An Emotional Bill Gates Talks About Steve Jobs on '60 Minutes'

[apolloa]

"I don't know what I'm talking about, but I'll blindly make assertions based on hot air"

Steve Jobs teamed up with Arny Schwarz in california to completely revamp the donor system in California.

http://scopeblog.stanford.edu/2010/03/19/steve_jobs_and/

The guy definitely had his flaws, but god damn it annoys me to see people constantly just talk out their rear.

Oh I'm sorry, I didn't realise Jobs putting his name on a organ donar scheme somehow turns into donating to Cancer research?
Perhaps you should have read my post?

 

[AppleScruff1]

Go look up how many lives have been saved by Gates foundation.

 

[Renzatic]

If you watched the last three 60 minutes interviews (throughout the years), his dad guilt tripped him into it

Ha! I can see that. I know from personal experience that I'll go to great lengths to get my dad to shut up about money.

 

[AppleScruff1]

I said Oprah has DONE more, not given more. Money isn't the only way to reach out to sick and dying people. She gets her hands dirty involving herself directly. But I guess money is the only thing that's important at the end of the day according to some of you here.

You said Oprah has given more too.

 

[NT1440]

Oh I'm sorry, I didn't realise Jobs putting his name on a organ donar scheme somehow turns into donating to Cancer research?

Given the funding that cancer research has, I'd say what Jobs pushed for (he lobbied politicians in person essentially) has a more direct and immediate impact on saving lives in California than throwing even more money at a problem.

 

[apolloa]

I don't see that as selfish, exactly. Shortsighted, maybe. Possibly something he did because he was afraid of facing his mortality dead on. But selfish? Eh.

Nope he was selfish. If he chose to risk leaving his family by turning to alternative medicine as he did, he was selfish in that.

----------

Given the funding that cancer research has, I'd say what Jobs pushed for (he lobbied politicians in person essentially) has a more direct and immediate impact on saving lives in California than throwing even more money at a problem.

So your stating a bunch of politicians making a decision is better for cancer research then funding for that cancer research?

 

[HenryDJP]

You said Oprah has given more too.

RIGHT, but did you bother reading the rest following that statement of me explaining how she did gave more or did you just want to take my statement out of context for your losing argument?

 

[NT1440]

So your stating a bunch of politicians making a decision is better for cancer research then funding for that cancer research?

Um, I said no such thing.

Organ donation and cancer research are two entirely different things. California, with help from many including Jobs, put forward one of the better thought out donor systems in the country. One that isn't passive, it says that you actually have to choose.

If you look into organ donation in the USA you'll see how big of an impact that actually has here and now, versus the potential of cancer research in the future. One is saving lives today, one is potentially saving lives for one particular type of cancer (or treatment) that the funds happened to go to (every type of cancer is essentially a completely different disease in terms of research and treatments).


The problem here is it seems like you didn't bother to look into anything before posting. Not uncommon.

 

[Renzatic]

RIGHT, but did you bother reading the rest following that statement of me explaining how she did gave more or did you just want to take my statement out of context for your losing argument?

Instead of belittling the charity simply because one of the founders doesn't make your favorite brand of computer OSes, why don't you realize both of them do their part, and have their place?

 

[apolloa]

Um, I said no such thing.

Organ donation and cancer research are two entirely different things. California, with help from many including Jobs, put forward one of the better thought out donor systems in the country. One that isn't passive, it says that you actually have to choose.

If you look into organ donation in the USA you'll see how big of an impact that actually has here and now, versus the potential of cancer research in the future. One is saving lives today, one is potentially saving lives for one particular type of cancer (or treatment) that the funds happened to go to (every type of cancer is essentially a completely different disease in terms of research and treatments).


The problem here is it seems like you didn't bother to look into anything before posting. Not uncommon.

