or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Steve Jobs's family has been giving money away anonymously for more than 2 decades
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Steve Jobs's family has been giving money away anonymously for more than 2 decades - Page 2

post #41 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

I understand and appreciate what you say here, but I think you are likely incorrect on this.  You seem to be predicating this on the belief that "leading by example" will shame others into donating but I just don't see that working.  It's my experience that people are either charitable or they are not, that (to use a cliche) "it comes from the heart," and that rarely if ever does someone leave one group and join the other.    

In no way did I state or suggest shame. I thought I clearly implied it would inspire others.

Do you think most that supported Ghandi were inspired or did so out of shame? I'd like to think they believed in what he was doing.


"The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil is that Good Men Do Nothing." ~ Edmund Blackadder

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #42 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

PS: An interesting example is Celebrity Apprentice. Regardless of how you feel about the show, the celebrities, or Donald Trump it's simply amazing how much money that show has raised for charity. From what I've seen none of the proceeds from the tasks to raise money go to the show, but straight to the charities of the winning project manager's choice.

 

Trump loves to donate others' efforts like he has others pay off his bankruptcies. His philanthropic efforts are as ludicrous as his rhetoric on China.This from a man who his clothing line is labelled, "Made in China

 

As published elsewhere, Trump: The Least Charitable Billionaire The Donald is a miser, not an “ardent philanthropist.”

 

He is in a same league by himself, i.e., The Bush League. 

 

P.S., As reported, over the last 2 years "…Trump will personally pocket $65 million per year…."

post #43 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

No it doesn't. No it isn't.

 

Try again.

 

Wow, good comeback.  1rolleyes.gif

 

I'm gonna go with … "Is too!"  

 

You also might want to consider the obvious fact that collectivism is the very basis of society and civilisation, and basically the way the entire universe operates.  Any society that eschews it is basically a society of all men, living in the hills with guns and waiting for the "end times." 

post #44 of 147
Great article. Gives us a view of the other softer side of Steve Jobs and his wife.
post #45 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

You also might want to consider the obvious fact that collectivism is the very basis of society and civilisation, and basically the way the entire universe operates.  Any society that eschews it is basically a society of all men, living in the hills with guns and waiting for the "end times." 

 

You might want to consider that the poster was almost certainly referring to collectivism in the political (socialist/communist/Marxist) sense of that term. I seriously doubt he was using it in the far more generic sense you're thinking.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #46 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

Wow, good comeback.  1rolleyes.gif

 

I'm gonna go with … "Is too!"  

 

Well, when you start with such lame leftist talking points, what do you expect?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #47 of 147
Bravo to the New York Times for finally dredging this up. All the news that's fit to print... and then some more.
post #48 of 147
Don't expect to hear any appologies from those critics who have been viciously savaging Steve for not being charitable. I, unlike some in here, feel that that anonymous giving is an act of true charity and I applaud Steve for that.

True charity comes from the heart and not from a desire for publicity or because your favorite celeb donates to a cause. Charity under those reasons is given with the expectation of some thing in return. True charity is that given with no expectation of anything in return.

Yes, you can shame people into giving but that is just as wrong as ignoring those in need. Just because you believe something is the right thing to do does not make it right to try and force others to support it. If you read your history you will find much of human suffering has happened because of people with the best of intentions.
post #49 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Absolutely! But that makes that aspect of it about their needs and desires if their reason for anonymity is retain a certain level of seclusion. There is nothing wrong with it, as I clearly stated already, and if that anonymity allows for the greater good to be accomplished then so be it, but don't it's foolish to claim that someone held on high in a society giving anonymously would bring in just as much as if they openly donated and encouraged others to follow suit.

Now that some of the donations by the Jobs family and Apple are less anonymous maybe it will encourage giving by others. I certainly agree it can and does have that effect. But I also hope people see the value in not splashing your name or corporate logo on every good deed. The middle class father that donates a weekend to fix a playground or put in a wheelchair ramp doesn't get a lot of credit but does quite a bit of good, but gets just a few atta-boys as reward. Unless you count the personal satisfaction, and I think we should. Just my 2 cents worth here.

