This is the message that I got out of the book too...
I respect what Bill Gates has done since he left Microsoft. But let's face it, he was as much of a "horrible person" as Jobs was while he was CEO of Microsoft. If you want to compare Jobs to Gates, compare Microsoft CEO Bill Gates to Apple CEO Steve Jobs. Don't compare Retired CEO Bill Gates to CEO Steve Jobs. If you make the comparison properly, you'll find that what Steve Jobs did was pretty typical of people who are successful in business.
We don't, although some guess that his mom told him to loosen the purse strings. This was right about the height of the company's visibility while the Department of Justice was investigating the company for antitrust behavior.
People almost worship Gates now... but they don't remember that he STOLE most of that technology he sold with Microsoft. For about a decade, real innovation ceased on desktop computers as the Microsoft hegemony bundled OS with computer and controlled the marketplace for office apps.
I'd much rather 100,000 people who can take care of their families than one rich "generous" former crook.
The road kill following Microsofts dirty business practices could make a few books.
Steve Jobs did contribute generously to the Woodside schools until the town of Woodside started jerking him around over the demolition permit of the Jackling Estate. Finally, he said enough and turned off the money spigot to the schools.
I hope that you realize that city government typically has nothing to do with how schools are run or funded.
It's like shooting the dog catcher because your mail didn't arrive on time.
Though very few subjects were off-limits to biographer Walter Isaacson, one subject Apple co-founder Steve Jobs declined to talk about was what he planned to do with his wealth after he died. ...
He couldn't do anything with the money after he died.
Gates has donated the majority of his wealth to doing things for others around the world - mostly in education and health care. His efforts have saved lives and supported research to help find cures and treatment for numerous diseases.
Buffett has pledged to donate half of his wealth to charity upon his death.
How is either of those "pseudo-philanthropy"? Have you donated >50% of your net worth to charity?
In my opinion, giving away something that means nothing to the giver is nothing to admire. Buffett and Gates both measure their wealth in the tens of billions of dollars. Giving away half of it still leaves them with tens of billions of dollars. I give them credit for having a conscience, since it is clear by their numerous press conferences and exhortations to other rich people to donate that they understand that nothing they have done in life justifies them controlling that much wealth. But the fact that they publicize the "gifts" makes it clear that they are buying an improved public opinion of themselves (for a price of virtually nothing, since the subtraction of the money has no effect whatsoever on their ability to purchase anything on earth they want). They don't want to go down in history as comprehensive greedheads, however I think generosity is more than the absence of abject stinginess. Get back to me when Bill Gates donates his quarter billion dollar house and moves into a studio apartment if you want me to sing hosannas.
How much I have donated is, of course, an ad hominem irrelevancy. Gates and Buffett could give away 99.9% and it would have less effect on their standard of living than a normal person would experience giving away 10%.
The etymology of "philanthropy" is about the love of humanity. I believe that is a secondary motivation for Gates and Buffett.
That makes their philanthropy pseudo-philanthropy.
Gates has donated the majority of his wealth to doing things for others around the world - mostly in education and health care. His efforts have saved lives and supported research to help find cures and treatment for numerous diseases.
Buffett has pledged to donate half of his wealth to charity upon his death.
How is either of those "pseudo-philanthropy"? Have you donated >50% of your net worth to charity?
I think he gave a lot to charities as an anonymous donor. Alot of the richest give money and make it public for people to see what a great person they are. A lot of it is about their image in the world.
People in general are being overly judgmental of the Jobs. Of course they have given to charity. It's just not meeting the expectations of some, and there's no evidence if they gifted anonymously.
I read about his residence in Palo Alto and that he wanted his kids to grow up in a normal neighborhood. Sounds like an honest way to raise a family. Not what your typical greedo would do.
I do think however that he could have created a foundation or some truly spectacular non-profit organization or even a university but that's me and unfair to hold someone to that type of approach to how they share their wealth.
In principle I agree with the folks saying that it's nobody's business who Steve Jobs donates his money to.
Except that... He *sought out* a biographer to write the story of his life. The story includes intimate details about his relationship with his family, his drug use, his business successes and failures, his moral foibles.. honestly his views on philanthropy seem pretty tame compared to what he revealed to Isaacson.
So yes, his charitable donations are his own business. Just as his relationship with his first daughter is his own business. But it is incongruous for him to make 98% of his own business public record, but then to keep that little tidbit private.
People almost worship Gates now... but they don't remember that he STOLE most of that technology he sold with Microsoft. For about a decade, real innovation ceased on desktop computers as the Microsoft hegemony bundled OS with computer and controlled the marketplace for office apps.