Right, but you replied to my original comment about cancer research stating I was speaking out of my rear end? Yet your reply's are totally unrelated to cancer and speak about some organ donation system. That's great, but my comment still stands as correct, Jobs most likely never paid a penny to cancer research yet Gates would most likely pay for a cure of he got it.
I'm afraid you replied to my comment, insulted me, but then responded with an entirely different subject matter. Also I do believe Cancer is here and now and killing many people like Jobs, your a bit selfish and arrogant to make a claim like that? As though your ignoring cancer, or twisting the facts and my words to suite your reply. You somehow believe cancer research is only necessary for the future? When in fact it can help the current just as much.

 

[AppleScruff1]

RIGHT, but did you bother reading the rest following that statement of me explaining how she did gave more or did you just want to take my statement out of context for your losing argument?

I'm not making a losing argument. I'm staying with reality. Gates foundation is making huge strides toward eliminating polio. Look it up. His foundation has been credited for saving millions of lives. No bashing of Oprah at all, but to say that she does more is simply not true.

 

[HenryDJP]

I'm not making a losing argument. I'm staying with reality. Gates foundation is making huge strides toward eliminating polio. Look it up. His foundation has been credited for saving millions of lives. No bashing of Oprah at all, but to say that she does more is simply not true.

Wrong choice of words by me I'll admit, I wasn't referring to your argument being a losing battle, I was referring to you misquoting me which you did. I felt you were trying to catch me contradicting myself and I didn't. I'm not discounting BG's work, I'm just saying that he doesn't deal with people the same way Oprah does. Her entire TV show for 25 years involved her being a humanitarian and even long before she had money. BG came from the tech world and after he got to be one of the richest men in the word THEN he becomes this "humanitarian".

 

[Renzatic]

Wrong choice of words by me I'll admit, I wasn't referring to your argument being a losing battle, I was referring to you misquoting me which you did. I felt you were trying to catch me contradicting myself and I didn't. I'm not discounting BG's work, I'm just saying that he doesn't deal with people the same way Oprah does. Her entire TV show for 25 years involved her being a humanitarian and even long before she had money. BG came from the tech world and after he got to be one of the richest men in the word THEN he becomes this "humanitarian".

I think the major point of all this is "why does this even matter". There's no such thing as one type of charity. Help is help, regardless of how it comes to you. If you were sitting in some poor shelter, sick and dying of some terrible disease, you wouldn't turn down help simply because the person giving it to you might not care as much as you think they should.

Like I said before, both have their places. What Oprah does is smaller scale, more hands on. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is more like a charity administration. They don't go hands on like Oprah does, but they enable people like Oprah by providing them more tools and funding to better do their job.

Your argument is stupid, completely pointless, and self serving.

 

[AppleScruff1]

Wrong choice of words by me I'll admit, I wasn't referring to your argument being a losing battle, I was referring to you misquoting me which you did. I felt you were trying to catch me contradicting myself and I didn't. I'm not discounting BG's work, I'm just saying that he doesn't deal with people the same way Oprah does. Her entire TV show for 25 years involved her being a humanitarian and even long before she had money. BG came from the tech world and after he got to be one of the richest men in the word THEN he becomes this "humanitarian".

He also got older as we all do and one's perspective on life tends to change. And you commented about Gates doing it for publicity while Oprah did it out of the goodness of her heart. But she had her face plastered on tv 5 days a week for 25 years too, but you conveniently give her a pass on that while attempting to belittle one of the greatest humanitarians of our time. Again, Oprah is an extremely generous giving person and I applaud her for all she does. But for you to criticize Gate's humanitarian work is appalling.

 

[Renzatic]

Snip

...you know, I'm starting to get the impression that arguing with ole Henry is kind of a pointless thing to do.

in before "WHY CUZ YOU KNOW I'M RIGHT OLOL APPLE HATER".

 

[AppleScruff1]

...you know, I'm starting to get the impression that arguing with ole Henry is kind of a pointless thing to do.

in before "WHY CUZ YOU KNOW I'M RIGHT OLOL APPLE HATER".

There's lots of that type of logic out here in cyber land. This topic was about a good thing, about two old rivals, yet friends who both started with nothing and made huge changes in the world. Both had vision and both made it happen. Unfortunately, Steve's life ended early. We have no idea what he would have done in the future if he had lived. Maybe he would have joined Gates and Buffet in charity work, who knows?