P.S. I hope I'm not putting too fine a point on it. Any way that a person wants to help another is good with me. The gates foundation puts their name out there pretty prominantly and I have no complaints and I've never really liked Microsoft. Hell I'll stand up and cheer.
post #50 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

I'm actually against this anonymous donating. I understand their position on it, and respect that, but I think the greater good is for those with celebrity status in society to set an example.

 

Where's a bucket so I can vomit in it. The best way to give is of yourself and your time, not your money. I detest people telling other people what they should do with their money.

Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #51 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post


I disagree. To be cynical, people should donate in what they believe in and not because some celebrity is doing it. Personally I think some celebs do it for attention.

 

Some?

Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #52 of 147
Showing any standpoint in business is a bad idea. If you believe in giving money to AIDs charities then that's fine but there will always be people who take exception and will either be against your choice or would prefer you had helped another charity instead (cancer, heart disease, children).

This exception to your beliefs can cause people to stop buying your product.

For example, Laurene Powell Jobs is now using money made through Apple to help immigration into America. I dare say that's not going down too well with everyone. If I lived in America I'd be pissed that my money was helping that.
post #53 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chandra69 View Post

IT IS SIMPLE TO UNDERSTAND.  JOBS HAD BELIEF IN HINDUISM AND EVERYONE KNOWS HE IS AVID READER OF THE BOOK "AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF A YOGI".  HINDUISM ASKS TO DO ANONYMOUS DONATIONS.  HE PRACTICED ZEN BUDDHISM.  I KNEW THAT THIS NEWS WOULD BE COMING AFTER HE DIES.  IT CAME.

 

How do you know he practiced zen? And what does that have to do with anything.

Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #54 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

The best way to give is of yourself and your time, not your money. I detest people telling other people what they should do with their money.

But instead you want to tell people what to do with themselves and their time?

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #55 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Absolutely! But that makes that aspect of it about their needs and desires if their reason for anonymity is retain a certain level of seclusion. There is nothing wrong with it, as I clearly stated already, and if that anonymity allows for the greater good to be accomplished then so be it, but don't it's foolish to claim that someone held on high in a society giving anonymously would bring in just as much as if they openly donated and encouraged others to follow suit.

So in your view, societal needs take precedence over personal decision making?

OK. Let's start with the following:

1. Society benefits from less pollution and global warming. In the future, society will dictate what car you should buy - and it will be the smallest, most fuel-efficient car available.

2. Society benefits from educating its kids. So in the future, society will insist that you donate 20% of your income to education.

3. For that matter, society benefits when people are fed and clothed. So, in the future, society will allow you to keep just enough money to live on and you must give the rest to people who are struggling.

Sorry, but I don't buy the principle that society should dictate individual actions.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

It would seem to directly argue against almost all civilisation.  A recipe for anarchy if you will.  

 

No it doesn't. No it isn't.

 

Try again.

 

Or, you know, a happy medium between individual freedom and collectivism, which I believe is what our civilization is all about. One side argues for a little more collectivism while the other argues for a little more individual freedom. We need both.

When a company stops chasing profit and start chasing the betterment of their products, services, workforce, and customers, that will be the most valuable company in the world.
Reply
When a company stops chasing profit and start chasing the betterment of their products, services, workforce, and customers, that will be the most valuable company in the world.
Reply
post #56 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

I disagree. To be cynical, people should donate in what they believe in and not because some celebrity is doing it. Personally I think some celebs do it for attention. There are so many charities out there and most, if not all, deserve attention.

This is the general thrust behind the Buddhist teachings against 'public' charity. When you draw attention to what you are doing it becomes about the attention and praise for you, not the act of giving with no reward.


And as Jobs was Buddhist . . .

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #57 of 147
I've given tens of thousands to a variety of charities and causes, and not a single person that knows me is aware of it, nor should they be. I don't judge anyone who publicizes their giving, but personally its not something I like to do. However, the assumption that someone isnt giving because theyre not publicizing it is pretty disgusting to me.
post #58 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

1rolleyes.gif

 

Yes, because so many conservatives are such cold-hearted evil bastards that they would hate Steve and Apple because he donated to things like hospitals (including a children's hospital) and helping people get medical tests and treatment for HIV and AIDS.

