Bono Defends Steve Jobs Against Criticism Over Lack of Public Philanthropy

[TMay]

There are billions of people out there working hard everyday. Some people work 16 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year but only make less then $40,000 a year. Do these people not work hard?

How does Steve Jobs work hard to deserve 8 billion dollars while the poor person down the street who can't even feed his family but works hard is any different.

What Steve has IS a fortune. How does one person 'work hard' to obtain 8 billion dollars. I work hard. I work everyday long hours. I have gone to school multiple times to get a better education. Do I not work hard because I haven't grossed more than 60,000 a year? Do I work any less then Steve Jobs although he has grossed 8 billion?

Steve had the benefit of a genetic predisposition to be creative given him by his natural father and mother, and the love of a modest couple that adopted him and raised him as their own in an environment and at a time when creativity was cherished. He has also the rare gift of focus. Steve never had the equivalent of a $60,000 a year job working for the man.

Maybe its time to get off the treadmill...

 

[Shrink]

For me, the main issue of this thread is not whether Jobs gives to charity, since no one knows, it is all speculation.

It is, rather, the rather frightening adulation of another human being. Jobs may be a genius, and certainly has made contributions to others through his innovative technologies and devices.

What is disturbing is attitude, expressed in words and in down-ratings, that anything less than blind adulation is to be condemned. Any criticism, real or imagined, is met with often disrespectful derision.

Jobs is a man. A talented and apparently brilliant man. But just a man.

He is not a god to be blindly worshipped. Hero worship is dangerous because all heroes have feet of clay. We are all human, and therefore have faults and weaknesses. Hero worship blinds the believer to reality of the fallibility of humanity.

OK, that's my rant. Let the down-voting begin.

 

[thetoad30]

Ridiculous. How are you prevented from using your device freely? I've owned Macs and iPods and iPhones for 25 years now and I've never felt limited. Statements like this are so absurd. If you consider a few rejected app store apps to be taking "control of how you use your device", please share whatever you're smoking! I'd much rather have Apple (or Microsoft or Google...) ensure the apps I buy aren't full of viruses and spyware. How many billions of dollars are WASTED every year on Windows support, eradicating viruses and the countless lost hours of work time that come with it?

The reason Apple is successful is because they understand that the consumer (not the nerd reading blogs like this one) want products that just work.

So again, you just proved my point. You just said that consumers were stupid. Too stupid to use a device to the full potential.

And you've never felt limited because you don't use the device to its highest potential.

I can't even sync my iPhone to two different PCs in my house. I cannot even have ONE music library. I have to have every iTunes program with its own music library (if I want it supported, that is).

I can't use flash on my iPhone (NOTE: Regardless of Apple's, or Jobs's claims, YES, Flash is important - they could have made it an OPTION for me, instead of tying my hands).

And the mail app on iPhone: I cannot tell it to redownload an e-mail. I have to WAIT for it to choose to redownload it. This makes it fun when I'm in a building with no network connectivity. Sometimes it will download the e-mail, other times it tells me "this e-mail was not downloaded from the server". So what can I do? I'm supposed to wait?

And god forbid we find something wrong with the device - all the iCult people jump on them saying either it's not a big deal or "that's just how it is deal".

AntennaGate? How about the fact that Apple CONSTANTLY releases fixes for their machines and hardware but never tells anyone about it? Remember when they were reversing the antennas in their Extreme Routers? Did anyone ever get a recall or an opportunity to get theirs checked or fixed?

How about the SATAIII issue with the new macbooks in Feb of 2011? Nope, they fixed that under the radar too, and then said that SATAIII was never part of the packaging and that putting in a new hard drive is unsupported hardware so it's on the consumer.

It just works is ******** for the majority of power users. Why do you think that Blackberry is still king of the corporate world? Corporations will not be told how to do business.

WAKE UP people. Just try to think outside the Apple box... For once. I'm not saying you have to give up your affinity to Apple, but for crying out loud, at least entertain the possibility that Apple is not the end-all be-all.

 

[Bilbo63]

Sorry, no, I was talking about the hypothetical truck driver. The person I was quoting seems to feel it perfectly justified that if it's a competition between a rich productive person (by who's standard?) and a common person like a truck driver, then the rich person has every right to use his resources to push ahead of the common person. I find that offensive.

