Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

dndog · Jan 25, 2006, 07:00 PM

http://www.wired.com/news/columns/0,70072-0.html

Honestly, I think to make such shallow assumptions based on faulty arguements that Bill Gates is so much better than Steve Jobs because he donates to charity, something is wrong with that tech news outlet.

Jobs is the one who puts innovation in his products, Gates is the one who always copies. Its been like that forever, and many of the features in Vista have already been in Mac OSX for a long time. Gimme a break. We all know who the saint and the sinner is...

Chuckit · Jan 25, 2006, 07:19 PM

Bill Gates seems like he is a good person. He's just not the genius Steve is.

And I like at the end how it's like, "Well, OK, it's actually likely that Jobs gives to charity without issuing a press release every time, but…nah."

demibob · Jan 25, 2006, 07:26 PM

if your as rich as gates then you f***ing well should donate something to charity
he shouldnt make such a big deal over it either

production_coordinator · Jan 25, 2006, 07:28 PM

One is a businessman... the other a salesman.

demibob · Jan 25, 2006, 07:55 PM

"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."
yes bono stood up and spoke about apple i believe

ShortcutToMoncton · Jan 25, 2006, 09:34 PM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Bill Gates seems like he is a good person. He's just not the genius Steve is.

That's...totally the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.

greg

blackbird_1.0 · Jan 25, 2006, 10:13 PM

Did the article get removed from the front page? I clicked on the headline, and it siad it couldn't be found. I had to put the page in "headlines + news" to read the summary.

Anyway, I agree. I've lost respect for Wired.com, if I had any.

blackbird_1.0 · Jan 25, 2006, 10:14 PM

Double post. Sorry.

Dale Sorel · Jan 25, 2006, 10:32 PM

Originally Posted by demibob

if your as rich as gates then you f***ing well should donate something to charity
he shouldnt make such a big deal over it either

Especially if most of the money you've made has been by stealing ideas of others

Leia's Left Bun · Jan 25, 2006, 10:35 PM

I don't see anything wrong with the story if the facts he presents are true.

demibob · Jan 25, 2006, 11:08 PM

you cant compare the generosity of a monopoly boss with the underdog boss.
If thing were reversed it would probably be steve giving donations and whose to say if he would be more or less generous.

Ghoser777 · Jan 26, 2006, 12:07 AM

So his argument is because we don't know if Steve Jobs gives money, and we know that Bill gates does, that makes Bill Gates better. I guess there goes the possibility of humility.

Big Mac · Jan 26, 2006, 02:52 AM

If not for Apple's stupidity and Gates' shrewdness, Jobs could have been the richest man in the world. In a sense, Gates' charitable donations should be credited to Jobs.

Rolling Bones · Jan 26, 2006, 03:19 AM

Rich people make donations to charity for 2 reasons...

Taxes...

Publicity...

Some just don't flaunt the latter.

Why do you think Steve's salary is only 1 dollar per year?

Railroader · Jan 26, 2006, 03:41 AM

Originally Posted by Rolling Bones

Rich people make donations to charity for 2 reasons...

Taxes...

Publicity...

Some just don't flaunt the latter.

Why do you think Steve's salary is only 1 dollar per year?

Is that why Al Gore only donate less than $300 when he made millions one year?

Railroader · Jan 26, 2006, 03:44 AM

Originally Posted by Leia's Left Bun

I don't see anything wrong with the story if the facts he presents are true.

Agreed.

Though what "if the facts he presents" are a spun version of the complete truth? Do you see anything wrong with the story then?

11011001 · Jan 26, 2006, 04:50 AM

On some level, I think Apple has enriched our lives. They gave us the computer revolution, and have constantly pushed the computer industry forward. I think the technology they have developed has certainly improved our lives. But in reality, that improvement has only been for the wealthy nations.

Whether or not Jobs donates to charity, I still admire Bill Gates for his charitable contributions. Furthermore, his wealth isn't exactly liquid, so in reality, a pretty large portion of his income is going to charity.

Kevin · Jan 26, 2006, 08:29 AM

I would respect Gates more if he gave money anonymously.

Moderator · Jan 26, 2006, 08:51 AM

Originally Posted by Kevin

I would respect Gates more if he gave money anonymously.

how would you know to respect him more if his giving was anonymous??

production_coordinator · Jan 26, 2006, 08:52 AM

Originally Posted by Kevin

I would respect Gates more if he gave money anonymously.

How do we know Steve doesn't give money anonymously.

But seriously... Bill Gates is in a place where he can donate major funds... as his company is more stable. Jobs isn't in an industry that is stable. Pixar and Apple have both been doing amazing since his 2nd coming, but I wouldn't call either of them 800lb. gorilla Microsoft is.

Kevin · Jan 26, 2006, 09:08 AM

Originally Posted by Moderator

how would you know to respect him more if his giving was anonymous??

Good point.