 

[iMikeT]

I wish I had the time to watch this now.

 

[HenryDJP]

He also got older as we all do and one's perspective on life tends to change. And you commented about Gates doing it for publicity while Oprah did it out of the goodness of her heart. But she had her face plastered on tv 5 days a week for 25 years too, but you conveniently give her a pass on that while attempting to belittle one of the greatest humanitarians of our time. Again, Oprah is an extremely generous giving person and I applaud her for all she does. But for you to criticize Gate's humanitarian work is appalling.

Please point to the post where I said Oprah only did it out of the goodness of her heart? I don't remember writing that. I'm not criticizing BG, I said people on her are making him out to be a saint as if he only has the foundation active out of the goodness of his heart with zero agenda which is ignorant thinking. Now you ARE taking a lot of things I say out of context along with creating lines of text in which I never wrote. No wonder your posts keep getting rated up so much.

 

[Renzatic]

There's lots of that type of logic out here in cyber land. This topic was about a good thing, about two old rivals, yet friends who both started with nothing and made huge changes in the world. Both had vision and both made it happen. Unfortunately, Steve's life ended early. We have no idea what he would have done in the future if he had lived. Maybe he would have joined Gates and Buffet in charity work, who knows?

I think the worst thing about the internet in general is how tribal people get over the stupidest things. The Mac vs. PC thing (that this topic is only peripherally a part of)? They're computers. You pick one you like and roll with it. If you like Macs better. More power to you. PCs? Way to go. Congratulations either way.

Just because the founder of that Other Company ends up doing something totally unrelated to the computer wars doesn't mean you have to pick sides and start lamblasting them just because. They won't take away your Mac membership card if you give Gates a pass for doing something good. Nor will anyone come in and kick your PC to death if you say something nice about Steve Jobs.

I mean comeon. We've got people getting all angry and smearing a charity because the guy made Windows. That's about the most pointless thing I've ever seen in my entire life, and the people who join in on it should really consider analyzing their priorities.

----------

I said people on her are making him out to be a saint as if he only has the foundation active out of the goodness of his heart with zero agenda which is ignorant thinking.

First off, who's said as much in this thread?

Secondly, what's his ulterior motive?

 

[Lancer]

I respect Bill more now they even he was at Microsoft.

 

[imageWIS]

What people do in public and how they feel in private are sometimes two vastly different things. We don't know of the possible charitable donations made by Steve Jobs, just as we don't know the motivations for Bill Gates charitable work. In fact, what are his motivations in this interview regarding Steve Jobs?

O RLY? You can't insert things because you feel that they should be that way, so unless you have proof of Jobs 'private' giving, you are just spouting hot air. Also, publicly one of the first things Jobs did when he got back to Apple is to cut all philanthropic funding. The rest of your post is ridiculous nonsense cut from whole cloth.

 

[adnbek]

Read through it, and tell me Apple isn't just as guilty as everyone else in The Big Tech Game. Sometimes they win. Sometimes they lose. Sometimes they have a point. Sometimes they don't. At the end of the day, they're really no different than MS or Samsung.

Sorry to go off-topic here, but while I agree that every corporation is evil in some way, Samsung is in a whole different league:

http://stopsamsung.wordpress.com
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/techno...erocious-fiefdom-that-plays-by-its-own-rules/
http://news.yahoo.com/skorea-says-samsung-chip-plant-caused-cancer-095952156--finance.html
http://gizmodo.com/5932504/report-underage-child-workers-abused-in-samsung-factories
http://www.theverge.com/2012/11/30/3709688/samsung-25-years-lee-kun-hee

It's pretty much a criminal enterprise under the guise of a corporation and they pretty much operate above the law in South Korea. At least Apple and Microsoft have to answer to scrutiny by the media and/or justice system over here. Samsung doesn't need to operate within those confines when they practically control the country they're headquartered in.

Now... back to your regularly scheduled program.