I'd much rather 100,000 people who can take care of their families than one rich "generous" former crook.
The road kill following Microsofts dirty business practices could make a few books.
Plus Gates attends secret meeting on decreasing world population by mass murder with things such as GMO's. He might look Good on the outside, but he's evil on the inside.
I hope that you realize that city government typically has nothing to do with how schools are run or funded.
It's like shooting the dog catcher because your mail didn't arrive on time.
Woodside is a very small town; many people involved in the town government are also involved with the schools. They're not necessarily employees of either the government or the school system.
In a large city, you would be correct, but Woodside is small, population 5300. It is one of the richest small towns (per capita income) and those people like to meddle.
And you had zero trouble ASSUMING it was the other guy's fault.
I notice you still have made NO direct apology to the guy you called out for ridicule. That's pretty telling. For the record, "I didn't know you couldn't see it" is NOT an apology. Not that he's asking for one, HE is too classy.
You might try giving the other guy the benefit of the doubt in the future, but if I came at this using the very same worldview you did, I should ASSUME you're incapable of that.
My guess is Steve wanted to do good -- not set up another PUBLICITY stunt philanthropy.
Personally I think that Charities have gotten out of hand -- and they don't solve a damn thing.
This is sadly all too true. Most of your charity dollars are scattered to the four winds. If you want a good cry (laugh?) about human cynicism and corruption, check out some of the studies that have been done about all the money donated to various "9/11" relief funds. Almost all of it vanished with nothing to show for it.
And you had zero trouble ASSUMING it was the other guy's fault.
I notice you still have made NO direct apology to the guy you called out for ridicule. That's pretty telling. For the record, "I didn't know you couldn't see it" is NOT an apology. Not that he's asking for one, HE is too classy.
You might try giving the other guy the benefit of the doubt in the future, but if I came at this using the very same worldview you did, I should ASSUME you're incapable of that.
Being the richest man in the cemetery doesn't matter to me... Going to bed at night saying we've done something wonderful... that's what matters to me.
Given his stated opinion on wealth, I wouldn't be surprised if he'd either donated most of his wealth anonymously, or set up private trusts to invest it so his wealth could 'keep on giving' indefinitely in order to continue doing 'something wonderful' after he was gone.
Actually, I'd bet on the latter. He created Apple to use as a tool to enact his vision. I assume he would do the same with the monetary system, rather than just disposing of it as a one-time thing.
[SNIPPED]...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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by macinthe408
[SNIPPED]...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.
Pretty straightforward, really.
Still: His stance on philanthropy is dickish. I see his point, but he's still a dick.
Neither one of these comments are based in reality or fact. Since Jobs preferred to donate anonymously there is no way either of you could know what he in fact did or did not donate, or what charities, if any, he supported. Period. The old "everyone knows that" cop-out is just plain stupid, or as you so blythely put it: "big bullshit". You don't know, you can't know and yet you are willing to pass judgement in blind ignorance.
The second quote is truly "pretty straight forward, really." Wrong in such fundamental ways as to be completely out in left field playing soccer on a baseball field. And based on these wrong-headed comments - Steve Jobs is dickish because he didn't care if macinthe408 knew all about every penny he gave to every charity. Nice.
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.
Like the people who say this without sarcasm, for example.
Except that your cute little backwards ? doesn't show up that way on my iPad 2. It's just a blank square. Your "sarcasm" tends to be a bit obtuse a lot of the time.
In principle I agree with the folks saying that it's nobody's business who Steve Jobs donates his money to.
Except that... He *sought out* a biographer to write the story of his life. The story includes intimate details about his relationship with his family, his drug use, his business successes and failures, his moral foibles.. honestly his views on philanthropy seem pretty tame compared to what he revealed to Isaacson.
So yes, his charitable donations are his own business. Just as his relationship with his first daughter is his own business. But it is incongruous for him to make 98% of his own business public record, but then to keep that little tidbit private.
Unless divulging his philanthropic policies exposes his wife's activities.
Let's say the couple jointly decided to keep their charitable activities anonymous. By not blabbing about these activities with Isaacson, he upholds his agreement with his wife who is free to continue charitable activities, just as would have happened if he were still alive. Thus, one thing from his life with Laurene is preserved intact after death.
I have not read the book myself. How much does he go into his family? His wife? His kids with Laurene? His illnesses? Was Jobs highly selective about what to disclose to Isaacson or was philanthropy the only topic off limits?
Comments
This is the message that I got out of the book too...