ShotgunEd · Jan 26, 2006, 09:24 AM

if he wasn't giving any money publically then we could say

"ah, but yes, I'll bet he gives money anonymously, what a star"

or something.

Naplander · Jan 26, 2006, 09:35 AM

The point is that Gates is really trying to make a difference to world health.

Do some research and you'll see the facts.

It's not about publicity.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...142278,00.html

Azzgunther · Jan 26, 2006, 09:40 AM

Some of you lose respect for Wired.com, and I lose respect for you. What is all of this BS about Gates being rich and that therefore his contributions are nullified? It is disgraceful...to yourselves. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is changing the world for the helpless, while as far as we know the Jobs' are giving the well-off neat products to buy and donating to politicans. Oh, but you're right- SHAME ON BILL AND MELINDA anyway.

Eug Wanker · 09:50 AM

I don't see anything wrong with the article either.

In fact, I've always been impressed with the way his charitable organization works. It looks for results, and if a charity repeatedly fails to make any progress, the money goes to another.

I've also always felt it was strange for Apple to use the face of Gandhi or John Lennon or others in ads or whatever. Is Apple paying them (or their foundations)? If not, is Apple donating to charities for them?

Kevin · Jan 26, 2006, 09:59 AM

Hawkeye_a · Jan 26, 2006, 10:03 AM

Ghandi, John Lennon, etc.... are part of the public domain as far as im concerned. but thats a different argument all together.

Maybe Gates finds it easier to give him money away to charities because:
a. he didnt "earn" any of it
b. he has so much of it

Many of the people i admire have one great attribute, the rest of their lives arent as outstanding. John Lennon, Bob Dylan, etc... had music, family life, etc wasnt the best imo. Jobs has innovation in technology, family life wasnt the greatest. Princess Diana had her humanatarian aspect....the rest of her life was well.... you know.

Gates can have charity as his "one" thing.... most people i admire earn their respect through their contribution to society, whether it be a sonnet, a vaccine or electricity. Gate, imo is buying his "respect". Sure im greatful that he isnt being a scrooge...but if he was truely a saint he wouldnt be publicizing it to this extent, cause then it seems as though he EXPECTS GRATITUDE AND RESPECT in return.

Cheers.

ShortcutToMoncton · Jan 26, 2006, 11:33 AM

You people are weird.

greg

Silky Voice of The Gorn · Jan 26, 2006, 11:51 AM

An excellent take on this ludicrous article:
http://theocacao.com/document.page/220

And just for the record, there is nothing wrong with what Gates is doing. The problem with the article is that it's based on a vacuous premise; the author *doesn't know* whether Jobs is a big charity giver, but crucifies him just the same.

Rolling Bones · Jan 26, 2006, 04:51 PM

Originally Posted by Railroader

Is that why Al Gore only donate less than $300 when he made millions one year?

That is so last millennium.

Leave to you to bring politics into it.

Eug Wanker · Jan 26, 2006, 06:49 PM

Originally Posted by Silky Voice of The Gorn

An excellent take on this ludicrous article:
http://theocacao.com/document.page/220

Personally I think that blog misses the point, but hey.

turtle777 · Jan 26, 2006, 07:24 PM

Originally Posted by Kevin

-t

Leia's Left Bun · Jan 26, 2006, 07:47 PM

Originally Posted by Rolling Bones

Rich people make donations to charity for 2 reasons...

Taxes...

Publicity...

Some just don't flaunt the latter.

Why do you think Steve's salary is only 1 dollar per year?

Does it matter WHY they give the money if it ends up helping people. If he saves 1000 people do you think they care if Bill gets press for it?

Steve's salary is $1 so Apple makes a greater profit. He also has MILLIONS in stock, and they bought him a 300 million dollar jet. The $1 is so his family gets the Apple health plan.

Rolling Bones · Jan 26, 2006, 08:12 PM

Originally Posted by Leia's Left Bun

The $1 is so his family gets the Apple health plan.

I always wondered why he didn't accept a 20 million dollar a year or so salary and donate it to charity.

Silky Voice of The Gorn · Jan 26, 2006, 09:51 PM

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Personally I think that blog misses the point, but hey.

The article condemns Jobs for not giving to charity, when there is no shred of proof that he doesn't. Also, it furthers the idiotic notion that wealthy, public figures have some sort of obligation to publicly hawk their charitable deeds.

Is that the point you agree with?

Salty · Jan 27, 2006, 12:27 AM

As well i can't remember but from what I understand Jobs is a Buddhist is he not? There are some eastern schools of thought that go along the lines of don't help people, let them live their lives and that sort of thing. That said I don't imagine Jobs follows that school of thought. But either way, Jobs I imagine has a lot of his money tied up in stocks, and selling off those then limits his ability to control whatever companies he is controlling.
As well, quite frankly Gates has far more cash than Jobs, I'd like to see an actual figure of how many Billions of dollars Gates has given to charities.