 

[adnbek]

IMO, one of my biggest pet peeves with Jobs was his lack of philanthropy. But on the flip side, I don't think he was a selfish person per se.

Now, maybe this is a simplistic way of looking at it but I feel that Gates probably reached a point in his career where he felt that his work was done and it was time to move on to other things and give back to society.

Jobs on the other hand, being the obsessive person he was, could never let go and say "OK, I've done all that I could here". He was too much of a perfectionist and too much in love with his work to care about anything outside of it. Plus, in his own head, he genuinely believed that he was contributing to society through his work and so the thought of moving beyond that and giving back to society in other ways never crossed his mind.

 

[AppleScruff1]

I'm certainly not arguing your point because what you're saying has plenty of valor.
What I'm trying to say here is (and part of what you said brings me to my point) there are some blind people here who are singing the praises of BG way more than he deserves.
Any billionaire can give away money, that's as easy offering a penny to your next door neighbor. My point is Oprah Winfrey heavily involves herself with sick and dying people. Sure, she could just as easily write a check as BG and Buffet do but what she does shows more character of the type of human she is.
Bill Gates needs to give away that money, he nor his family will never live to spend it all and if he doesn't give away the IRS will get it. Don't think for one minute that he gives that money away just because it warms his heart that he's helped yet another family out of poverty.

Please point to the post where I said Oprah only did it out of the goodness of her heart? I don't remember writing that. I'm not criticizing BG, I said people on her are making him out to be a saint as if he only has the foundation active out of the goodness of his heart with zero agenda which is ignorant thinking. Now you ARE taking a lot of things I say out of context along with creating lines of text in which I never wrote. No wonder your posts keep getting rated up so much.

I took the first bolded statement to mean that Oprah did it out of the goodness of her heart because you implied that she is a different kind of person than Gates and that he did it for personal glory. The second bolded statement proved it to me. And by the way, much of Gates charitable work is for eliminating diseases, providing vacinations, etc, not simply handing out cash to needy people. And it seems quite apparent, IMO, that you are criticizing Gates for what he is doing and the reasons he is doing so.

----------

I think the worst thing about the internet in general is how tribal people get over the stupidest things. The Mac vs. PC thing (that this topic is only peripherally a part of)? They're computers. You pick one you like and roll with it. If you like Macs better. More power to you. PCs? Way to go. Congratulations either way.

Just because the founder of that Other Company ends up doing something totally unrelated to the computer wars doesn't mean you have to pick sides and start lamblasting them just because. They won't take away your Mac membership card if you give Gates a pass for doing something good. Nor will anyone come in and kick your PC to death if you say something nice about Steve Jobs.

I mean comeon. We've got people getting all angry and smearing a charity because the guy made Windows. That's about the most pointless thing I've ever seen in my entire life, and the people who join in on it should really consider analyzing their priorities.

Amen. Some should take a look at what's important in life.

 

[JAT]

And your Steve Jobs The Saint, Bill Gates The Devil opinion pieces aren't as equally short sighted.

When it comes to business both were geniuses in their chosen fields, and conniving, thieving bastards every chance they got.

Steve Jobs stole ideas just as happily as Gates did, loved taking credit for the work of others, never said a nice thing about anyone outside of Apple while inflating the worth of their own contributions, and had enough charisma and stage presence to end up making you believe everything he said after all was said and done.

Bill Gates was a cutthroat businessman who screwed over his partners every chance they got, hamstrung the competition through underhanded means, rigged an entire industry to work in his favor, and was generally a bastard to everyone outside of Microsoft.

Bill Gates forced the world work for him. Steve Jobs made the world think he invented white on rice while telling us we're all special snowflakes for using his products. As businessmen, both were both visionaries...and complete ***holes.

The difference is....every second I work on a WinXP computer, I want to kill myself. And it's far better than its predecessors, except for Win2k. OSX is a pleasure, as was MacOS before it. God, 6.0.8 and 7.1 were like playing games, even when working.

That's what some of us care about. Not this crap about the former CEOs. Hell, SJ wasn't even part of Apple for most of the "war" that people are discussing. What a stupid, ****ing thread.