[scratt]

Interesting article.. But what if Jobs is giving money to charity anonymously? Kind of shoots the whole idea in the foot...

The article generally seems to be pretty pointless and in the mould of having a pop whenever anyone gets ahead.. Sad.

http://www.wired.com/news/columns/0,...w=wn_tophead_3

[curiousuburb]

IIRC, Gates gave sweet f*ck all to charity until he married Melinda and she needed a project* and/or decided to polish his pr.

The praise for charitable billionaire should go to her more than Bill.

* Melinda's last project at Microsoft was as Team Leader of BOB™... picture Clippy systemwide... all the time... <cringe>

[Mugge]

Actually I got the somewhat opposite impression of the article. Although I don't think people should be pressed to give money to charity, and Jobs and Wozniak has done a lot just by inventing the Mac. Gates is entitled to some limelight in this respect. Motives be whatever they are, action speaks louder than words. I'm in no way saying Gates is a saint, just reminding everybody that he's not entirely evil either.

Many Apple fans are very keen on defending Jobs honour, and sometimes this defending can become a little too eager. So I kinda think it's ok to have to opposite opinion aired once in a while, just to remind us all that we are just humans. And that things rarely black and white.

Now if you want to study character assassinations. I would suggest studying the latest US presidential elections in general, and a certain Michael More character in particular.

IT industry CEO's are quite boring when compared to politicians and they associated activists.

[scratt]

Originally Posted by curiousuburb IIRC, Gates gave sweet f*ck all to charity until he married Melinda and she needed a project* and/or decided to polish his pr.]

Absolutely. That's kind of my take on the whole thing..

I, myself, give to charity. But I don't publicise who I give it to, 'nor how much.
So does that mean I don't really? Or that I am embarressed at my meager donations (perhaps).
But then again, now I have said I do, am I a stinking self-promoter?
At the end of the day, whether I do or not, and how much, is of no interest apart from titilation or self promotion.

The article seems like an attack for no reason, and with no facts.

Jobs is a capitalist. But he also produces great products.
Let's not forget that....
There are a lot of great capitalists out there who produce utter crap, and are very rich....

I don't know whether Jobs is a nice guy, or a wan&%r. I suspect the latter in some situations. But whether he may or may not give to charity based on no factual knowledge, and 'now he's rich' is not a good yardstick to judge someone by, and coming from Leander comes across as a bit petty and jealous. IMHO.

[gunga]

Personally, I can't see the relationship between charitable donations (made or not) and the pursuit of technological excellence (nay, Perfection?, as the article alludes to at the beginning.

Jobs has strived to make Apple a by-word for technology that has had thought put into it's design and function. On the other hand there's Gates, who appears to churn out sub-standard, unsecure software for the dwindling masses.

Who's the villain? I know in which direction my vote would be cast.

[ghoti]

Originally Posted by gunga Who's the villain? I know in which direction my vote would be cast.

I'm sure the starving children would see your point and agree.

[Bryson]

Now, don't get me wrong here, but I've always thought that Gates' contributions to charity get more kudos than they deserve. (Cue amazed looks.) Yes, he gives huge amounts of money to good causes. Massive amounts. But what does the giving do to his lifestyle? Does he go without anything in order to give the money? Or is the money that he donates actually the money left over that one person simply cannot spend, no matter what they do?

There's a story in the Bible somewhere about this (disclaimer: I, personally, am an athiest, but there are some good stories about morality in the New Testament) but I can't remember the exact details - perhaps someone who knows the bible better can fill that one in for me?

As for Jobs? Who are we to decide what he does with his money? Or Gates, for that matter. If they want to keep the money, or not, that's up to them. Both of them are functionally rich enough to get anything they feel like. I don't see the difference. All that would happen if Jobs donated publically is that they'd character assassinate him for not giving as much as Gates. It's all garbage - charitable donations should be for your own knowledge and no-one elses.

[curiousuburb]

And what the hell does "assasinate" mean?

Ass as innate? unless you're buttless (chaps or otherwise), this doesn't parse... missing an extra 'n'.

The name "assassin" is commonly believed to be a mutation of the Arabic "haššāšīn" (حشّاشين, "hashish-eaters")

There is also an alleged Hassan-i-Sabbah connection. Hi Hassan!

This post brought to you by the letter S and the number 4 Billion

[patrickatm08]

There's a story in the Bible somewhere about this (disclaimer: I, personally, am an athiest, but there are some good stories about morality in the New Testament) but I can't remember the exact details - perhaps someone who knows the bible better can fill that one in for me?

I believe the story you're talking about is when a poor woman gives a small amount of money to the temple and is laughed at by the 'higher ranking' members of the temple. Jesus says that this woman has given all that she can and that is more than enough. I couldn't find the referrence or anything on this, but I'm pretty sure that's what he's talking about. Also, the Bible says to give so secretly that your left hand doesn't know what your right hand is doing. Now that is sneaky.

