For philosophical context, consider:
Apple does not have a "museum" of past products. Jobs considers any product which is no longer sold a failure (if it wasn't, they'd still be selling it) and not worthy of nostalgia.
If nobody is going to buy the Jackling House and live in it, then 'tis time to discard it and move on to something which someone will buy/build and live in.
That's just not human nature. I adore modern architecture and one of the main things I truly hate about the UK is the lack of quality architecture with sleek lines, simple structure, concrete, glass, quality materials, light spaces, decent ceiling heights and windows. The US is much better but still, there are so many backward-looking buildings. So in many respects, I should dislike a house that was built less than a hundred years ago to look like one built two hundred years ago.
Still... Local people and conservation societies defended the building as a unique witness of the region's architectural development. It's not a particularly pretty building but it's certainly one with some history around it.
But leaving the building to the elements with no maintenance is in my opinion wrong, immoral and a disregard of what property ownership should be about. My neighbours' house has an effect on mine and it's not just for myself why I keep our home well maintained and decent.
If Jobs wanted a modern building - which by the way, I prefer to Jackling House - then he should have got his rich ass moved to another large plot and built his modern glassbox there, after he sold Jackling House to somebody who wanted to live in that and respect local conservationist's and planning authorities' wishes. But until the house got to a state of deep neglect, authorities maintained that they preferred if it was renovated and kept standing.
In a way, it's like locking the door on your date and telling her "You don't have to sleep with me but you haven't got much of a choice". So yes, I actually see Jobs as a house-rapist.