“Until recently, Bill Gates has been viewed as the villain of the tech world, while his archrival, Steve Jobs, enjoys an almost saintly reputation,” Leander Kahney writes in a commentary for Wired News. “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,” Kahney writes. “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,” Kahney writes. “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.”
Full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: Note that even Kahney, soaring in mid shark-jump, can’t bring himself to write that Gates “earned” his fortune; just “acquired.” How did Bill Gates get that all of that money? Did he somehow “acquire” it legally while illegally abusing a monopoly? What exactly did he do to get it? Dupe typewriter company IBM into using an “operating system” he picked up for a song, constantly fake the Mac operating systems over the years, buy some companies, pretend to be innovative, etc? Bill Gates is a business genius, sure. He’s not a software genius. He’s not a visionary. He’s been following Steve Jobs for decades now and pretending to be a tech leader. In case you missed it: Windows is an upside down and backwards Mac, folks. Gates put the icons on the left side of his fake Desktop, renamed Trash to Recycle Bin, ran the whole thing through Microsoft’s patented “Intuition Destroyer,” boxed it up and hired The Stones. For this he deserves our adulation?! Sorry, but we’ll have to pass, Leander, as we’re still in our right minds.
Leander, we read about Robin Hood. We know about Robin Hood. Robin Hood could’ve been a friend of ours. Leander, Gates is no Robin Hood. Don’t believe everything you read in TIme.
As Kahney writes, Steve Jobs is an intensely private man. Kahney suggests that Jobs could be giving vast sums in private, without publicizing it. It is appallingly crass for Kahney to criticize Jobs and then praise Gates for publicizing his every contribution. Kaheny actually has the gall to write, “On the evidence, [Jobs is] 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.” Kahney must have lost his mind; from jealousy perhaps? Hey, as long as it’s high season for impugning people’s motives willy nilly and without any facts, let’s go! How’s it feel, Leander?
The way in which people approach charity, how much money people give or don’t give to charity, and which charities they may or may not support is none of Leander Kahney’s or anybody else’s damn business.
Our advice to Kahney is to put down the TIme Magazine, go read Jobs’ 2005 Commencement Address to Stanford University, and take Jobs’ advice to heart, “Your time is limited, so don’t waste it living someone else’s life.”
$129 for the most advanced OS developed for the general population and $79 for the whole iLife suite of advanced aps seems pretty charitable to me.
– or –
Is it that charging $299 for Office is gouging?
If Microsoft had anything like iLife, what do you think they would charge?
I’m not a fan of Bill’s and I do not like how he got his money, but I do like his charity work. I agree that it is nobodies business how much and to whom a person gives money and I am sure that Steve has his charities that he supports. He has very strong political views but tries to keep them separate from his businesses. I respect him for these decision but I also recognize that it is impossible to great a foundation as big as the Bill & Melinda Gate Foundation and not have it publicly scrutinized. Bill Gates is making a difference with his foundation and should be given credit for it. Steve Jobs is also making a difference and should also be recognized, not villainized for being a private person.
How many of you would turn down a Nobel Prize because you don’t like blood money?
Some here may recall that Gates was severely criticized by Ted Turner because he disproportionately failed to contribute to charities sveral years agao. Gates was clearly stung by this criticism, and since then, ne and his personal PR machine have set about to change that perception. They have clearly succeeded as many PR efforts funded by billions of dollars will. I think it’s great that Gates gives lots of money away. Bully, as they say. So what? What has it done for his products or his customers?
Gates’s philanthropy is long overdue atonement. What has Jobs done in his career at Apple that compares with the unscrupulous tactics over which Gates has presided for so many years at Microsoft? And now that Gates has “got religion” we should view him as a saint? God, it makes one want to retch!
>Your Mama: So he gives away a couple of billions. That is wonderful, and the world is better off for it, but it isn’t a burden on him and it doesn’t make him a saint for doing it.
WTF kind of logic is that?! Completely ridiculous!
—
You sum it up nicely in this statement:
>My problem is that no matter how many billions that Gates gives, it puts absolutely no pressure on his standard of living.
Ahhhh….. and yet more nonsense.
>Your Mama: So he gives away a couple of billions. That is wonderful, and the world is better off for it, but it isn’t a burden on him and it doesn’t make him a saint for doing it.