If it so happened to be the case that the person who won, via luck of the draw, or even based on which was more statistically likely to survive longest after the operation, was the richer person, then so be it, and one might well draw conclusions after the fact ("thank goodness the more productive person got it"). But the idea that it's OK, even preferred, to give treatment to those who have the money, at the expense of those who don't, is just wrong to me.

Okay, I understand now.

I would never scoop an organ from someone else, but if I had the financial resources to get to an available match, I would probably do it. I guess according to many people here, that would make me a bad person.

If I chose do privately donate to a worthy cause that would make me a bad person too.

I'd like to stress that I'm NOT saying that Steve DOES take on philanthropic causes anonymously. I'm only saying that for all any of us know, he does. We don't know what he's done (or not done) privately.

I don't have the guy on a pedestal, I just think that you can't slam him for his PERCEIVED lack of philanthropy. If he openly admitted that he doesn't believe in sharing his wealth with the needy and less fortunate, I'd think that he was a morally bankrupt individual.

 

[stellardream]

You need to educate yourself. Really. Ever heard of something like the Marshall plan, for example?

As for richer and more corrupt elite, isn't that what we have in the so called developed world anyway?

Marshall Plan has been put in place to deal with the destruction after WWII. You are comparing apples to oranges.

 

[thetoad30]

Steve had the benefit of a genetic predisposition to be creative given him by his natural father and mother, and the love of a modest couple that adopted him and raised him as their own in an environment and at a time when creativity was cherished. He has also the rare gift of focus. Steve never had the equivalent of a $60,000 a year job working for the man.

Maybe its time to get off the treadmill...

Really? Genetic disposition? It had nothing to do with the fact that they entered at the beginning of an industry, had the funds to do so, and that he partnered with Wozniak to start the company? You seem to forget that Jobs was not the person who came up with any of this ****. He just knew how to market it.

 

[CWT1965]

So again, you just proved my point. You just said that consumers were stupid. Too stupid to use a device to the full potential.

And you've never felt limited because you don't use the device to its highest potential.

I can't even sync my iPhone to two different PCs in my house. I cannot even have ONE music library. I have to have every iTunes program with its own music library (if I want it supported, that is).

I can't use flash on my iPhone (NOTE: Regardless of Apple's, or Jobs's claims, YES, Flash is important - they could have made it an OPTION for me, instead of tying my hands).

And the mail app on iPhone: I cannot tell it to redownload an e-mail. I have to WAIT for it to choose to redownload it. This makes it fun when I'm in a building with no network connectivity. Sometimes it will download the e-mail, other times it tells me "this e-mail was not downloaded from the server". So what can I do? I'm supposed to wait?

And god forbid we find something wrong with the device - all the iCult people jump on them saying either it's not a big deal or "that's just how it is deal".

AntennaGate? How about the fact that Apple CONSTANTLY releases fixes for their machines and hardware but never tells anyone about it? Remember when they were reversing the antennas in their Extreme Routers? Did anyone ever get a recall or an opportunity to get theirs checked or fixed?

How about the SATAIII issue with the new macbooks in Feb of 2011? Nope, they fixed that under the radar too, and then said that SATAIII was never part of the packaging and that putting in a new hard drive is unsupported hardware so it's on the consumer.

It just works is ******** for the majority of power users. Why do you think that Blackberry is still king of the corporate world? Corporations will not be told how to do business.

WAKE UP people. Just try to think outside the Apple box... For once. I'm not saying you have to give up your affinity to Apple, but for crying out loud, at least entertain the possibility that Apple is not the end-all be-all.

I use Flash easily on my iPad2, an app called Splashtop lets me totally recreate my pc on the iPad2 and I use flash videos a plenty via Splashtop

 

[thetoad30]

I don't have the guy on a pedestal, I just think that you can't slam him for his PERCEIVED lack of philanthropy. If he openly admitted that he doesn't believe in sharing his wealth with the needy and less fortunate, I'd think that he was a morally bankrupt individual.

And my (and others') argument is that you can't praise him for his assumed anonymous philanthropy, which other's are too happy to do.

 

[divinox]

Marshall Plan has been put in place to deal with the destruction after WWII. You are comparing apples to oranges.

No. Im comparing aid (apples) with aid (apples). As for the rest, we've "aided" ourself nicely running along thinking we owned the world and everything on it... anyhow, i dont get your point.

