Personally I think Jobs didn't like the idea of charity....ie simply giving away something valuable without it being earned. It simply went against his world view. I think he was absolutely fine with helping people, but was uncomfortable with the conventional idea of simply giving away money. I think he much rather would have created new companies and products that would help people help themselves, rather than just handing over money, which probably seemed crass to him and non-renewable. I think he had far more faith in capitalism to do good than conventional charity.
His wife is deeply involved in charities. That's how she chooses to spend her time. She could be riding horses and playing golf all day long, but that's not where her priorities lie. Do you really think he would have married such a person if he didn't have strong interest in that himself?
Note that Steve gave generously (yet discreetly) to the Woodside schools until the town starting dicking him about the demolition permit for the Jackling Estate.
The family's activities on Halloween are also indicative of the generous, yet low key and highly local nature of the Jobses.
Personally I think Jobs didn't like the idea of charity....ie simply giving away something valuable without it being earned. It simply went against his world view. I think he was absolutely fine with helping people, but was uncomfortable with the conventional idea of simply giving away money. I think he much rather would have created new companies and products that would help people help themselves, rather than just handing over money, which probably seemed crass to him and non-renewable. I think he had far more faith in capitalism to do good than conventional charity.
So do I. Giving money away like Gates and Buffet do is not the best use of that money. It creates short-term benefits but not long-term, sustainable ones. And while it does benefit some needy people, it also benefits the slick do-nothing types that often run and work for philanthropic organizations, which is an ugly side effect.
Steve died young. For the last few years of his life, he was focused on Apple and battling his cancer. If he had lived longer, he might have brought a lot of creativity to acts of philanthropy. We will never know. We do know that he never much cared for money for its own sake.
I do disagree with you about Gates. I think that what Gates has done with his foundation is remarkable. Capitalism cannot take care of some very important human problems in health and education. Gates has taken upon himself to attack such problems around the world. Like eradicating malaria. Benefits in such cases are long-term and sustainable.
Has any of you ever donated for charity? It's not important if people know that you donated or not, what's important is that you donated. Bill Gates has donated a large amount of his fortune, anyone who thinks that's for publicity is a total idiot. Try to do the same. SJ could have donated much more. Saying that he donated anonymously and that it's true charity he did is just big bullshit. He didn't want to shared as much as others, everybody knows that.
Jobs is meritocracy incarnate. That's why he never hooked up his third partner, Ron Wayne.
Why would he? He bailed on him and Woz. Tough.
Remember watching the video of Jobs as the Cuprtino City Council meeting in which he introduced the new Apple HQ? Remember one of the councilmembers asking for free Wi-FI? Jobs' response was something to the effect of, "I'm a simple man. We pay taxes. The city should be providing that service if that's what it wants to do."
Pretty straightforward, really.
Still: His stance on philanthropy is dickish. I see his point, but he's still a dick.
1) You know him so well personally (I would bet you've never met him)
2) Absent proof of him giving to charity, you just assume he didn't.
The truth is that until very recently (last 20 years or so) , and absent a few outliers like Carnegie, it was standard operating procedure for corporations and rich people to donate anonymously. It's only recently that we have them insisting on getting advertising for their efforts or naming the stadium after them etc. If you have to crow about it, it isn't charity at all. It's you making a big deal about what a charitable person you are.
And this is all because class envy and class warfare have become the cause du jour. The rich really have no right to their wealth. It is assumed they attained their wealth on the backs of the proletariat so it's only fair that it be redistributed back to said proletariat. Just ask any of the Occupy Wallstreet crowd and they'll set you straight. Gates took a lot of heat before he created his foundation if you remember.
Jobs is meritocracy incarnate. That's why he never hooked up his third partner, Ron Wayne.
Why would he? He bailed on him and Woz. Tough.
Ron Wayne left on his own a few short months after creating the corporation. He has publicly admitted it without regret or anger.
Woz left Apple on his own in 1987, again on his own volition. This was two years after Jobs was ousted from Apple. Jobs had nothing to do with Woz's departure.
Isaacson, IMO, is deluding himself that Jobs opened out on all other topics. The gaps and mistakes in the book suggest that either Isaacson did not really understand his subject, or Jobs held back on much.
I'm sure it's a case of both. Even by Isaacson's own admission, he only interviewed Jobs a few times. How much could he have gotten from a few hours with a man with such a rich and colorful life?
Isaacson is dining out on his bio on Jobs. But it's not the gem that he thinks it is.
