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.
Jobs greedier than Gates?
- Thread starter Lord Blackadder
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That article brought two thoughts to mind:
1) The article states that Jobs may be giving anonymously, but then goes on as if he is not giving at all.
2) Rich people don't get rich by giving away the farm.
3) (Okay, this one is a bonus.) Most of these guys "wealth" is on paper in stocks and such. These are not things that can be cashed in easily. I would argue that, while they still have considerable wealth, they are not as rich as one might think.
1) The article states that Jobs may be giving anonymously, but then goes on as if he is not giving at all.
"And Jobs has said nary a word on behalf of important social issues, reserving his talents of persuasion for selling Apple products."
But Gates uses his giving to keep himself and Microsoft in the spotlight. Is that really any better? 2) Rich people don't get rich by giving away the farm.
3) (Okay, this one is a bonus.) Most of these guys "wealth" is on paper in stocks and such. These are not things that can be cashed in easily. I would argue that, while they still have considerable wealth, they are not as rich as one might think.
Just because Bill is the leader of the evil empire, it doesn't invalidate his giving. Dude just sank $600 million into eradicating TB from the face of the earth. Do I respect that decision? Absolutely. Am I going to buy windows. Absolutely not.
Since there is no data on Jobs' giving, it's just as invalid to assume he does give as to assume he doesn't. Gates gives tons, and I'll applaud him for it.
Besides, look at many of the other mega-CEO's. You didn't see Kenneth Lay dropping hundreds of millions on medical research. We could do worse than Gates when it comes to nemeses.
Since there is no data on Jobs' giving, it's just as invalid to assume he does give as to assume he doesn't. Gates gives tons, and I'll applaud him for it.
Besides, look at many of the other mega-CEO's. You didn't see Kenneth Lay dropping hundreds of millions on medical research. We could do worse than Gates when it comes to nemeses.
Thanatoast said:
I agree. Many people have an irrational hatred of Gates as person and will call him a "greedy b#stard" no matter what he does.
And if Jobs doesn't give or doesn't give nearly as much I don't think less of him. I'm not of the mindset that people *must* be charitable.
Both people have done a whole lot to get where they are today and who am I to judge what they do, or don't do, in their personal lives?
Lethal
I think it is admirable the amoutn of money and time Bill Gates invests in charitable causes. His foundation has given literally billions of dollars to programs to improve lives in Africa, eradicate debilitating diseases, and educate the youth of America and beyond. He does good work because he can. I think some people will suggest that he does these things out of personal greed, or to bolster the image of Microsoft, but I can't imagine selecting my software solutions based onthe philanthropic efforts of the software company's founder. I will buy Apple products because I want and need them, and I will applaud Bill Gates for his truly amazing work. I also hope that Steve Jobs is making the anonymous contributions suggested in the article. Giving back to the society that helped make you what you are should be our responsibility. Helping others is our duty as good human beings.
You're damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Donate to charity "nonymously" (people know it's you) and you're accused to doing it to bolster your own image. Donate to charity anonymously and you're accused of not donating to charity at all.
Donate to charity "nonymously" (people know it's you) and you're accused to doing it to bolster your own image. Donate to charity anonymously and you're accused of not donating to charity at all.
ejb190 said:
That's an excellent point. Most of Jobs' wealth is in Apple stock and Pixar stock; if he hasn't sold much of it, then it's not really available to give away. Remember, the value of your investment can go down as well as up.
Gates has more 'liquid' value...
Charity is about helping people out - not enhancing your image.
Nobody is obligated to donate to charities, even if they have a heck of a lot more money than they need. Come to think of it, all of us here have more money than we need, so are we all bad people because we don't give 1/2 our net worth to charities?
Nobody is obligated to donate to charities, even if they have a heck of a lot more money than they need. Come to think of it, all of us here have more money than we need, so are we all bad people because we don't give 1/2 our net worth to charities?
Gates waited for Microsoft to be the undisputed dominator of the OS world before he began his charitable ways. He was worth MUCH MORE than Jobs is now before he started giving in any significant manner.