I respect what Bill Gates has done since he left Microsoft. But let's face it, he was as much of a "horrible person" as Jobs was while he was CEO of Microsoft. If you want to compare Jobs to Gates, compare Microsoft CEO Bill Gates to Apple CEO Steve Jobs. Don't compare Retired CEO Bill Gates to CEO Steve Jobs. If you make the comparison properly, you'll find that what Steve Jobs did was pretty typical of people who are successful in business.
We don't, although some guess that his mom told him to loosen the purse strings. This was right about the height of the company's visibility while the Department of Justice was investigating the company for antitrust behavior.
People almost worship Gates now... but they don't remember that he STOLE most of that technology he sold with Microsoft. For about a decade, real innovation ceased on desktop computers as the Microsoft hegemony bundled OS with computer and controlled the marketplace for office apps.
I'd much rather 100,000 people who can take care of their families than one rich "generous" former crook.
The road kill following Microsofts dirty business practices could make a few books.
Steve Jobs did contribute generously to the Woodside schools until the town of Woodside started jerking him around over the demolition permit of the Jackling Estate. Finally, he said enough and turned off the money spigot to the schools.
I hope that you realize that city government typically has nothing to do with how schools are run or funded.
It's like shooting the dog catcher because your mail didn't arrive on time.
Though very few subjects were off-limits to biographer Walter Isaacson, one subject Apple co-founder Steve Jobs declined to talk about was what he planned to do with his wealth after he died. ...
He couldn't do anything with the money after he died.
J.
That is, of course, total BS.
Gates has donated the majority of his wealth to doing things for others around the world - mostly in education and health care. His efforts have saved lives and supported research to help find cures and treatment for numerous diseases.
Buffett has pledged to donate half of his wealth to charity upon his death.
How is either of those "pseudo-philanthropy"? Have you donated >50% of your net worth to charity?
In my opinion, giving away something that means nothing to the giver is nothing to admire. Buffett and Gates both measure their wealth in the tens of billions of dollars. Giving away half of it still leaves them with tens of billions of dollars. I give them credit for having a conscience, since it is clear by their numerous press conferences and exhortations to other rich people to donate that they understand that nothing they have done in life justifies them controlling that much wealth. But the fact that they publicize the "gifts" makes it clear that they are buying an improved public opinion of themselves (for a price of virtually nothing, since the subtraction of the money has no effect whatsoever on their ability to purchase anything on earth they want). They don't want to go down in history as comprehensive greedheads, however I think generosity is more than the absence of abject stinginess. Get back to me when Bill Gates donates his quarter billion dollar house and moves into a studio apartment if you want me to sing hosannas.
How much I have donated is, of course, an ad hominem irrelevancy. Gates and Buffett could give away 99.9% and it would have less effect on their standard of living than a normal person would experience giving away 10%.
The etymology of "philanthropy" is about the love of humanity. I believe that is a secondary motivation for Gates and Buffett.
That makes their philanthropy pseudo-philanthropy.
That is, of course, total BS.
Gates has donated the majority of his wealth to doing things for others around the world - mostly in education and health care. His efforts have saved lives and supported research to help find cures and treatment for numerous diseases.
Buffett has pledged to donate half of his wealth to charity upon his death.
How is either of those "pseudo-philanthropy"? Have you donated >50% of your net worth to charity?
A very inaccurate post.
I read about his residence in Palo Alto and that he wanted his kids to grow up in a normal neighborhood. Sounds like an honest way to raise a family. Not what your typical greedo would do.
I do think however that he could have created a foundation or some truly spectacular non-profit organization or even a university but that's me and unfair to hold someone to that type of approach to how they share their wealth.
Except that... He *sought out* a biographer to write the story of his life. The story includes intimate details about his relationship with his family, his drug use, his business successes and failures, his moral foibles.. honestly his views on philanthropy seem pretty tame compared to what he revealed to Isaacson.
So yes, his charitable donations are his own business. Just as his relationship with his first daughter is his own business. But it is incongruous for him to make 98% of his own business public record, but then to keep that little tidbit private.
People almost worship Gates now... but they don't remember that he STOLE most of that technology he sold with Microsoft. For about a decade, real innovation ceased on desktop computers as the Microsoft hegemony bundled OS with computer and controlled the marketplace for office apps.
I'd much rather 100,000 people who can take care of their families than one rich "generous" former crook.
The road kill following Microsofts dirty business practices could make a few books.
Plus Gates attends secret meeting on decreasing world population by mass murder with things such as GMO's. He might look Good on the outside, but he's evil on the inside.