And this comes from an AI global moderator no less. Someone with the power to ban you if he so chooses. So watch out!
Wow, you people certainly have absolutely no idea what the sarcasm punctuation is, do you?
I mean, honestly, given your preoccupation with calling me out as a moderator, one would think you'd take the time to THINK before posting this stuff and say to yourself, "Now, wait a minute here, he's a moderator… would he really be saying this? Say, now, what's that backwards question mark of his? That's weird…"
Why should I have to explain this? I posted that mocking the people who truly believe that about Steve when they know nothing about him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi
Great business man, horrible person.
Like the people who say this without sarcasm, for example.
So do I. Giving money away like Gates and Buffet do is not the best use of that money. It creates short-term benefits but not long-term, sustainable ones. And while it does benefit some needy people, it also benefits the slick do-nothing types that often run and work for philanthropic organizations, which is an ugly side effect.
You have so much to learn if you believe eradicating deadly and debilitating diseases, supporting research in science, education and socioeconomics, and building schools and infrastructure in underdeveloped regions have short term benefits. Without knowing you, I'm quite certain this is the most mistaken statement of your entire life.
Ron Wayne left on his own a few short months after creating the corporation. He has publicly admitted it without regret or anger.
Woz left Apple on his own in 1987, again on his own volition. This was two years after Jobs was ousted from Apple. Jobs had nothing to do with Woz's departure.
Let's not forget Woz's accident. I believe it changed me intellectually (i.e. not the same engineer anymore) and philosophically.
It's his money, he earned it. He took calculated risks which no others were willing or able to take.
It was up to him what he did with his money. Only jealous or envious people care to pass judgement.
I'm surprised by how many people buy into this idea. "It's my money, I earned it." It's pretty sad when people are so ungrateful of what they've been given by the society (and God if you believe that) in order to be able to "earn it". Health, rule of law, free mkt (not free to maintain), everyone around you baring some form of costs when you compete with them, luck, relationships, etc. Nothing is "fully earned" by yourself without the above.
Comments
Personally I think Jobs didn't like the idea of charity....ie simply giving away something valuable without it being earned. It simply went against his world view. I think he was absolutely fine with helping people, but was uncomfortable with the conventional idea of simply giving away money. I think he much rather would have created new companies and products that would help people help themselves, rather than just handing over money, which probably seemed crass to him and non-renewable. I think he had far more faith in capitalism to do good than conventional charity.
His wife is deeply involved in charities. That's how she chooses to spend her time. She could be riding horses and playing golf all day long, but that's not where her priorities lie. Do you really think he would have married such a person if he didn't have strong interest in that himself?
Note that Steve gave generously (yet discreetly) to the Woodside schools until the town starting dicking him about the demolition permit for the Jackling Estate.
The family's activities on Halloween are also indicative of the generous, yet low key and highly local nature of the Jobses.
Personally I think Jobs didn't like the idea of charity....ie simply giving away something valuable without it being earned. It simply went against his world view. I think he was absolutely fine with helping people, but was uncomfortable with the conventional idea of simply giving away money. I think he much rather would have created new companies and products that would help people help themselves, rather than just handing over money, which probably seemed crass to him and non-renewable. I think he had far more faith in capitalism to do good than conventional charity.
So do I. Giving money away like Gates and Buffet do is not the best use of that money. It creates short-term benefits but not long-term, sustainable ones. And while it does benefit some needy people, it also benefits the slick do-nothing types that often run and work for philanthropic organizations, which is an ugly side effect.
Steve died young. For the last few years of his life, he was focused on Apple and battling his cancer. If he had lived longer, he might have brought a lot of creativity to acts of philanthropy. We will never know. We do know that he never much cared for money for its own sake.
I do disagree with you about Gates. I think that what Gates has done with his foundation is remarkable. Capitalism cannot take care of some very important human problems in health and education. Gates has taken upon himself to attack such problems around the world. Like eradicating malaria. Benefits in such cases are long-term and sustainable.
http://marquee.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12...ed-steve-jobs/
Why would he? He bailed on him and Woz. Tough.
Remember watching the video of Jobs as the Cuprtino City Council meeting in which he introduced the new Apple HQ? Remember one of the councilmembers asking for free Wi-FI? Jobs' response was something to the effect of, "I'm a simple man. We pay taxes. The city should be providing that service if that's what it wants to do."
Pretty straightforward, really.
Still: His stance on philanthropy is dickish. I see his point, but he's still a dick.
.....