----------

I use Flash easily on my iPad2, an app called Splashtop lets me totally recreate my pc on the iPad2 and I use flash videos a plenty via Splashtop

Doesnt sound a whole lot like "it just works" to me ;- )

 

[thetoad30]

I use Flash easily on my iPad2, an app called Splashtop lets me totally recreate my pc on the iPad2 and I use flash videos a plenty via Splashtop

I shouldn't have to pay for an app to access the internet on a device that is billed as having the entire internet in my hands. Again, please stop smoking the SJ...

 

[Apple of my eye]

Proof is in the puding

Okay, I understand now.

I would never scoop an organ from someone else, but if I had the financial resources to get to an available match, I would probably do it. I guess according to many people here, that would make me a bad person.

If I chose do privately donate to a worthy cause that would make me a bad person too.

I'd like to stress that I'm NOT saying that Steve DOES take on philanthropic causes anonymously. I'm only saying that for all any of us know, he does. We don't know what he's done (or not done) privately.

I don't have the guy on a pedestal, I just think that you can't slam him for his PERCEIVED lack of philanthropy. If he openly admitted that he doesn't believe in sharing his wealth with the needy and less fortunate, I'd think that he was a morally bankrupt individual.

According the a 2008 Fortune / CNN article "The Trouble with Steve Jobs"

"Last year the founder of the Stanford Social Innovation Review called Apple one of "America's Least Philanthropic Companies." Jobs had terminated all of Apple's long-standing corporate philanthropy programs within weeks after returning to Apple in 1997, citing the need to cut costs until profitability rebounded. But the programs have never been restored."

From the same article

"When Jobs had his own illegitimate child, also at the age of 23, he too struggled with his responsibilities. For two years, though already wealthy, he denied paternity while Lisa's mother went on welfare. At one point Jobs even swore in a signed court document that he couldn't be Lisa's father because he was "sterile and infertile, and as a result thereof, did not have the physical capacity to procreate a child." He later acknowledged paternity of Lisa, married Laurene Powell, a Stanford MBA, and fathered three more children. Lisa Brennan-Jobs, now 29, graduated from Harvard and is a writer."

If a man would deny his own child leaving the mother and child to be supported on welfare it is not a stretch to find the same man lacking a philanthropic heart.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/02/news/companies/elkind_jobs.fortune/index.htm

 

[Bilbo63]

And my (and others') argument is that you can't praise him for his assumed anonymous philanthropy, which other's are too happy to do.

Fair enough.

I'm not praising him though. Actually, I was attempting to add some balance. It is possible that he does a lot of philanthropic undertakings, but he just does it anonymously. That being said, I think that it's unfair to label anyone un-philanthropic just because it's not in the papers.

There are things in his past that do not shine a good light on him. There are things from his past that he claims he really regrets. The same could be said about most of us.

Again, I'm not saying that he's wonderful. I wouldn't know, I've never met him.

----------

According the a 2008 Fortune / CNN article "The Trouble with Steve Jobs"

"Last year the founder of the Stanford Social Innovation Review called Apple one of "America's Least Philanthropic Companies." Jobs had terminated all of Apple's long-standing corporate philanthropy programs within weeks after returning to Apple in 1997, citing the need to cut costs until profitability rebounded. But the programs have never been restored."

From the same article

"When Jobs had his own illegitimate child, also at the age of 23, he too struggled with his responsibilities. For two years, though already wealthy, he denied paternity while Lisa's mother went on welfare. At one point Jobs even swore in a signed court document that he couldn't be Lisa's father because he was "sterile and infertile, and as a result thereof, did not have the physical capacity to procreate a child." He later acknowledged paternity of Lisa, married Laurene Powell, a Stanford MBA, and fathered three more children. Lisa Brennan-Jobs, now 29, graduated from Harvard and is a writer."

If a man would deny his own child leaving the mother and child to be supported on welfare it is not a stretch to find the same man lacking a philanthropic heart.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/02/news/companies/elkind_jobs.fortune/index.htm

Again, and I keep having to say this. It's Apple's or Steve's PERCEIVED lack of philanthropy. That's only what they do (or don't do) PUBLICLY. Secondly, I'd like to add that the guy isn't dead yet, he may still have a "one more thing" up his sleeve. Maybe he doesn't too. Who knows?

Yeah the stuff with his daughter in the early years is rather dickish. I can't think of any other way to put it. He's been quoted as regretting his handling of that.