WTF kind of logic is that?! Completely ridiculous!
—
You sum it up nicely in this statement:
>My problem is that no matter how many billions that Gates gives, it puts absolutely no pressure on his standard of living.
Ahhhh….. and yet more nonsense.
>Your Mama: So he gives away a couple of billions. That is wonderful, and the world is better off for it, but it isn’t a burden on him and it doesn’t make him a saint for doing it.
WTF kind of logic is that?! Completely ridiculous!
—
You sum it up nicely in this statement:
>My problem is that no matter how many billions that Gates gives, it puts absolutely no pressure on his standard of living.
Ahhhh….. and yet more nonsense.
>Your Mama: So he gives away a couple of billions. That is wonderful, and the world is better off for it, but it isn’t a burden on him and it doesn’t make him a saint for doing it.
WTF kind of logic is that?! Completely ridiculous!
—
You sum it up nicely in this statement:
>My problem is that no matter how many billions that Gates gives, it puts absolutely no pressure on his standard of living.
Ahhhh….. and yet more nonsense.
How about these folks who have much more the Stevie boy. Wow, journalsts can really be narrow minded and make anyone they want look bad with there little writer hate mongering.
1. William Gates III, Washington, 49, $46.5, Microsoft
2. Warren Buffett, Nebraska, 74, $44, Berkshire Hathaway
3. Lakshmi Mittal, India, 54, $25, steel
4. Carlos Slim Helu, Mexico, 65, $23.8, telecom
5. Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Alsaud, Saudi Arabia, 48, $23.7, investments
6. Ingvar Kamprad, Sweden, 78, $23, Ikea
7. Paul Allen, Washington, 52, $21, Microsoft, investments
8. Karl Albrecht, Germany, 85, $18.5, supermarkets
9. Lawrence Ellison, California, 60, $18.4, Oracle
10. S. Robson Walton, Arkansas, 61, $18.3, Wal-Mart
Mac & PC Guy wrote, “An easy way to defend Jobs giving zilch to the world and Gates giving multi-billions. With the MDN logic, it doesn’t even matter. Billions of dollars to help the world do not matter.”
The MDN logic on charity is very clear, no matter how you try to twist it: It is nobody’s – but the giver’s – business, not that “it doesn’t matter.”
MDN is correct, as usual.
by the way just look at the Americans, forgot to get rid of the other billionairs
Facts will not sway personal biases:
http://www.livescience.com/othernews/060124_political_decisions.html
MDN magic word “class.” How appropriate.
On December 2004 I gave a good part of my monthly income to charity for the victims of the tsunami, and I didn’t tell most of my friends or my family, because I most certainly didn’t do it to get some kind of recognition. I simply did it because it was the least I could do to help.
Whether we’re famous or anonymous, I think that many people among us face our conscience, and do whatever it needs to be done in order to help people in need, without expecting anything in return.
It’s very cynical to imply that each famous person who gives money to charity should publicize his good deeds, so that other people can gloat and write about it. Perhaps someone should write a computer program to help Mr. Kahney to keep track of all the times he helped other people, and publish his own charity hall of fame.
“He has also spoken out on major policy issues, for example, by opposing proposals to cut back the inheritance tax.”
Actually, this is probably an act of self-interest.
From Wikipedia:
“For 2005, an estate with a value less than $1,500,000 would not pay a federal estate tax and most likely would not have to file a federal estate tax return.”
>Fred Mertz wrote: It is no one, but the giver’s business, not “it doesn’t matter.”
Completely agreed… for life in a vaccuum.
That being said, I don’t bother to tell people how much I give to charity.
It’s a bit different for people who choose to live in the public eye. As a consumer, I’d feel much happier knowing my dollars are going to someone who is compelled to use a portion of it to do something positive in the world.
Do you still share the narrowminded view that MDN has?
>Fred Mertz wrote: It is no one, but the giver’s business, not “it doesn’t matter.”
Completely agreed… for life in a vaccuum.
That being said, I don’t bother to tell people how much I give to charity.
It’s a bit different for people who choose to live in the public eye. As a consumer, I’d feel much happier knowing my dollars are going to someone who is compelled to use a portion of it to do something positive in the world.
Do you still share the narrowminded view that MDN has?
