[Partial]

Steve Jobs should really donate some of his riches and better the world. I do not like the fact that as the highest paid CEO in the world he donates such a small fraction of his total income.

It's kind of funny how Bill Gates is looked at as the anti-christ around here and yet he has done infinitely more to better the world that Jobs.

This all stems from this article.

Until recently, Bill Gates has been viewed as the villain of the tech world, while his archrival, Steve Jobs, enjoys an almost saintly reputation. Gates is the cutthroat capitalist. A genius maybe, but one more interested in maximizing profits than perfecting technology. He's the ultimate vengeful nerd. Ostracized at school, he gets the last laugh by bleeding us all dry. On the other hand, Jobs has never seemed much concerned with business, though he's been very successful at it of late. Instead, Jobs has been portrayed as a man of art and culture. He's an aesthete, an artist; driven to make a dent in the universe. But these perceptions are wrong. In fact, the reality is reversed. It's Gates who's making a dent in the universe, and Jobs who's taking on the role of single-minded capitalist, seemingly oblivious to the broader needs of society. Gates is giving away his fortune with the same gusto he spent acquiring it, throwing billions of dollars at solving global health problems. He has also spoken out on major policy issues, for example, by opposing proposals to cut back the inheritance tax. In contrast, Jobs does not appear on any charitable contribution lists of note. And Jobs has said nary a word on behalf of important social issues, reserving his talents of persuasion for selling Apple products. According to Forbes, Jobs was recently worth $3.3 billion which puts him among the 194th richest in the world, and makes him the 67th richest American. But the standings were shuffled on Tuesday with Disney's $7.4 billion acquisition of Pixar Animation -- a deal that makes Jobs' Pixar holdings alone worth some $3.7 billion. But great wealth does not make a great man. Giving USA Foundation, a philanthropy research group which publishes an annual charity survey, said Jobs does not appear on lists of gifts of $5 million or more over the last four years. Nor is his name on a list of gifts of $1 million or more compiled by Indiana University's Center on Philanthropy. Jobs' wife is also absent from these philanthropic lists, although she has made dozens of political donations totaling tens of thousands of dollars to the Democrats, according to the Open Secrets database. Of course, Jobs and his wife may be giving enormous sums of money to charity anonymously. If they are funneling cash to various causes in private, their names wouldn't show up on any lists, regardless of the size of their gifts. For a person as private as Jobs, who shuns any publicity about his family life, this seems credible. If so, however, this would make Jobs virtually unique among moguls. Richard Jolly, chairman of Giving USA Foundation, said not all billionaires give their money away, but a lot do, and most do not do it quietly. "We see it over and over again," he said. "Very wealthy individuals do support the organizations and institutions they believe in." That's certainly true of Gates, who not only gives vast sums away, but also speaks up in support of the organizations and institutions he believes in. This is not the case for Jobs. To the best of my knowledge, in the last decade or more, Jobs has not spoken up on any social or political issue he believes in -- with the exception of admitting he's a big Bob Dylan fan. Rather, he uses social issues to support his own selfish business goals. In the Think Different campaign, Jobs used cultural figures he admired to sell computers -- figures who stuck their necks out to fight racism, poverty, inequality or war. Jobs once offered to be an advisor to Sen. John Kerry during the 2004 presidential election, and he invited President Clinton over for dinner when Bubba visited Silicon Valley in 1996 -- hardly evidence of deep political convictions. Jobs can't even get behind causes that would seem to carry deep personal meaning, let alone lasting social importance. Like Lance Armstrong, he is a cancer survivor. But unlike Armstrong, Jobs has so far done little publicly to raise money or awareness for the disease. Given Jobs' social detachment, I'm confused by the adulation he enjoys. Yes, he has great charisma and his presentations are good theater. But his absence from public discourse makes him a cipher. People project their values onto him, and he skates away from the responsibilities that come with great wealth and power. On the evidence, he's nothing more than a greedy capitalist who's amassed an obscene fortune. It's shameful. In almost every way, Gates is much more deserving of Jobs' rock star exaltation. In the same way, I admire Bono over Mick Jagger, and John Lennon over Elvis, because they spoke up about things bigger than their own celebrity. It's time for Jobs to do the same.

[scratt]

For a person as private as Jobs, who shuns any publicity about his family life, this seems credible.