This is not to say that all the recent giving by Gates doesn't do a good bit to settle the score -- it's more to say that the jury's still out on Jobs, and he could redeem himself quite admirably at some point in the future.
This is not to say that all the recent giving by Gates doesn't do a good bit to settle the score -- it's more to say that the jury's still out on Jobs, and he could redeem himself quite admirably at some point in the future.
At the moment, the vast majority of Steve's wealth (~$3 billion plus) is tied up in Pixar. He could sell it, of course, but he would lose his majority holding of the company. Which would make it impossible for him to, for example, complete the Disney sale as proposed.
Gates is a good human being. It's his software and company that I have a problem with. But on a personal level, he probably does care a lot more about this sort of thing than other CEOs.
Gates is a legend for giving away this sort of money - and regardless of how good the software is, it's the sales of the software that has allowed him to do it. Also, I don't care how rich you are, giving away that sort of money cannot be sniffed at. I think it's too much to be for his publicity and certainly, it doesn't make windows more appealing.
Who knows, maybe Gates has had an epiphany and intends to give away all the interest on his fortune.
In contrast, Warren Buffet is on the board at Coca-Cola...
Who knows, maybe Gates has had an epiphany and intends to give away all the interest on his fortune.
In contrast, Warren Buffet is on the board at Coca-Cola...
Who. Gives. A. ****?
If I'm a bazillionaire and I keep all my money - so what?
I hate it when people say rich folks are obligated to give their money away.
If I'm a bazillionaire and I keep all my money - so what?
I hate it when people say rich folks are obligated to give their money away.
I wouldn't say that. Read about his history, he's not exactly a saint. Most of the horrible things Microsoft has done was because of him. Not to mention he doesn't tip. His wife is the one who's giving away the money. Melinda and her parents run the charity. Gates has been filthy rich for years, and used to be chided for not giving away a red cent. Not saying he's the devil, but he's not a nice guy either.Abstract said:
Jobs does give money to charity. Not to mention all the work he does through Apple, and the fact that he only collects a dollar a year in actual money. Not to say he's a saint either, but I wouldn't call him greedy.
iGary said:Who. Gives. A. ****?
If I'm a bazillionaire and I keep all my money - so what?
I hate it when people say rich folks are obligated to give their money away.
That's what I've said - philanthropy is great, but it shouldn't be done to please journalists or make you appear warm and fuzzy in the media.
With people like Bill and Steve it's not so much about the money IMO - it's more about spearheading new tech trends and being a major player in the industry. Like a giant game of Risk.
umm yeah.... and apple came up with the GUI system... Umm no..... they took it from some else. Xrox or something like that (dont know how to spell it and dont give hoot about it)
But really I think it good for the really rich to donate money and doing it publicly I think it is a good thing because normally they are huge sums of money and they can get the ball roling for others to donate in smaller sums (10-20 dollars that adds up fast). Plus they can supply the capital to get a ogination up and running.
But really I think it good for the really rich to donate money and doing it publicly I think it is a good thing because normally they are huge sums of money and they can get the ball roling for others to donate in smaller sums (10-20 dollars that adds up fast). Plus they can supply the capital to get a ogination up and running.
Ummm... they were already working on a GUI and licensed tech from Xerox. Legally. Bill stole it and got away with it because of a loophole and because Apple trusted him. Do a search, this has been discussed ad naseum.Timepass said:
solvs said:
Oh not going to argue on those points. It just bothers me that everyone seems to believe that apple came up with the GUI. The fact stands niether Jobs nor Apple came up with the GUI system (or mouse keyboard in puts) Just to many people act like they did and no one really give Xerox crieted for coming up with the idea and laying the foundation for it.
Sorry slight pet peive of mine. but lets keep this tread on topic.
Neither did Xerox. http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/gui.arsTimepass said:
But I don't think Apple ever said they did. Gates definitely ripped off the Apple GUI though. The PARC wasn't the same, and like I said, Apple payed for it and hired a lot of the people working on it because Xerox didn't know what to do with it anyway.Not off topic much, just making a point.