How useful is money after the first 10 billion? I've heard that if you had a billion dollars and spent a hundred thousand dollars everyday for the rest of your life, you couldn't spend it all. I'm not trying to knock on Gates, because he does give up some of his money. I think charities should be given by personal donors and not handed out by the government, but that's another thread for another time. However, I think that if you aren't giving when you make $50 grand a year, you won't be giving if you make $50 million a year. There's my two cents.

[scratt]

Well this is better than a Grammer Police attack I suppose..

Originally Posted by curiousuburb And what the hell does "assasinate" mean?

Reference to how assinine the article was..

Originally Posted by curiousuburb The name "assassin" is commonly believed to be a mutation of the Arabic "haššāšīn" (حشّاشين, "hashish-eaters") There is also an alleged Hassan-i-Sabbah connection. Hi Hassan!

One of my personal favorite anecdotes actually.
Did you know that the word 'Hash' etc. has roots in this too?
EDIT : I guess you did from the link..

You should read up about "The Old Man of the Mountain".
Very 'enlightening' chap.

:smokey:

[Banana]

I looked at the article and have to say couple things;

I'm generally suspicious toward the assumptions that wealthy people give more money; my take is that they usually do it to get tax breaks and in end, *make* more money than if they had kept all money.

The real litmus test, IMHO, would be to give all money away and only had enough money to hold a decent home (read: an average home worth less than 250k, depending on market), keep refridgator stocked, and no more. Another test would be whether they would keep giving if they weren't making millions, which in that case is usually impossible.

The author also fails to address how much % wealthy people donate. While no one can hope to top Bill's multi-million donation, Bill does so with smaller percentage of his cut compared to an average Joe's cut. Bryson, were you thinking of Widows' mite story?

So to me, most of wealth people donate money out of comfort of their one mile long mansion with gold gilded road, 1,000 servants, and a fleet of sports car that they never drive.

I also have to agree with Scratt about the article being simply an attack, as the author admitted to have no clue whether Steve actually donate money anonymously and that he doesn't want publicity. The author concluded that since most wealthy people donate publicly, Steven must be wrong. Argumentum ad poplum.

[curiousuburb]

Originally Posted by scratt Well this is better than a Grammer Police attack I suppose..

The Spelling Police are off on maneuvers, apparently.

And I think I first heard the origin of "Hashshishin" 20+ years ago in the Colin Wilson Book "A Criminal History of Mankind"

[BuonRotto]

Jobs has given away a ton of computers and equipment to schools in the past, he mentioned something about this in an old interview. I assume he does the same now. He probably doesn't give away as much as Gates though. In any case, Jobs AFAIK does still give away stuff, just that he doesn't have a foundation and PR firm to help.

[Banana]

Originally Posted by patrickatm08 However, I think that if you aren't giving when you make $50 grand a year, you won't be giving if you make $50 million a year. There's my two cents.

I just want to expand on that gem. That's exactly why I usually say "whoopee!" whenever I hear of millionaires giving money because it's usually for tax breaks, not because they had a change of heart.

[CoolToddHunter]

Originally Posted by patrickatm08 I believe the story you're talking about is when a poor woman gives a small amount of money to the temple and is laughed at by the 'higher ranking' members of the temple. Jesus says that this woman has given all that she can and that is more than enough. I couldn't find the referrence or anything on this, but I'm pretty sure that's what he's talking about. Also, the Bible says to give so secretly that your left hand doesn't know what your right hand is doing. Now that is sneaky.

Close enough. Useful search terms would be "widow's mites"

[Jason]

That article is utter trash. Maybe Jobs gives money away...maybe he doesn't.

Does it really matter?

[miniuser]

First off it's nice that jobs or gates donate to charity. BUT it's a totally different thing when they donate then when we donate. The actually make money when they donate. It's all for tax purposes. They can give as much as they want, weather it's cash, stock, bonds computers, free software, whatever, but in the end they'll get back everything they donated, PLUS more. They make money on their 'donation'.

[RyanPaige]

The author's bigger issue seems to be that Jobs doesn't use his celebrity and wealth for the "betterment of mankind" or to bring awareness to causes or whatnot. He's a cancer survivor and a relatively well-known celebrity, so he can bring attention to cancer research and whatnot (because cancer is apparently a very well-kept secret that needs many more celebrities bringing attention to it).

[ghoti]

Let's not mix up different things here. Jobs has done a lot of great things in the world of computers, but that doesn't make him a saint. And while I'm no big fan of MS either, Bill and Melinda Gates are spending a lot of money on good causes, and are having an effect in areas which simply are more important than the loss of productivity from having to install a service pack.

There is no doubt that the super-rich use donations to get tax cuts, but that's what those rules are for. They're there so that people with a lot of money have a good reason to spend it on some good causes, rather than buy another lear jet.

Having said that, there is a recent study that says that the rich actually give less than "normal" people, in percent of their income/wealth.

And now that Jobs is no longer just the boss of an obscure computer company, but a major player in several industries, these kinds of things will be under much more public scrutiny.

