Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Bono Defends Steve Jobs Against Criticism Over Lack of Public Philanthropy
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
He wouldn't even have to do it himself, there are plenty who will gladly do it for him. Just read a few threads on any Mac forum.
Speak as if you know a single fact about what Apple changed when he came back. Being there myself, Steve cancelled the Sabbatical Program that set 1/3 of all employees on vacation for up to 12 weeks of paid vacation, at the very time when we had 3 months worth of working capital left to keep the doors open.
This was all within the first week of his taking the iCEO title. He cancelled other actions, like Charity donations, until the company was capable of sustaining itself.
Talk to Fred Anderson on how much he had to restructure to save Apple.
Twenty six separate marketing departments down to one was another early change.
The IT department with > 500 employees and the single largest department in 1997 was another restructuring that saved the company a lot of money.
We went from 10,000 to 5,000 in a week. Now with well over 46,000 employees you can thank Steve's vision and his teams implementations to grow the company staff size 8x.
There were many other necessary changes before the iMac arrived which saved the company from bankruptcy.
----------
What does your system with higher education and full medical covered for every citizen and resident foreigner have to do with America's system and Charity?
Steve has donated to charity anonymously for decades. Anyone who worked at NeXT and Apple knows that.
Ain't that the truth! And they'd brag about it and the other fanboys would be jealous.That i can agree on, at least to an extent. But that doesnt change that you were wrong about western countries in need of aid.
Whats up? Since someone already brought up the nazi-argument, i'll counter with: Whats up with remorse about being part of the third reich (at it's prime). The point of having ideals is that they should guide you the right way, not the way that necessarily earns you the best. If were not part of the change we are part of the problem. Simple as that.
Additionally, i think you are confusing understanding something and being supportive of the same. Once again, we can use a poor example: I understand the rationale behind slavery, i just don't buy it.
That, my friend, is what is up. :- )
Mr. Jobs' is not 'Paris Kardashian'
'...as one of ony a few of America's wealthiest people not to participate in publicly-acknowledged philanthropy...'
This society's about 'media access,' and letting everything you do - - your entire life be 'out there' for public consumption.
What Mr. Jobs' does (or doesn't!) is not media fodder!
Not everyone NEEDS the approval of the press.
Mr. Jobs' learned years ago that giving the press access meant NO control.
As a businessman, he understands 'image' - and control of it.
Go pick on someone else. Maybe, someone should look into your closet...?
'...as one of ony a few of America's wealthiest people not to participate in publicly-acknowledged philanthropy...'
This society's about 'media access,' and letting everything you do - - your entire life be 'out there' for public consumption.
What Mr. Jobs' does (or doesn't!) is not media fodder!
Not everyone NEEDS the approval of the press.
Mr. Jobs' learned years ago that giving the press access meant NO control.
As a businessman, he understands 'image' - and control of it.
Go pick on someone else. Maybe, someone should look into your closet...?
This idea that people need to give openly is frankly disgusting.
What possible good would come form Steve disclosing where and to whom he distributes his giving? Seriously all it does is paint a target on the man for less scrupulous organizations to demand their share.
Look at it this way we can all agree there are very good charities and some really terrible ones. A wise man would feed those that reflect his personal perspective and have a reasonable chance of using the money well.
A lot of moneys donated unfortunately don't end up begin used well. This is one of the reasons I refuse to support the United Way. Charity isn't a free for all and shouldn't be handled as such. More so because the decision to give is very personal, why does it need to be made public?
I've never been able to grasp this nonsense that people need to disclose their charitable efforts. Often the genius for giving is in heart breaking trauma, a lost of a loved one to cancer is just one example of a motivator. Beyond that there are political issues to consider and sometimes the avoidance of embarrassment. Whatever compels one to Philanthropy, giving, charity or whatever you want to call it, it is a personal decision that should not be open for public discourse.
Your hopes mean nothing as it is none of your business. It is as simple as that. As to death you do realize that there are people out there that keep every penny they make right up until their death and then donate to the charity of their choice after death. In Steves case though he has a family and a wife, so I expect there will be sometime before they all kick the bucket.
Interestingly a good number of colleges receive money as a result of a death. It is actually strange but this seems to be a common thing in wills. In any event I have to wonder how many dollars Apple and or Steve funnel into Stamford every year. WE may never know because again it is not a thing for public discussion.