 

[diamond.g]

Lack of evidence is not evidence.

You mean:

The absence of evidence isn't the evidence of absence.

or

There are known knowns; there are things we know we know.
We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know.

 

[mrelwood]

as soon as he "qualified" for a liver somewhere else (In this case I thought it was Tennesee), he hopped on his private jet and immediately flew there to get the operation. No one else has the ability to do this. He manipulated the system, and I DO blame him for that.

Me too. He should've taken the bus like the rest of us, dang it!

Imagine the poor person thinking they've got a liver, and then because some rich ******* has a jet he can take it from you. Shame.

Seems you have misunderstood. If he has been qualified for the liver and is next on the list, he's not taking the liver away from anyone else. Should his personal jet usage be controlled, so that if he really needs the plane, she couldn't use it? Using something you buy is abusing the system? Am I abusing the system when I drive my car? You know, not everyone can do that.

I'm not sure if you really have that much envy, or if you are just a bit simple in the logic.

 

[thetoad30]

Me too. He should've taken the bus like the rest of us, dang it!



Seems you have misunderstood. If he has been qualified for the liver and is next on the list, he's not taking the liver away from anyone else. Should his personal jet usage be controlled, so that if he really needs the plane, she couldn't use it? Using something you buy is abusing the system? Am I abusing the system when I drive my car? You know, not everyone can do that.

I'm not sure if you really have that much envy, or if you are just a bit simple in the logic.

So you're going to say that the majority of people having a car is the same as only a few people having a private jet at their whims just to get a transplant?

The only reason he was on that list was because he could get there in a jet so fast.

Why would I envy someone who abuses a system and is such a prick? Seems like the logic is failing you since you somehow think that driving and flying are the same thing.

 

[Bilbo63]

And my (and others') argument is that you can't praise him for his assumed anonymous philanthropy, which other's are too happy to do.

And my (and others') argument is that you can't praise him for his assumed anonymous philanthropy, which other's are too happy to do.

Wow. I have been really clear about this...

NEVER did I claim or even assume that he DOES this great work anonymously. Not once. I merely pointed out the fact that it is POSSIBLE, that he does good deeds anonymously, just like many people do. Why is that so hard to understand?

You are the one that decided that he IS un-philanthropic, even though you have no possible way of knowing that. None at all.

I wouldn't label you or anyone else of being un-philanthropic simply because I didn't read about it in the paper. That's really unfair.

Again, I'm not saying Steve is wonderful and perfect. His track record has plenty of warts, just like the rest of us.

 

[MadDog31]

This all reminds me of all the charitable stories that came out about George Steinbrenner when he passed away. He did a TON of charitable stuff (time, money, etc.) that went completely unnoticed or unrecognized, and he often did these things if others promised to keep it quiet.

I'm not a Yankee fan, but I worked for them last year when he passed away. It was interesting to hear all of the good that happened that never came out until then.

So yes, behind-the-scenes stuff really does happen and you don't have to have your name thrown up on some sign or wall for it to help people in need.

 

[thetoad30]

NEVER did I claim or even assume that he DOES this great work anonymously. Not once. I merely pointed out the fact that it is POSSIBLE, that he does good deeds anonymously, just like many people do. Why is that so hard to understand?

Where did I ever say you did? My point is that the first thing that people in the cult do is automatically lean, or assume, that he does.

You are the one that decided that he IS un-philanthropic, even though you have no possible way of knowing that. None at all.

And where did I ever say this? I never said he didn't - in fact, I said there was no proof either way.

However, my own personal feelings which cannot be proved one way or the other, is that he doesn't contribute. Too much negative evidence, for me, to think otherwise. Doesn't mean I'm right, though.

 

[DrMotownMac]

They're out there. And there are more than you think.

I had one of them tell me in college that they truly believed that if Hitler believed in Jesus that he was in Heaven. And as Lewis Black would say, "I don't have the time or energy to make that ***** up anymore."

They also told me how carbon dating was a complete conspiracy, and that the Dinosaurs lived only 5000 years ago because their bones were found next to a crow's or something.

