Bill Gates inadvertently funded a successful cure for cancer he still wouldn't be a greater man, because that's not his goal in life.

All this wealth is either a means or an end. For Bill Gates, it's an end.

macanal
Jan 27, 2006, 04:12 AM
Jobs is here and now!! look we have this great new product mac whatever and its here now!!

Bill is much more visionary he talks about things in the future alot more (if you seen his CES keynote u will know what i mean) Alot of the stuff he talks about wont catch on some of it will

thats the main differance i see Jobs is here and now, Gates is visioning the future..

Both are great at what they do, i dont even care about what money they give away

admford
Jan 27, 2006, 04:51 AM
Well if my memory serves me right, donations to charities and other causes are tax deductable. I wonder how much Bill pays each year with all the money he gives away ;)

I understand that giving money to combat various sicknesses is important, but the US also has problems where the rich are almost exempt from taxes due to these donations. Naturally you can't spend 30+ billion dollars in a lifetime, so he still can live with no change in lifestyle even if he gives out most of it. But the state and country don't get the money they could use to help various projects like Medicare and plans on lowering the cost of certain medicines. And i'm not only talking about Mr. Gates doing this, but a good number of millionaires and billionaires doing this, quite literally suffocating a system that's already thinned out beyond what it can handle.

Gasu E.
Jan 27, 2006, 01:12 PM
Everyone contributes in his own way. Kudos to Bill Gates-- the World's Richest Man is now the World's Greatest Philanthropist. Much like Andrew Carnegie, who's savage business practices maimed, killed or otherwise exploited thousands of workers, Bill has flipped the switch. And it's true that he's done it in a remarkably thoughtful way-- his money does seem to be going to attempt to address the world-wide problems that most need attention.

But meanwhile, Steve is devoting his energies to things that make me and, apparently, a whole lot of other people, happy. That's what he's good at. Should he stop trying to make first-world, middle class little ol 'me happy, and instead focus on, say, ridding the world of malaria? Would that be the best use of his talents and energies? Is there something intrinsically wrong with providing happiness to the middle class, when poor people are suffering? Frankly, I think we now have the best of both worlds-- Job's energies focused on making people like me happy, and Bill's gaze firmly pointed in the opposite direction.

AtHomeBoy_2000
Jan 27, 2006, 01:59 PM
Much like Andrew Carnegie, who's savage business practices maimed, killed or otherwise exploited thousands of workers,
I think a LOT of people forget how Bill went about getting the money he is now so "lovingly" giving away.

Not to sound so synical, but I am sure so donations sure to go a long way towards helping you when it comes to report taxes. ;) Epsecially for a multi-BILLION dollar company.

kunio
Jul 28, 2006, 06:24 AM
This is a genuine mistake. After I asked some questions about the topic, I realized it was a long dead thread. Sorry guys.