[SledgeHammer]

Yeah. I have to scoff at some of the "giving" that goes on among the wealthy. My wife was watching some show on the fashions at the Golden Globes and the people made a big deal about the fact that some associated organization gave $250,000 to charity. $250,000 dollars is great, but what they didn't say in the same sentence (or at all) is that the gift basket that every nominee got was worth around $60,000. Hmm? We could spend the money on giving food and clothes to people who don't have any food or clothes or we could use it to give sparkly things to people who have very expensive clothes that cover less than they don't and very expensive food that they throw up after they eat it. Sigh...

[BuonRotto]

Ack. My alma mater no less.

Gates Hall coming to Cornell

[thegelding]

gates went through the same stuff a few years ago...was the richest man in the world (probably still is) and basically gave nothing to charity...that all changed just recently with him giving a bit, then more and just these last couple of years going all out...

good for him

though i agree that most rich people do it for the tax breaks...me? i just pay my taxes and smile...somebody has to pay for food stamps and other social programs that the weathly hate and it ain't gonna be the rich...so thank god for the middle class

g

[BlueRabbit]

Originally Posted by BuonRotto Ack. My alma mater no less. Gates Hall coming to Cornell

Hey, you should take a look at the University of Washington. We've got the William H. Gates Law School building, Mary Gates Hall, the Paul Allen CS building, and a library named after Paul Allen's dad (granted, he used to work here).

[Legodude522]

Well umm, "Big" Steve only makes a $1 a year.

Also, there is more to the Gates' generous charitable donations, they are helping out countries such as India where they want a strong foot hold for Microsoft. More credit goes to Melinda, money from Gates.

[scratt]

Originally Posted by Legodude522 Well umm, "Big" Steve only makes a $1 a year. Also, there is more to the Gates' generous charitable donations, they are helping out countries such as India where they want a strong foot hold for Microsoft. More credit goes to Melinda, money from Gates.

Both good points actually!

I saw an interview with the CEO of Glaxo last night.. Now he's a pursuasive chap, and I can see why he gets paid what he does.. Heck I am not at all supportive of experiments on animals, but he had me seeing his point of view by the end of a short chat about that aspect of their business..

Unfotunately he then went on to talk about The Gate's Foundation and how they partner with that and call on that to help them in Africa..

This is the same company that was sueing desperatly poor African companies producing the AIDs treatment that Glaxo designed, for copyright infringement. That was the only way those people could get tht drug because Glaxo would not reduce the cost... Now Glaxo is pouring the drugs in at less than cost to Africa, after appologising for putting money and legal battles before an epedemic that kills millions... That was the order of events, and don't let any PR firm tell you otherwise..

So the new face of Glaxo eh? Interesting, and then you hear them talking about giving away their new Bird Flu Vaccine for *free* to everyone, to stop a Global Pandemic.

Both 'gifts' are great gestures, as are Gates' gestures.. However, they both come from companies that want footholds in new territories, and have great ambassadors and products to get them preferential treatment.
On the flip side they are also corpoations that have been guilty of almost criminal corporate behaviour in the past, and are now heralded as saviours of the world! And they are all still making so much money they don't know what the heck to do with it all...

Hmmm... My money is still with Steve and his private donations, and his $1 salary every year!

[Wrao]

I think it's more or less irrelevant whether or not steve gives tons of cash to charities anonymously. The article is trash regardless. I think that this just shows that, now jobs and apple have become pretty popular and are in the news fairly regularly, people will come out of the woodwork to try and undermine that popularity.

Also, didn't jobs stop doing the $1 salary thing?

[chucker]

Yahoo says Jobs's pay and exercised are still $0.

[Edna Crabtree]

Donating money to charity, organizations, universities, hospitals et al. should always be as 'anonymous.' All else is self-serving ego-tripping.

[bostongeek]

Originally Posted by Edna Crabtree Donating money to charity, organizations, universities, hospitals et al. should always be as 'anonymous.' All else is self-serving ego-tripping.

Actually, I think public giving can be good as it pressures others in the public eye to give as well. Lets face it, not all those with money would give to charity without a little pressure put on them. Gates has the ability to place pressure on people and politicians worldwide.

I just think its hilarious that Gates would get criticized for his charity work, even if this is an apple board.

As far as my opinion on the article, I could care less what kind of person Steve Jobs is. When I buy a PowerBook or an iMac, it doesn't include a dinner with Steve. If he is a major a-hole, it doesn't matter to me. If he us a self-absorbed, greedy billiionaire who is more interested in buying a new Mercedes than helping those less fortunate, I could again, care less. I buy the computer for what it is, not for who makes it.

[dfiler]

Damned this article! It has steered arguments in all the wrong direction.

Gates should be commended for his charitable acts no matter how unscrupulous his other business endevours are. Are there tax incentives for him to donate? Certainly, but nobody knows the nature of these. Also, nobody knows if he'd still donate without the tax incentives.

Jobs probably gives to charity but we don't really know for sure and if so, how much.

I'm not sure why the two topics would be in the same article other than to rile the masses. Basically, the article was bait for mudslinging.

What's next?
Mother Teresa Vs. Gandhi - Who produced the better operating system?