Anyway, Gates has much of his money as a result of him displaying very classless business practices, I don't see why we should then praise him for this sort of thing. He would love to charge 3rd World governments money for Windows licences than letting them take care of their sick and what not. If Gates wanted to show real class for the 3rd world he'd sell em Windows and then put all profits back into medical work going on in those countries.

Again I don't respect any man who runs a company that is regularly convicted of stealing from others, and running other companies out of business, regardless of how much of his money he gives away.

Leia's Left Bun · Jan 27, 2006, 12:30 AM

Originally Posted by Rolling Bones

I always wondered why he didn't accept a 20 million dollar a year or so salary and donate it to charity.

Unfortunately I was dead serious about the $1 to get the heath plan. it is well publicized.

If I were him I would also take the salary and buy my kids whatever the hell meds they wanted with it, or give it to charity

Naplander · Jan 27, 2006, 07:14 AM

Gates "looking for more publicity" again I suppose

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4653338.stm

JoshuaZ · Jan 27, 2006, 07:42 AM

Gates, you know, the richest man in the world. He got a lot of flack because he wasn't donating money, then he started.

There you go.

Eug Wanker · Jan 27, 2006, 10:26 AM

Originally Posted by Silky Voice of The Gorn

The article condemns Jobs for not giving to charity, when there is no shred of proof that he doesn't. Also, it furthers the idiotic notion that wealthy, public figures have some sort of obligation to publicly hawk their charitable deeds.

Is that the point you agree with?

No the point I agree with is business acumen is not the only way to gauge a person.

Seemed pretty obvious actually.

That blog you linked criticizing the Wired article (which isn't perfect either) just seemed like some fanboy rant.

Silky Voice of The Gorn · Jan 27, 2006, 10:40 AM

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

No the point I agree with is business acumen is not the only way to gauge a person.

I agree with that, but the article uses a pretty sketchy premise to support it.

Jan 27, 2006, 10:07 PM

Bill Gates donates to charity. Good for him.

Bill Gates should also be giving money to people that worked for companies that he put out of business with his illegal monopoly. Bill Gates should be giving money to people that have spent thousands of dollars trying to keep his crappy software in a semi-productive state.

ghporter · Jan 27, 2006, 11:09 PM

Not to seem anti-cynical or anything, but maybe Ol' Bill really IS a genuine philanthropist. Maybe he got tired of all the "more code is better" stuff and really, truly wants to help the world.

As for Steve, he helps the world too, but through Apple innovation. And Pixar-doesn't he own a chunk of Pixar? Pixar, by itself, is a wonderful way to help the world!

Jan 27, 2006, 11:27 PM

Originally Posted by ghporter

As for Steve, he helps the world too, but through Apple innovation. And Pixar-doesn't he own a chunk of Pixar? Pixar, by itself, is a wonderful way to help the world!

Not anymore. Now he owns a giant chunk of Disney.

DigitalEl · Jan 28, 2006, 12:42 AM

Who are any of us to comment on someone's charitable giving? Bill Gates is in business. He doesn't owe any of us anything. If he chooses to donate to causes, that's his right. If chooses not to, well that's his right, too. If you don't like what he does, vote with your dollar and don't buy his products.

Whether he gives to causes -- or whether Steve Jobs does for that matter -- is irrelevant to me. It's not my money. I wouldn't assume to tell them what to do with it.

Lastly, anybody defending Steve over Bill just b/c they prefer Macs over Wintel is just a moron. Do a little reading about the two men and you may be shocked to learn the King of Keynotes is no saint, just a very shrewd businessman.

Idolizing these people because you love your iPod is as idiotic as the 10-year-old looking up to an athlete or Britney Spears. And no less pathetic.

JoshuaZ · Jan 28, 2006, 01:04 AM

Originally Posted by DigitalEl

Idolizing these people because you love your iPod is as idiotic as the 10-year-old looking up to an athlete or Britney Spears. And no less pathetic.

But I bet Steve looks better in a tube top then Britney. Oh, you know he would pull it off.

Ozmodiar · Jan 28, 2006, 04:22 AM

I can't understand some of you. Take Jobs' cock out of your mouth and try enunciating.

meelk · Jan 28, 2006, 09:55 AM

Bill is giving 900 MILLION to fight TB in the world. Steve is not. The article stands as fact based to me.

Silky Voice of The Gorn · Jan 28, 2006, 12:31 PM

Originally Posted by meelk

Bill is giving 900 MILLION to fight TB in the world. Steve is not. The article stands as fact based to me.

How do you know Steve doesn't give to charity? The article has no proof (admits as much), and neither do you.

ghporter · Jan 28, 2006, 12:36 PM

I think that by so publicly giving, Gates is making a statement: "give if you can." It's almost a challenge to anyone who has the means and isn't helping others. That does NOT imply that EVERYONE who is very well off needs to make his or her giving so public.