I think they hit the nail on the head there.. You may also find that Job's idea of whats a good charitable cause is a lot different from the mainstream. And that in itself is not a bad thing either. Perhaps he chooses not to give people like us, and the author of that article the opportunity to discuss it. If so, I can understand why.

I very much enjoyed the D inteview with Steve and Bill, and agree to a certain extent that we all live in a world with a warped view of the reality of the interplay between Steve and Bill. And we only have ourselves to blame for that.

They have always been friends, as well as rivals, and both have very very different approaches to life. After watching the full D interview.. On the surface Bill actually very obviously comes accross as a much nicer guy than Steve. Bill Gates is more self effacing, and when given the same opportunity Steve visibly struggles to be as magnanimous as Bill is at times. However, having said that I know who I would rather work for / with, and who I would rather spend some time chatting with, or have as a friend, and would most likely agree with their world view more often...

[Brad]

Originally Posted by tensdanny38 It's kind of funny how Bill Gates is looked at as the anti-christ around here

Quite to the contrary, I believe you'd find that a lot of people here have respect for Gates.

[Robo]

And this is our business...how?

[Luca]

Well, the whole thing seems rather off-topic, and I also believe this has been discussed before. Personally, I like to think that the days of "Gates vs. Jobs" and "Macs vs. PCs" are largely over. There will always be idiots fighting over such inconsequential topics, of course. But I hope that most people have moved on and realized that it's really not that important. Jobs certainly isn't a saint, and Gates is a world-renowned philanthropist. It doesn't have much to do with the Windows and Mac OSes. Nor do I feel it's entirely my business to be judging the ultra-rich based on how much money they give to various causes. I applaud Gates for donating so much of his time and money to worthy causes, and I wish Jobs would do the same, but if he doesn't want to, it's not really my concern. And like the article said, there's always the possibility that he's doing so anonymously.

[AWR]

As silly as it may sound, giving away money isn't as easy at it seems, especially if you want to do so responsibly and see the most benefit from your donation. Giving away that kind of money can be very time-consuming; researching, selecting, benchmarking, monitoring... Perhaps Jobs is waiting until he steps down from his Apple duties to start his philanthropic career. Like Gates and Buffet did.

Edit for fcgriz: I hate Windows and Word on a daily basis. Today for example. They make my work life hell.

Props to BG and his new life; few are trying to do as much to change the world. Literally.

[Paranoid666au]

Maybe we'll see "A more charitable Apple" pop up on the Apple web-site.

[Wyatt]

Originally Posted by Brad Quite to the contrary, I believe you'd find that a lot of people here have respect for Gates.

I have tons of respect for Gates. He does wonderful things outside Microsoft, and I don't have the disdain for Windows that some people do. In fact, I'd bet that most of us don't. We're perceived as hating Windows (and therefore Microsoft and Gates), but most of us just prefer OS X. It's not about hating other things, it's about loving one thing. It's certainly not about hating Bill Gates.

[psmith2.0]

Two things:

1. It's his money and he can do whatever the hell he wants. But considering his background and leanings, I'd be surprised to learn he hasn't been making some sizable "gifts" to some select, heartfelt causes (he seems like the "give to a cause" type, like a lot of NoCal sandals 'n' granola types who became gazillionaires...gotta assuage some of that "oh no, I've gone and made too much money, maannn" guilt ), which leads to...

2. Being the way he is (private and not too keen on making it all about him and his home life or life outside of Apple), we have no idea what goes on, and what he's done, or does.

Fact is, I don't give a rip what people do with their money (well those that have earned it anyway...when I'm helping foot the bill, I'd prefer you put your children and bills first, over cigarettes and lottery tickets; but that's another thread). And Steve Jobs has. Fact is, if he never donated a nickel to the typical charities and causes we normally think of, I don't care. He, and folks like him, have done far more in practical, real-world terms to simplify and enrich our lives.

I look at some of the things he's been involved with or has pushed and made available to the world, and, to me, that's just as meaningful as cutting a six-figure check to some "save the transgendered polar bears with sleep disorders" fund.

Sorry, but that's just true and how I think of it. It's not for me to say what people like him do with their money. Maybe he sees contributing in other ways (see above). Maybe, like me, he's not that fond of the whole idea of simply "throwing money at problems" (does that ever really work, or solve much?). It's his business. I don't want demanding busybodies in my face, telling me what I should do with the money I work for and earn.

I can figure that kind of stuff out totally on my own, and I do.

Same for Jobs and others in his ranks.