That's because you most likely attended Dumbsh*t University where people think that way. No professor at any reputable university would make such an idiotic comment. Thank you for giving us all a little insight into your educational background, or should I say, lack thereof.

p.s. What on earth are you doing spending all afternoon in a MacRumors Forum bashing Steve Jobs and Apple? If you don't like Apple, their founder or their products, then it doesn't make any sense at all why you would spend your time on this site. If you DO like Apple and their products, but you're torn because you hate Steve Jobs so much, then maybe you should consider boycotting Apple and buying from Google and/or Microsoft, and spend some time over on their websites. No one here really likes or has any interest in your obtuse commentary, so perhaps you should just move back to the swamp from which you came, Toad.

 

[mrelwood]

I never said he limited MY creativity. I said he did it as a whole. He took over control of how you use your device.

No he didn't. He made a product for you to decide wether it is a suitable one for you or not. He took nothing away from anybody. If the features doesn't match your needs, then buy something else.

I can't even sync my iPhone to two different PCs in my house. I cannot even have ONE music library.
...
I can't use flash on my iPhone
...
And the mail app on iPhone: I cannot tell it to redownload an e-mail.
...
at least entertain the possibility that Apple is not the end-all be-all.

Why did you buy an iPhone if it doesn't fit your needs? You know, Apple is not the end-all be-all, there are other products out there.

So you're going to say that the majority of people having a car is the same as only a few people having a private jet at their whims just to get a transplant?

On the "abusing the system" scale, yes. Both total at zero.

Why would I envy someone who abuses a system and is such a prick?

I wouldn't know. For you to repeatedly claim the "prick" is "abusing the system", just makes you sound envious.

 

[stellardream]

No. Im comparing aid (apples) with aid (apples). As for the rest, we've "aided" ourself nicely running along thinking we owned the world and everything on it... anyhow, i dont get your point.

My point is that there's natural progression of things and choices. Poor places like Africa will not produce business geniuses if we just give them ton of money.

Btw, what's up with remorse about being part of powerful part of the world. Given enough economic and military power, any nation attempts and often succeeds in conquest of the territory around them i.e. Mongols, Aztecs, Egyptians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Japanese, Vikings, Ottoman Empire, etc, etc. The list can pretty much go on for long time. It's just the way it is.

 

[Cydonia]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_5 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8L1 Safari/6533.18.5)

To all not just yourself

 

[moracity]

Please stop calling his wealth, "Fortune". The word fortune implies that there was luck or chance involved in the accumulation of wealth. There is nothing fortune about Steve's wealth. He worked hard, and earned all that money and he is not simply sitting on it. He has been using that money to innovate.

I have no doubt that Steve will invest his money in future scientific research for the advancement of technology.

You are suggesting that luck or chance plays no roll in accumulating wealth? By it's very nature, business is all about risk and reward. Plenty of people have worked harder than Steve Jobs and make paltry salaries. People who accumulate wealth often cite luck as a primary factor.

Regardless, no man is under obligation to any other man. Whether or not he chooses to be charitable with his money is no one's business. Giving a wad of cash to someone is not always the most charitable thing to do. Cash is fleeting.

 

[RalfTheDog]

Charity is part of a persons private life. What part of private do you not understand?

 

[Bilbo63]

Where did I ever say you did? My point is that the first thing that people in the cult do is automatically lean, or assume, that he does.

Post #283: "And my (and others') argument is that you can't praise him for his assumed anonymous philanthropy, which other's are too happy to do."


And where did I ever say this? I never said he didn't - in fact, I said there was no proof either way.

Post 243: "And it's not illegal to be a controlling, egotistical, non-philanthropic prick, either. So why defend Steve so staunchly then?"

And the people in the Anti-Steve cult assumes that he doesn't. It goes both ways my friend.
However, my own personal feelings which cannot be proved one way or the other, is that he doesn't contribute. Too much negative evidence, for me, to think otherwise. Doesn't mean I'm right, though.

The really funny thing here is I wasn't even staunchly defending Steve. I wasn't singing his praises, saying that he's the greatest thing since sliced bread. Maybe he's done no charity work, does no charity work and plans to do no charity work. Who knows? Why does everything have to be all 100% Anti-Steve or 100% Pro Steve? I bet the truth is somewhere in-between.

I bet no one expected that George Steinbrenner did much either, but he did. But I know many people who do good charitable work, but do it anonymously. They are usually very private people.

The first thing that people in the "Steve Hater" cult do is automatically lean, or assume, that he does not. It works both ways my friend. Do you really think the guy is 100% bad with no conscience at all?