What possible good would come form Steve disclosing where and to whom he distributes his giving? Seriously all it does is paint a target on the man for less scrupulous organizations to demand their share.
Look at it this way we can all agree there are very good charities and some really terrible ones. A wise man would feed those that reflect his personal perspective and have a reasonable chance of using the money well.
A lot of moneys donated unfortunately don't end up begin used well. This is one of the reasons I refuse to support the United Way. Charity isn't a free for all and shouldn't be handled as such. More so because the decision to give is very personal, why does it need to be made public?
I've never been able to grasp this nonsense that people need to disclose their charitable efforts. Often the genius for giving is in heart breaking trauma, a lost of a loved one to cancer is just one example of a motivator. Beyond that there are political issues to consider and sometimes the avoidance of embarrassment. Whatever compels one to Philanthropy, giving, charity or whatever you want to call it, it is a personal decision that should not be open for public discourse.
Your hopes mean nothing as it is none of your business. It is as simple as that. As to death you do realize that there are people out there that keep every penny they make right up until their death and then donate to the charity of their choice after death. In Steves case though he has a family and a wife, so I expect there will be sometime before they all kick the bucket.
Interestingly a good number of colleges receive money as a result of a death. It is actually strange but this seems to be a common thing in wills. In any event I have to wonder how many dollars Apple and or Steve funnel into Stamford every year. WE may never know because again it is not a thing for public discussion.
You can go screw yourself.
You are in no position to praise anybody buddy!! Your argument is without merit because the whole point of charity is that it is a personal decision a person makes to better the world as he sees fit. Thus anything you can or could say about how or to whom a donation was made is worthless.
Frankly when I make a donation to an organization I don't give a damn about your self righteous praise nor anybody else's. The decision is mine only. Frankly I suspect Steve feels the same way.
----------
I fail to see the connection. Honestly have you considered how many men in this country get screwed over every year by woman claiming paternity? No reasonable man would start handing over money without first having complete proof. Even then you still have the potential for a situation where there was unethical behavior on the woman's part. Remember the primary motivator for women in a relations ship is the $$$$$$, a lot of evil can be generated to get to those $$$$$.
So again why is this even brought up in this context? Their is zero relationship between the two.
You are in no position to praise anybody buddy!! Your argument is without merit because the whole point of charity is that it is a personal decision a person makes to better the world as he sees fit. Thus anything you can or could say about how or to whom a donation was made is worthless.
Frankly when I make a donation to an organization I don't give a damn about your self righteous praise nor anybody else's. The decision is mine only. Frankly I suspect Steve feels the same way.
----------
I fail to see the connection. Honestly have you considered how many men in this country get screwed over every year by woman claiming paternity? No reasonable man would start handing over money without first having complete proof. Even then you still have the potential for a situation where there was unethical behavior on the woman's part. Remember the primary motivator for women in a relations ship is the $$$$$$, a lot of evil can be generated to get to those $$$$$.
So again why is this even brought up in this context? Their is zero relationship between the two.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't
Here are the choices of someone in the public eye (in my opinion):
*Be private and don't say if you give to charitable causes or not. People assume you don't give and think you are a greedy jerk.
*Publicly state that you do give to charitable causes. Have people question your priorities, politics, the organizations you give to, etc. Then they say you gave out of greed. And that you are a jerk.
On a side note, it's so refreshing to see how a post that revolves around charity can lead to so many vitriolic, juvenile, entitled and ignorant responses (not all of the responses, but a lot of them). Children are indeed the future
c'mon, sing with me "we are the world, we are the children..." Don't we all feel better now...
Here are the choices of someone in the public eye (in my opinion):
*Be private and don't say if you give to charitable causes or not. People assume you don't give and think you are a greedy jerk.
*Publicly state that you do give to charitable causes. Have people question your priorities, politics, the organizations you give to, etc. Then they say you gave out of greed. And that you are a jerk.
On a side note, it's so refreshing to see how a post that revolves around charity can lead to so many vitriolic, juvenile, entitled and ignorant responses (not all of the responses, but a lot of them). Children are indeed the future
c'mon, sing with me "we are the world, we are the children..." Don't we all feel better now...