So do I. Giving money away like Gates and Buffet do is not the best use of that money.....
Please read this and tell us how the money could have better spent to solve these problems.
http://www.gatesfoundation.org/Pages/home.aspx
BTW have you volunteered your services to Bill etc so you can tell him how to do it better?
Great business man, horrible person.
Right, because:
1) You know him so well personally (I would bet you've never met him)
2) Absent proof of him giving to charity, you just assume he didn't.
The truth is that until very recently (last 20 years or so) , and absent a few outliers like Carnegie, it was standard operating procedure for corporations and rich people to donate anonymously. It's only recently that we have them insisting on getting advertising for their efforts or naming the stadium after them etc. If you have to crow about it, it isn't charity at all. It's you making a big deal about what a charitable person you are.
And this is all because class envy and class warfare have become the cause du jour. The rich really have no right to their wealth. It is assumed they attained their wealth on the backs of the proletariat so it's only fair that it be redistributed back to said proletariat. Just ask any of the Occupy Wallstreet crowd and they'll set you straight. Gates took a lot of heat before he created his foundation if you remember.
Jobs is meritocracy incarnate. That's why he never hooked up his third partner, Ron Wayne.
Why would he? He bailed on him and Woz. Tough.
Ron Wayne left on his own a few short months after creating the corporation. He has publicly admitted it without regret or anger.
Woz left Apple on his own in 1987, again on his own volition. This was two years after Jobs was ousted from Apple. Jobs had nothing to do with Woz's departure.
I'm sure it's a case of both. Even by Isaacson's own admission, he only interviewed Jobs a few times. How much could he have gotten from a few hours with a man with such a rich and colorful life?
Isaacson is dining out on his bio on Jobs. But it's not the gem that he thinks it is.
Further proof that someone is, in any case.
What a stupid comment
And this comes from an AI global moderator no less. Someone with the power to ban you if he so chooses. So watch out!
Wow, you people certainly have absolutely no idea what the sarcasm punctuation is, do you?
I mean, honestly, given your preoccupation with calling me out as a moderator, one would think you'd take the time to THINK before posting this stuff and say to yourself, "Now, wait a minute here, he's a moderator… would he really be saying this? Say, now, what's that backwards question mark of his? That's weird…"
Why should I have to explain this? I posted that mocking the people who truly believe that about Steve when they know nothing about him.
Great business man, horrible person.
Like the people who say this without sarcasm, for example.
One error in this post is that Burrell Smith was Burrell Smith, not Burl Smith.
So do I. Giving money away like Gates and Buffet do is not the best use of that money. It creates short-term benefits but not long-term, sustainable ones. And while it does benefit some needy people, it also benefits the slick do-nothing types that often run and work for philanthropic organizations, which is an ugly side effect.
You have so much to learn if you believe eradicating deadly and debilitating diseases, supporting research in science, education and socioeconomics, and building schools and infrastructure in underdeveloped regions have short term benefits. Without knowing you, I'm quite certain this is the most mistaken statement of your entire life.
"One error in the book is that Burl Smith is a hardware engineer, not a software engineer."
One error in this post is that Burrell Smith was Burrell Smith, not Burl Smith.
But what about good old Burl? HW or SW guy?
But what about good old Burl? HW or SW guy?
I think he was the poet laureate.
His wife is deeply involved in charities.
Involved, yes. Deeply? That's relative. Generally speaking, I would say she is not deeply involved. At least, not deeply.
I think he was the poet laureate.
Ahhh, software then
Great business man, horrible person.
This is the message that I got out of the book too...
Ron Wayne left on his own a few short months after creating the corporation. He has publicly admitted it without regret or anger.
Woz left Apple on his own in 1987, again on his own volition. This was two years after Jobs was ousted from Apple. Jobs had nothing to do with Woz's departure.
Let's not forget Woz's accident. I believe it changed me intellectually (i.e. not the same engineer anymore) and philosophically.
Ahhh, software then
Right, and a little marketing.
What he said.
It's his money, he earned it. He took calculated risks which no others were willing or able to take.
It was up to him what he did with his money. Only jealous or envious people care to pass judgement.
I'm surprised by how many people buy into this idea. "It's my money, I earned it." It's pretty sad when people are so ungrateful of what they've been given by the society (and God if you believe that) in order to be able to "earn it". Health, rule of law, free mkt (not free to maintain), everyone around you baring some form of costs when you compete with them, luck, relationships, etc. Nothing is "fully earned" by yourself without the above.