 

If the Huffington Post told you that, maybe you need to stop reading it.

You apparently missed the late '80s and '90s when Christian conservatives blamed the millions of people dying of AIDS on their choice of lifestyle and that it was God's will. 

post #59 of 147
Code:
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

But instead you want to tell people what to do with themselves and their time?

Telling people what to do and where to go = O.K.
Suggesting a way super wealthy people should help those less fortunate= You monster!
post #60 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor David View Post

Now that some of the donations by the Jobs family and Apple are less anonymous maybe it will encourage giving by others. I certainly agree it can and does have that effect. But I also hope people see the value in not splashing your name or corporate logo on every good deed. The middle class father that donates a weekend to fix a playground or put in a wheelchair ramp doesn't get a lot of credit but does quite a bit of good, but gets just a few atta-boys as reward. Unless you count the personal satisfaction, and I think we should. Just my 2 cents worth here.

P.S. I hope I'm not putting too fine a point on it. Any way that a person wants to help another is good with me. The gates foundation puts their name out there pretty prominantly and I have no complaints and I've never really liked Microsoft. Hell I'll stand up and cheer.

That's the rub. Those have done it for glory can ruin the cause for others which can create artificial restrictions so they don't erroneously get lumped in with the others. The Gates Foundation is a prime example. That charity has done amazing things but there will always be those that question the sincerity of it or question if he did it because he felt guilty for earlier, less ethical business actions. That later really makes no sense as once can donate anonymously to counter the same personal hurdles. Overall I don't care about Gates reasons because the end result helps others so I'm quite glad that Gates didn't just donate anonymously to existing charities as I think his is doing things others weren't doing or doing as effectively.

Whilst a father who donates a weekend to fix a playground isn't as epic as someone like Gates that donates billions of dollars and works at it daily for years, that doesn't mean the cost to his time or finances are insignificant. There's that old saying, "You can easily judge the character of a man by how he treats those who can do nothing for him." but I think it goes beyond that as you can also look at the cost for that individual to help another, which can go as far as giving your life.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #61 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by NormM View Post

Donating anonymously allowed Jobs to support liberal causes without hurting Apple's sales to conservatives, or making Apple a partisan issue in government.

The issue of Apple donating is more in this bent, as Steve felt he and the Board didn't have the right to make such decisions with what is basically other people's money

But yes there was also this false notion that Steve and Apple were the same so whatever he did, including getting sick, was an Apple thing. Add that the press pushed this notion for page hits and you can see the potential cock up.

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #62 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

You state that he wanted a certain life, which is perfectly reasonable, but it's a choice for his own comfort not the comfort for the recipients of the funds. I have no idea why but it should be crystal clear that anonymity is not be a noble act in and of itself. It's the reasons for it that determine if it falls under the purview of selfish or selfless, noble or ignoble.

1. He had a right to privacy given that he was a human being
2. He was Buddhist and it is against the teachings


To every clear reasons. Don't like them, don't live like that. Tweet, Facebook, buy ads and billboards to announce all your awesome charity work.

But you have no more right to demand that someone 'come out of the closet' and go public with their charity work than you have over their politics, sexuality etc. don't like that, get over it.

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #63 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

1. He had a right to privacy given that he was a human being
2. He was Buddhist and it is against the teachings


To every clear reasons. Don't like them, don't live like that. Tweet, Facebook, buy ads and billboards to announce all your awesome charity work.

But you have no more right to demand that someone 'come out of the closet' and go public with their charity work than you have over their politics, sexuality etc. don't like that, get over it.