Oh, and I don't "hate" Bill Gates at all. But I think his company foists an inordinate amount of glitchy, pull-your-own-hair-out shit onto the world, and since they, to many, are "the only game in town", people in droves settle for such hassle and mediocrity. That such stuff has become "the standard" worldwide concerns me a bit more than whether or not Steve Jobs is giving enough of his money away. Which of those affects more people?

Maybe Gates is so charitable - and speaks out so much about it all - because he's hoping it buys him a break from introducing the Zune and a dozen other things to the world over the years? He's obviously trying to keep himself out of Hell, IMO.



The article itself even says it: Jobs and his wife could be donating obscene amounts to various charities and causes (and they probably are) completely anonymously. Mr. Kahney probably just finds it hard to grasp the idea of a person of Jobs' wealth and standing not being a Donald Trump-like attention whore. Maybe Jobs heart is in the right place, and he seeks no glory or attention for his contributions?

I don't make a big deal or scene out of the things I do in this area. Maybe some of us just prefer to do some things for the right reason, and not make it about ourselves, or seek attention for "charitable acts"? I don't give a rip who knows, and Jobs is most likely the same way. He probably realizes - and is secure enough to know - that he doesn't have to suck all the press and attention out of the Silicon Valley region; he gets enough strictly from his "heading up Apple" gig.

[Wyatt]

Originally Posted by pscates2.0 that's just as meaningful as cutting a six-figure check to some "save the transgendered polar bears with sleep disorders" fund.

Some of us just prefer to do things for the right reason, and not make it about us. I don't give a rip who knows, and Jobs is most likely the same way. He doesn't have to suck all the press and attention out of the area, he gets enough strictly from the "heading up Apple" gig.

Right. It's completely unfair to assume that somebody's not giving away a sizeable portion of their income just because you don't read about it in the paper. The fact that he's not screaming to the press about how generous he is (i.e. Bono) doesn't make him stingy. It just makes him private.

The man doesn't publicize his private life at all. I wish more people lived like that. We live in a society where so many people publish and talk about every single detail of their lives. I think it's kind of nice when somebody doesn't.

[psmith2.0]

Exactly.

We've become so accustomed to the Paris Hilton celebutard "phenomenon", the Oprah/Larry King confessional culture, tabloid TV and print and auto-fellating hucksters like Donald Trump that we find it hard to get our heads around the notion of a "famous" person trying to maybe fly a bit under the radar in their personal life...they've somehow become an oddity, simply for NOT being on TV or Us magazine every other week, causing a scene or making everything a big blow-up about them (hello, Rosie...and Paris, Donald, Britney, etc.).

[chucker]

Originally Posted by tensdanny38 Steve Jobs should really donate some of his riches and better the world. I do not like the fact that as the highest paid CEO in the world he donates such a small fraction of his total income.

I'm disappointed in you: I don't really expect that kind of bullshit here. The number you're referring to is a cumulative look at the growth of his stock options over the years. Not only does this mean that he's never been paid anywhere near as much to begin with (the options weren't worth that much when they were handed out); it also means that what his "pay" is worth today is almost entirely based on his performance, or, more precisely, on how stockholders rate his performance. His actual pay is a dollar a year. That he gets bonuses is all fine and dandy, but it doesn't make him "the highest paid CEO in the world", or even a highly-paid one.

Contrast to, say, Ford's CEO, who gets a high pay no-matter-what, when his company is actually performing abysmally and he rules by the "how many people shall I fire today" system.

Does Jobs deserve to be a billionaire? That question has to do with the flaws of capitalism, not with the flaws of him as a person.

[torifile]

Originally Posted by Brad Quite to the contrary, I believe you'd find that a lot of people here have respect for Gates.

My thoughts exactly. I don't like his company's products but I have no greater respect for any living philanthropist.

[chucker]

I have great admiration for Bill regardless of his foundation. He's simply one of the greatest thinkers of the recent decades.

[mattf]

Originally Posted by fcgriz I have tons of respect for Gates. He does wonderful things outside Microsoft, and I don't have the disdain for Windows that some people do. In fact, I'd bet that most of us don't. We're perceived as hating Windows (and therefore Microsoft and Gates), but most of us just prefer OS X. It's not about hating other things, it's about loving one thing. It's certainly not about hating Bill Gates.

Hear hear!

Ballmer, on the other hand...