Intelligent comments from intelligent fan boys. It sure is difficult to point fingers and criticize from the comfort of your lazy-boy and macbook air. What a righteous bunch we are.
Egos and politics aside, both Jobs and Bono have done more for the world in their lifetime than every person here combined could even dream.
You Sir, is what makes it so embarrasing to be a human being from time to time.
Seriously, your comments are quite scary in themselves. They're extremely scary, if your username indicates that you're about 46 years old now.
You sound like a high school randroid, although I must say I'm very impressed that you're able to speak out so bluntly about a lot of people, that you probably have no idea why ended in their current predicament, and most likely you couldn't care less.
Still doesn't mean they aren't douchebags. I doubt I could be in the same room as Bono or Jobs for long, no matter how wonderful they are.
What exactly has Bono done? Paid taxes in a low-rate country like Ireland? Travelled around, telling world leaders to spend more on charity? And then moving his own money and income to Luxemborg to save a bit more on his own taxes?
Bono has worked hard to evade taxes, and let the guys (like you and me) that earns one thousandth of what he does pay the bill. When state leaders, like they should, have told him to take a hike, he has acted like a little cry baby. Praise him? Never!
re original article
i'm ok with steve concentrating on aapl and his family
he probably does give in some low-profile way
and if or when he retires he will probably give more in a public way
i'm ok with steve concentrating on aapl and his family
he probably does give in some low-profile way
and if or when he retires he will probably give more in a public way
This forum is a big resource for acknowledging american's way of thinking (in a general form, apologizes for the out-of-status-quo americans). It's so individualist, so Atlas Shrugged. I have read several posts defending a non-altruist life based on accumulating a big amount of money. For what? "It's none of your business". Ok.
Something is going wrong when a single citizen accumulates more than $1 billion dollars when there are people in his own country getting less than a millionth in a paid job. If we extend this comparison in the areas of the world where Apple business affect people, it goes to indecent levels. No one is worth a billion times another one. That's obvious. Everyone someday will die and get rotten the same way, the poorer and the richer.
So, there's a time when money is just numbers. There's no creativity able to spend a billion - ok, if we bring up our most extravagant desires, we can. In that cases, government should redistribute some part of the fortune through taxes targeted to the richer people. It is far from being marxist, this is just the way any sustainable civilization should work. We can compete freely for better positions but not THAT better (a million times far to another).
"This can be an obstacle for innovation and brilliant ideas to flourish" someone could say. And I answer: what is innovation? Is putting human beings into slavish conditions to allow us for buying the very latest computer at reasonable prices?
Or perhaps innovation is being able to get a good position in the transplant queue. I think that universities innovate much more than Jobs and their researchers can live a happy life with much less money. Innovation != opportunism.
Something is going wrong when a single citizen accumulates more than $1 billion dollars when there are people in his own country getting less than a millionth in a paid job. If we extend this comparison in the areas of the world where Apple business affect people, it goes to indecent levels. No one is worth a billion times another one. That's obvious. Everyone someday will die and get rotten the same way, the poorer and the richer.
So, there's a time when money is just numbers. There's no creativity able to spend a billion - ok, if we bring up our most extravagant desires, we can. In that cases, government should redistribute some part of the fortune through taxes targeted to the richer people. It is far from being marxist, this is just the way any sustainable civilization should work. We can compete freely for better positions but not THAT better (a million times far to another).
"This can be an obstacle for innovation and brilliant ideas to flourish" someone could say. And I answer: what is innovation? Is putting human beings into slavish conditions to allow us for buying the very latest computer at reasonable prices?
Or perhaps innovation is being able to get a good position in the transplant queue. I think that universities innovate much more than Jobs and their researchers can live a happy life with much less money. Innovation != opportunism.
Last edited:
It is awfully presumptuous of you telling private individuals how they should be using their assets especially in light of the fact that you haven't widely publicized your own charitable activities.
Are you imbecile? I'm not asking to provoke you, but because your stupid response and total failure in understanding where I'm coming from seems to indicate it.
I just responded to a guy that basicly said: "Nobody should get aid, because it's all their own fault" by calling him a randroid.
Then I say Bono isn't contributing, which I find to be a problem.
Your conclusion based on those two posts: That I must be against helping other people because I'm sitting with an expensive laptop?!?
WTF?