Seriously?! Where did I state anything that would lead you to believe that he wasn't allowed to be private or that I demand to know everything he spent money on? I very, very, very clearly and repeatedly stated he has the right to be private, but being private is not in itself altruism. Stop being emotional and start being rational. I can't make my words any more clear.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #64 of 147
I learned a big lesson years ago when I worked with a huge rock star at the very peak of his career. I was approached by a nationally recognized non profit that a young girl stricken with leukemia wanted an autograph photo from my artist. I went 10 steps further and made arrangements to take my artist to the hospital when he was scheduled to play in town. He loved the idea and just before I took him over, I asked if I could make calls to the media to publicize. He said no right away. The reason - KARMA. Even though this was the first time he was presented with donating his time and presence, he made a decision to be anonymous. I admired his decision and as a marketing person, learned a big lesson.
My point is, you have to believe in karma to respect a "public" person's desire to remain behind the headlines of the media.
post #65 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

I'm actually against this anonymous donating.
Well we are 180 degrees apart on this one! I really think it would be best to require anonymous donations, doing the right thing shouldn't be a public spectacle.
Quote:
I understand their position on it, and respect that, but I think the greater good is for those with celebrity status in society to set an example.
We already have to many celebrities trying to sway public opinion to their perverse realities. This often leads to draining of funds that would often go to more worthwhile charities.
Quote:
I believe the greater good would be to donate openly and encourage others follow suit either in money and/or time.
It is one thing to encourage people to donate to charity it is another thing to bias them in selecting a charity. It is far better for people to support things they have a personal interest in than to piss away money on somebody else's pet project.
Quote:
Just by their actions celebrities can get others to react but when you're silent the totality of the effort will be muted.
That is plain old baloney. If you make a donation to build a hospital how can that be muted? Your position here is very strange to say the least. The result of your donation speaks for itself, you don't need to engage in self promotion.
Quote:
Just because you are donating openly or setting up charities it doesn't mean you are looking for accolades.
Maybe in some cases that might be true. But look at it from the standpoint of somebody with a lot of money that wants to avoid the circus mentality that often comes with these public offerings. That and the preference to avoid every Tom, Dick and Harry knocking on your door looking for a hand out.
Quote:
The better move is to not care what others will ultimately think for against your motives and actions.

Well that is certainly true. So if you believe that why object to private donations?
post #66 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by NomadMac View Post

You apparently missed the late '80s and '90s when Christian conservatives blamed the millions of people dying of AIDS on their choice of lifestyle and that it was God's will. 

80s and 90s? Where have you been the last 13 years - that is still going on.

It's also not limited to conservatives. Examples:

- People who refuse to eat at Chick Fil-A because of their views
- People who picket funerals of fallen soldiers saying it's God's punishment for homosexuality
There are plenty more examples on both sides. That's why so many people choose not to discuss any political matters in a business context.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #67 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

I really think it would be best to require anonymous donations, doing the right thing shouldn't be a public spectacle.

We already have to many celebrities trying to sway public opinion to their perverse realities.

That's the problem I have with this concept that anonymity is in itself noble. If you are truly aren't thinking of yourself when you give then you won't care how others perceive you for giving, This don't preclude giving anonymously but it doesn't mean that the only reasonable or good method for giving should be anonymous.

Your comments very clearly indicate that you think that any celebrities who are recognized for their donations are doing it for perverse reasons. Since this donation by Jobs of $50 million to Stanford is no longer anonymous does that mean it's now perverse? How did this leak? Did their accountant tell the press? Who else would have known if it was truly anonymous? Your comments open all this up because who's to say it wasn't done under the guise of anonymity so it could be leaked at a later time. In no way do I think that's the case here, but since you think celebrities have perverse realities you can't ignore this tactic as a possibility.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #68 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post


This is the general thrust behind the Buddhist teachings against 'public' charity. When you draw attention to what you are doing it becomes about the attention and praise for you, not the act of giving with no reward.


And as Jobs was Buddhist . . .

 

I don't offer this in order to appear an expert, but I'm Buddhist. The reasons for not publicly giving are fairly obvious, it creates a spectacle and promotes ego. Better to give $1 in private than millions publicly.

 

And to the posters above saying Apple is more important than charity work, that's just sad. Not to judge but your priorities are quite skewed. All the tech innovations in history aren't equal to helping one single person in need. I love tech, wouldn't be here on this forum otherwise, but all of these things are material. You can't put a price on helping someone out through charity work.

post #69 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by allenbf View Post

Better to give $1 in private than millions publicly.