[torifile]

Ok, so now can we all get off Gates' cock for long enough to comment on tensdanny's initial post?

[Kickaha]

Originally Posted by chucker I have great admiration for Bill regardless of his foundation. He's simply one of the greatest thinkers of the recent decades.

Sorry, but... wha? The only way you can deduce that is either by his words, or his products. I haven't read anything by him yet that wasn't just warmed over rehashing of predictions and thoughts that others had been pushing for a while, and let's not talk about the products...

Philanthropist, sure, absolutely. But 'great thinker'? Dare I ask what you base that assessment on?

[chucker]

Originally Posted by Kickaha Sorry, but... wha? The only way you can deduce that is either by his words, or his products. I haven't read anything by him yet that wasn't just warmed over rehashing of predictions and thoughts that others had been pushing for a while, and let's not talk about the products... Philanthropist, sure, absolutely. But 'great thinker'? Dare I ask what you base that assessment on?

I knew you'd comment on that. You're too predictable.

[RichieB]

How dare the rich be rich?! All that time they spent on bettering themselves over the good of the society! How dare they have the ability to improve their lot in life?! It is so obscene! Let us all socially redistribute all our wealth so the rich and the poor don't exist anymore. Yes Comrade?

[chucker]

Originally Posted by RichieB How dare the rich be rich?! All that time they spent on bettering themselves over the good of the society! How dare they have the ability to improve their lot in life?! It is so obscene! Let us all socially redistribute all our wealth so the rich and the poor don't exist anymore. Yes Comrade?

Yes, let's turn this into an asinine political discussion full of strawmen, non sequiturs and other logical fallacies. Many rich people do not deserve to be as rich as they are, just as many poor people do not deserve to be as poor as they are. The system has never been fair in any sense of the word. There'll always be those who exploit it, and those who suffer from it. Moreover, the ability to do something useful with one's wealth does not grow proportionally with the wealth. There's a threshold beyond which additional wealth does not enrich one's quality of life in any meaningful way.

[Kickaha]

Originally Posted by chucker I knew you'd comment on that. You're too predictable.

And you're dodging.

Seriously... huh? When I read The Road Ahead, all I could keep thinking was "Yeah, and... ?" It was all highly obvious, and topics that had been well discussed and noodled over for, in some cases, decades in academia and online. And yet he was seen as this incredible visionary? Pfeh.

Do you have something else in mind?

[chucker]

Originally Posted by Kickaha And you're dodging. Seriously... huh? When I read The Road Ahead, all I could keep thinking was "Yeah, and... ?" It was all highly obvious, and topics that had been well discussed and noodled over for, in some cases, decades in academia and online. And yet he was seen as this incredible visionary? Pfeh. Do you have something else in mind?

Neither Bill nor Steve (by extension, neither Microsoft nor Apple, or Microsoft Research / Apple R&D) primarily come up with new ideas. They don't invent. They innovate. There's a huge (and often misunderstood) difference. Their strength is in taking ideas previously not well-implemented (or implemented at all) and finding a great application for them. Multi-touch as a concept is nothing new. Neither in the possibility, nor in the general idea. It's the actual, real-world, useful, affordable implementations that are interesting and impressive. So you can use more than one finger to manipulate objects on screen? Whoop-dee-doo, what's the point. Wait, you can size photos up just by stretching fingers away from each other? Oooooh!

You want an example of where Bill Gates had the right mind? Here's one: Windows. Laugh all you want. When Sculley, Gassée and all the other vision-less suits of Apple's late 80s and early 90s were busy deciding how they can get the most money out of their customers and whether or not the Apple II is still worth anything, Gates had Microsoft focus on how to provide a GUI operating system at an affordable cost, i.e. make it ready for the mass market. Sure, unethical tricks were used. And yes, the result was quite mediocre, and not well-thought through. We don't need to go through all the FUD surrounding Cairo and all the other wouldn't-it-be-great-not-that-it-will-ever-happen lies. But the fact remains that Gates had the right idea at the right time.

(edit) Oh, and meanwhile, the Unix overthinkers were busy with X-Windows, which even today completely misses the point, focusing on what hardly everyone cares to do (a networking-based UI, the ability to choose between a million and one half-baked window managers, etc.) rather than on what's important.