>Fred Mertz wrote: It is no one, but the giver’s business, not “it doesn’t matter.”
Completely agreed… for life in a vaccuum.
That being said, I don’t bother to tell people how much I give to charity.
It’s a bit different for people who choose to live in the public eye. As a consumer, I’d feel much happier knowing my dollars are going to someone who is compelled to use a portion of it to do something positive in the world.
Do you still share the narrowminded view that MDN has?
>Fred Mertz wrote: It is no one, but the giver’s business, not “it doesn’t matter.”
Completely agreed… for life in a vaccuum.
That being said, I don’t bother to tell people how much I give to charity.
It’s a bit different for people who choose to live in the public eye. As a consumer, I’d feel much happier knowing my dollars are going to someone who is compelled to use a portion of it to do something positive in the world.
Do you still share the narrowminded view that MDN has?
The article read…
“For a person as private as Jobs, who shuns any publicity about his family life, this (giving privately and unannounced) seems credible. If so, however, this would make Jobs virtually unique among moguls.”
After the first sentence acknowledging that “this seems credible”, the writer is WAY out of bounds with conjecture and machinations of his own imagination. However, he wasn’t far off the mark when referring to Jobs as “virtually unique”, in all respects.
MDN: “Leander, we read about Robin Hood. We know about Robin Hood. Robin Hood could’ve been a friend of ours. Leander, Gates is no Robin Hood.”
Geez, MDN, you guys are so confused. Go back on the Prozac.
Robing Hood stole from the rich and gave to the poor.
How does your Robin Hood analogy work here?
Sometimes one wonders which 13-year old is at the controls of MDN each day.
—————
MDN “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.”
MDN – you guys are stoned, blatto,zonkers. Steve Jobs´ Pixar holdings were worth exactly what his Disney holdings are now worth. He did not go from having a net worth of $0 when he owned Pixar stock to $4 billion when he traded it for Disney stock. It is the same net worth.
I applaud Bill Gates for donating his money to charitible organizations. I hope it helps all those that need it.
MDN can suck PowerPC G3 chips.
I actually think that BG’s donations are genuine. By that I mean I think he really cares about what he donates to. That is not the problem with mr William H. Gates.
The problem with this article though, is that a good deed does not make a bad one go away. If I robbed a bank and gave half (or all) of my money to the red cross I might get friendly nods and slaps on the back. But I would get them in jail. The fact that BG is generous and (I think) farsighted in his donations doesn’t change the fact that he is giving away other peolpes money.
And as for making a dent in the universe, yes BG undoubtedly has made one. The question mr Kahney should be asking himself is: what kind of dent? The Soviet Union also made a very definite dent in the world, as did leaders like Josef Stalin. Was that good? There are other leaders that come to mind (but which I better not mention lest this thread derail, let me just cite Plato: “This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector”) that are also making very real but not very positive dents in the world. What would the (computing) world have looked like with a reasonable MS and a reasonable BG these last three decades? Kahney definitely implies “worse”. I’m not so sure, to put it mildly.
Bill Gates’ donations stem purly from a publicity need to “correct” the perception that he was an evil guy. Nothing more. Not that the money isn’t needed but don’t believe that he wasn’t coerced into donating.
I remember people complaining loudly that the richest man in the world had never donated a penny to charity.
It was only after the complaints that he start donating money.
He is still a pure capitalist and doesn’t’ do anything that doesn’t potntially generate a return of some sort.
Altruism isn’t in Bill Gate normal nature – it doesn’t fit into the capitalist conservative theme.
Give to charity? Shouldn’t those people be working for that money? I did!
Hank,
The IQ of the MDN Take writer is several orders above yours, friend. Don’t feel bad, MDN’s IQ and writing ability is higher than most anywhere you look.
By using the Robin Hood analogy, MDN is calling Gates a thief, but not an honorable one. MDN’s subtext in headline form: Gates not Robin Hood, just common thief.
As for the second quote you criticize MDN for writing: MDN didn’t write it, Kahney The Shark Jumper did.
The amount of money that Gates give is ridiculous next to the total amount of money he actually have.
It’s like if we give 1 penny to help to cure cancer (for exemple), and tell everybody about this wonderfull act of charity…
And everybody get abused
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” /> )