Diane Keaton on dating Steve Jobs: Steve Jobs was the one that got away
http://marquee.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12...ed-steve-jobs/
All the others seemed to do 5 years
I hope that you realize that city government typically has nothing to do with how schools are run or funded.
It's like shooting the dog catcher because your mail didn't arrive on time.
Woodside is a very small town; many people involved in the town government are also involved with the schools. They're not necessarily employees of either the government or the school system.
In a large city, you would be correct, but Woodside is small, population 5300. It is one of the richest small towns (per capita income) and those people like to meddle.
Hey, no problem. Didn't know it didn't show up!
And you had zero trouble ASSUMING it was the other guy's fault.
I notice you still have made NO direct apology to the guy you called out for ridicule. That's pretty telling. For the record, "I didn't know you couldn't see it" is NOT an apology. Not that he's asking for one, HE is too classy.
You might try giving the other guy the benefit of the doubt in the future, but if I came at this using the very same worldview you did, I should ASSUME you're incapable of that.
My guess is Steve wanted to do good -- not set up another PUBLICITY stunt philanthropy.
Personally I think that Charities have gotten out of hand -- and they don't solve a damn thing.
This is sadly all too true. Most of your charity dollars are scattered to the four winds. If you want a good cry (laugh?) about human cynicism and corruption, check out some of the studies that have been done about all the money donated to various "9/11" relief funds. Almost all of it vanished with nothing to show for it.
And you had zero trouble ASSUMING it was the other guy's fault.
I notice you still have made NO direct apology to the guy you called out for ridicule. That's pretty telling. For the record, "I didn't know you couldn't see it" is NOT an apology. Not that he's asking for one, HE is too classy.
You might try giving the other guy the benefit of the doubt in the future, but if I came at this using the very same worldview you did, I should ASSUME you're incapable of that.
lol, nice try.
Being the richest man in the cemetery doesn't matter to me... Going to bed at night saying we've done something wonderful... that's what matters to me.
Given his stated opinion on wealth, I wouldn't be surprised if he'd either donated most of his wealth anonymously, or set up private trusts to invest it so his wealth could 'keep on giving' indefinitely in order to continue doing 'something wonderful' after he was gone.
Actually, I'd bet on the latter. He created Apple to use as a tool to enact his vision. I assume he would do the same with the monetary system, rather than just disposing of it as a one-time thing.
[SNIPPED]...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.
[SNIPPED]...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.
Pretty straightforward, really.
Still: His stance on philanthropy is dickish. I see his point, but he's still a dick.
Neither one of these comments are based in reality or fact. Since Jobs preferred to donate anonymously there is no way either of you could know what he in fact did or did not donate, or what charities, if any, he supported. Period. The old "everyone knows that" cop-out is just plain stupid, or as you so blythely put it: "big bullshit". You don't know, you can't know and yet you are willing to pass judgement in blind ignorance.
The second quote is truly "pretty straight forward, really." Wrong in such fundamental ways as to be completely out in left field playing soccer on a baseball field. And based on these wrong-headed comments - Steve Jobs is dickish because he didn't care if macinthe408 knew all about every penny he gave to every charity. Nice.
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.
Like the people who say this without sarcasm, for example.
Except that your cute little backwards ? doesn't show up that way on my iPad 2. It's just a blank square. Your "sarcasm" tends to be a bit obtuse a lot of the time.
Further proof that Steve Jobs was a complete jerk.
EDIT: Changed punctuation because some people literally cannot see sarcasm! Strange!
Sarcasm? You ought to leave a hint if that is your goal. Rather you painted yourself as a jerk and simpleton.
In principle I agree with the folks saying that it's nobody's business who Steve Jobs donates his money to.
Except that... He *sought out* a biographer to write the story of his life. The story includes intimate details about his relationship with his family, his drug use, his business successes and failures, his moral foibles.. honestly his views on philanthropy seem pretty tame compared to what he revealed to Isaacson.
So yes, his charitable donations are his own business. Just as his relationship with his first daughter is his own business. But it is incongruous for him to make 98% of his own business public record, but then to keep that little tidbit private.
Unless divulging his philanthropic policies exposes his wife's activities.
Let's say the couple jointly decided to keep their charitable activities anonymous. By not blabbing about these activities with Isaacson, he upholds his agreement with his wife who is free to continue charitable activities, just as would have happened if he were still alive. Thus, one thing from his life with Laurene is preserved intact after death.
I have not read the book myself. How much does he go into his family? His wife? His kids with Laurene? His illnesses? Was Jobs highly selective about what to disclose to Isaacson or was philanthropy the only topic off limits?