[Kickaha]

Originally Posted by chucker Neither Bill nor Steve (by extension, neither Microsoft nor Apple, or Microsoft Research / Apple R&D) primarily come up with new ideas. They don't invent. They innovate. There's a huge (and often misunderstood) difference. Their strength is in taking ideas previously not well-implemented (or implemented at all) and finding a great application for them. Multi-touch as a concept is nothing new. Neither in the possibility, nor in the general idea. It's the actual, real-world, useful, affordable implementations that are interesting and impressive. So you can use more than one finger to manipulate objects on screen? Whoop-dee-doo, what's the point. Wait, you can size photos up just by stretching fingers away from each other? Oooooh!

Not quite what I had in mind... I wasn't discussing his technical acumen, but this title of 'greatest thinker'. What do you see that justifies calling him that? I mean, I don't even consider him a great thinker in the computer industry, much less the world...

You want an example of where Bill Gates had the right mind? Here's one: Windows. Laugh all you want. When Sculley, Gassée and all the other vision-less suits of Apple's late 80s and early 90s were busy deciding how they can get the most money out of their customers and whether or not the Apple II is still worth anything, Gates had Microsoft focus on how to provide a GUI operating system at an affordable cost, i.e. make it ready for the mass market. Sure, unethical tricks were used. And yes, the result was quite mediocre, and not well-thought through. We don't need to go through all the FUD surrounding Cairo and all the other wouldn't-it-be-great-not-that-it-will-ever-happen lies. But the fact remains that Gates had the right idea at the right time. (edit) Oh, and meanwhile, the Unix overthinkers were busy with X-Windows, which even today completely misses the point, focusing on what hardly everyone cares to do (a networking-based UI, the ability to choose between a million and one half-baked window managers, etc.) rather than on what's important.

Taking inventions and pushing them to market ad hoc is not the sign of a great thinker, but a good businessman.

So again, what unique visionary insights has he had, and expressed, that earn him 'greatest thinker'?

[chucker]

Originally Posted by Kickaha Taking inventions and pushing them to market ad hoc is not the sign of a great thinker, but a good businessman.

Really? These days, being "a good businessman" seems to be all about laying off as many employees as possible, and constantly pointing to how jobs in south east Asia are cheaper anyway.

[Partial]

Originally Posted by chucker I'm disappointed in you: I don't really expect that kind of bullshit here. The number you're referring to is a cumulative look at the growth of his stock options over the years. Not only does this mean that he's never been paid anywhere near as much to begin with (the options weren't worth that much when they were handed out); it also means that what his "pay" is worth today is almost entirely based on his performance, or, more precisely, on how stockholders rate his performance. His actual pay is a dollar a year. That he gets bonuses is all fine and dandy, but it doesn't make him "the highest paid CEO in the world", or even a highly-paid one. Contrast to, say, Ford's CEO, who gets a high pay no-matter-what, when his company is actually performing abysmally and he rules by the "how many people shall I fire today" system. Does Jobs deserve to be a billionaire? That question has to do with the flaws of capitalism, not with the flaws of him as a person.

Touche. You and I both know however, that within literature and in a quest to spark discussion, fudging a fact as I did will often take place and spur discussion.

On this issue I really don't have much of an opinion or care. It's his money and he can do what he wants with it. I just thought the digg topic was extremely interesting since it exploded to the top.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by tensdanny38 Touche. You and I both know however, that within literature and in a quest to spark discussion, fudging a fact as I did will often take place and spur discussion.

That's true. I'm just saddened to see this absurd claim by Forbes represented so often and debunked so rarely.

It's his money and he can do what he wants with it.

I don't in fact fully agree. On a legal level, sure. On a moral level, not so much. However, he keeps on investing his "mental wealth" to create new products, so I'm okay with it. If he were to drink Tequila on Haïti while making more and more mone, I think I'd take issue.

[Enki]

Originally Posted by chucker I have great admiration for Bill regardless of his foundation. He's simply one of the greatest thinkers of the recent decades.

Substitute marketer and businessman/opportunist for thinker and I'll agree. As for thinker , I see him as above average, but not spectacularly so.

[Windowsrookie]

It's his money, he can do whatever he wants with it.

[Kickaha]

Originally Posted by chucker If he were to drink Tequila on Haïti while making more and more mone, I think I'd take issue.

Hey! Don't go dissing my life's goal!

[Kickaha]

Originally Posted by Enki Substitute marketer and businessman/opportunist for thinker and I'll agree. As for thinker , I see him as above average, but not spectacularly so.

Bingo. Succinctly put.