I think you could say it's more humble to give $1 in private than to give $1 million for the sake of publicity, but surely you can't say that $1 privately donated to a charity will help as much as $1 million donated to that same charity.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #70 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by allenbf View Post

 

And to the posters above saying Apple is more important than charity work, that's just sad. Not to judge but your priorities are quite skewed. All the tech innovations in history aren't equal to helping one single person in need. I love tech, wouldn't be here on this forum otherwise, but all of these things are material. You can't put a price on helping someone out through charity work.

That's not true. Without technology advances we would all still be stuck in the caves and dying at age 20 and lots of horrible diseases. "All the technology innovations in history" help a lot.

post #71 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

Some?

I'm not that cynical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NomadMac View Post

You apparently missed the late '80s and '90s when Christian conservatives blamed the millions of people dying of AIDS on their choice of lifestyle and that it was God's will. 

So because a small group does it, we can blame the entire group of people? Isn't that stereotyping and we know ALL generalization is wrong.
post #72 of 147
A quick funny 'anonymous' story. Derek Jeter was photographed coming out of a Starbucks in Greenwich Village with the name Philip written on it. C'mon man we know who you are. lol.gif
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #73 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

That's not true. Without technology advances we would all still be stuck in the caves and dying at age 20 and lots of horrible diseases. "All the technology innovations in history" help a lot.

The sad truth is that tragedy is also a strengthener of man, both individual and societal.

"That which does not kill us makes us stronger." ~ Carrot Top
"And why do we fall, Bruce? So we can learn to pick ourselves up." ~ Thomas the Train

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #74 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


80s and 90s? Where have you been the last 13 years - that is still going on.

It's also not limited to conservatives. Examples:

- People who refuse to eat at Chick Fil-A because of their views
- People who picket funerals of fallen soldiers saying it's God's punishment for homosexuality
There are plenty more examples on both sides. That's why so many people choose not to discuss any political matters in a business context.

I was specifically countering the original poster's statement that helping those with AIDS was NOT controversial and I was pointing out that it can be. 

 

I also left out any reference to gays because those afflicted were a broader scope than that, i.e., IV drug users, non-monogamous, sex before marriage, etc. 

 

The examples you cite, are not charities and I don't see the relevance specifically to charitable giving and why one would choose to keep one's donations private.

post #75 of 147
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post
"That which does not kill us makes us stronger." ~ Carrot Top
"And why do we fall, Bruce? So we can learn to pick ourselves up." ~ Thomas the Train

 

post #76 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


The sad truth is that tragedy is also a strengthener of man, both individual and societal.

"That which does not kill us makes us stronger." ~ Carrot Top
"And why do we fall, Bruce? So we can learn to pick ourselves up." ~ Thomas the Train

I think that learning what does *and doesn't* work does indeed strengthen mankind. But when I hear the word "tragedy" I think of some random event (like a natural disaster) not really caused by anything we did or didn't do, but just an out of the blue thing. And you don't really learn anything or get strengthened by that, you just pick yourself up because that's life, and you've got no choice.

post #77 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


I like the one with Picard labeled as Gandalf with "Harry, May the force be with you" better.
post #78 of 147
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post
I like the one with Picard labeled as Gandalf with "Harry, May the force be with you" better.

 

I'll agree to that. It's a cleaner representation of the whole thing.

post #79 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post


I'm not that cynical.
So because a small group does it, we can blame the entire group of people? Isn't that stereotyping and we know ALL generalization is wrong.

When the small group are the leaders of the larger group, you have a perception problem.

 

My remembrance of that time, is when the film critic for KGO-TV came out of the closet and admitted that he was dying of AIDS. He expected to be condemned and vilified by Christians. He was not. He was greeted with love and support in his last days and he was happy to report that.

post #80 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

1rolleyes.gif

 

Yes, because so many conservatives are such cold-hearted evil bastards that they would hate Steve and Apple because he donated to things like hospitals (including a children's hospital) and helping people get medical tests and treatment for HIV and AIDS.

 

If the Huffington Post told you that, maybe you need to stop reading it.

What if he wanted to support Planned Parenthood or Gun Control. There could easily be a backlash from conservatives over those types of donations.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Steve Jobs's family has been giving money away anonymously for more than 2 decades