6 ms·

Steve Jobs could have retired when forced out of Apple in 1985. He had $140million (or so, that's the figure I remember) in Apple stock. More than enough to l

by nirvana 15y ago

Steve Jobs could have retired when forced out of Apple in 1985. He had $140million (or so, that's the figure I remember) in Apple stock. More than enough to live very well for the rest of his life. He could have even blown some of it on US festivals with Wozniak and still lived well. Instead, he built NeXT, Pixar and then later, rebuilt Apple. I think that his continuing to work is the most charitable act I've observed in my lifetime. He touched billions of people and made their lives better. Sure, he got richer doing it, but it seems he never did it for the money. (I think he did it for the pleasure, personally, but the end result was massive human good.) This is why I honor Steve Job's life.

tobtoh 15y ago
> I think that his continuing to work is the most charitable act I've observed in my lifetime. Really? I doubt he did any of the stuff for our express benefit. Steve had a personal drive to produce good products, to achieve his personal goals, and he did that really well and is rightly admired for pursuing his internal drive and making it such a success. Was his drive mainly for altruistic reasons? For the benefit of mankind? Come on - I'm all for admiring the guy, but let's not fawn over him. He's not a saint. If he is, I guess all those mega-rich CEOs of the Samsungs, Ford, General Electics of the world are also so admirable because they 'charitably' continue to work when they financially don't need to.
- rayiner 15y ago
  Look at it this way. With $140 million in 1985, Steve could've invested all of his money in a hedge fund and probably come out ahead of how he did investing in Pixar, Apple, etc. From $140 million to $7 billion over 26 years is about 16.5% return per year, which is less than the annual return of Berkshire Hathaway over the last 20 years (almost 19%). He's not a guy who took his millions and invested it in the questionably useful products of Wall Street. Instead, he built things that people loved. That doesn't make him a saint, but I think it makes him someone worthy of respect.
  - tobtoh 15y ago
    > That doesn't make him a saint, but I think it makes him someone worthy of respect. I totally agree about respect - but respect is not charity. Charity refers to noble goals/intentions - Steve 'only' built great products - those products are great - but there is nothing inherently noble about them. If the OP had said Bill Gates is amazingly charitable - I would be more inclined to agree. Bill Gates has worked to make the world a better place and has self-sacrificed his wealth to help others. Steve did none of that - Steve is incredibly entrepreneurial and deserves boatloads of respect - but don't say his actions where charitable.
    - rayiner 15y ago
      I agree. I think charity is the wrong word. There is something between blind greed and charity, and that something is applicable here.
    - eftpotrm 15y ago
      I have real problems with declaring Bill Gates 'amazingly chartitable'. Yes, he's given away huge chunks of money to worthy causes, but how did he get that money? By operating a business in a way that twice got him convicted as an abusive monopoly. Microsoft's market position was hugely enhanced by them illegally using one captive market to create another. They forced up prices for their customers and forced competitors out of business by illegal means. So yeah, he's giving away lots of money, but to me it's stolen money. That's not charity.
      - spinchange 15y ago
        Wasn't the central reason for the US anti-trust action over bundling and distributing IE for free to undercut the paid stand-alone Netscape? Today this is Google's basic strategy for everything. I was very much "against" MS in those days, but looking back on it now, I feel like it was the beginning of a big part the modern web/software business model. It's not "stolen," just because we don't like how he earned it. Committing to give away one's entire fortune - and actually doing it - is hugely generous, our feelings about MS aside. It is very much charity.
- delackner 15y ago
  Please, altruism as defined your way does not exist. Altruism is at its core self-serving: We desire to feel better about ourselves, to feel we are good human beings. People admire different things, so their vision of how best to behave leads to different forms of self-satisfaction. Rather than focus on whether Steve did great things because of his passion for excellence, or because he wanted to have legions of fans, or for whatever other supposedly saintlike or selfish reason, focus on what he accomplished: bringing computing to the masses. That is an amazing thing.
  - vinutheraj 15y ago
    The way you define altruism, would be the correct way to describe what Jobs did. Even though he was ousted from Apple he continued to work on his passion. His actions were at its core self-serving. The side-effects were the good things he added to humanity.
    - reddit_clone 15y ago
      Everyone is gushing about him like he cured cancer, abolished hunger or something. He ran a successful computer company and led the teams that produced some really nice gadgets. Get some perspective people !
  - crag 15y ago
    "bringing computing to the masses." The masses in the West. You don't see to many Mac's running around Africa, India, China, or Russia. I'm not trying to belittle Steve Jobs at all. He was a visionary who had a stunning ability to spot and develop good products. It made him, and others VERY wealthy. And powerful. But don't think for a minute Mr Jobs did it out of the goodness of his heart. Profit and his vision motivated him. He wanted to push the industry he loved in a certain direction. And he succeded brilliantly. Oh and I admire him for doing what he loved to the bitter end. I can tell you, from personal experience (I lived though AIDS/Cancer) that was not easy for him. At all. I admire him a great deal for never giving in. //edited. changed the 1st line and added the last paragraph.
  - thaumaturgy 15y ago
- gizmo 15y ago
  It doesn't matter if he worked for our express benefit or because he simply wanted to. Intent is nearly meaningless in the grand scheme of things. The bottom line is that he contributed an enormous amount and he inspired a generation of technical people. Maybe it doesn't deserve the label "charitable" but it most certainly is hugely beneficial to mankind.
cma 15y ago
>He could have even blown some of it on US festivals with Wozniak and still lived well. Woz had a near-death plane crash and lost his memory for several weeks prior to the festival stuff. Kind of hard to judge him comparatively like this, maybe he wasn't capable of the type of work he did at Apple prior to the crash anymore.
ramanujan 15y ago
Indeed. Not to criticize, though, but the underlying premise that industrial scale "charity" is necessarily good deserves a critical reassessment. Investment works and turns countries and companies into net producers. That's the story of countless Asian Tigers. At the largest scale, aid did not fix China and India, capitalism did. This is because charity/aid doesn't scale. It's zero sum, it does not teach the guy on the other side of the transaction to catch a fish, to determine what they can produce which is worthy of trading in the global market. I understand that Gates, Buffet, and now Zuckerberg had to throw their money away to buy respectability, in the same way people in olden times gave money to the church for various mumbo jumbo rituals. But I often wonder what could have happened had more of those billions been channeled into genuine positive sum activities like Nobel Laureate Mohammed Yunus' Grameen Bank.[1] Entities not necessarily focused on absolutely maximum profit, but which are at least self sustaining like Craigslist and hence not infinitely dependent on yet more infusions of cash from third parties. [1] I'm sure that with all the billions spent, at least some has gone into real social entrepreneurship, meaning profitable standalone organizations. But it's hard to escape the fact that Gates, by his own admission, wasted literally billions on education with little to show for it. The goal instead should be to identify the next Craig Newmark, Jimmy Wales, Salman Khan, or Mohammed Yunus and back them. Have them create a few billion in value and capture enough to remain afloat, and maybe dial up the next few efforts of this kind.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
TheDroids 15y ago
Him continuing to work was a charitable act and the end result was massive human good? Your reality is definitely distorted.
kayoone 15y ago
Touched billions of people ? Massive Human good ? I love Apple, but cmon. Steve built awesome products for the industrial countries to solve luxury problems, shaped the computer industry and thats awesome, but saying he made billions peoples lives better is some steps too far. In fact, Bill Gates probably did alot more good to humanity by being one of the most generous philanthropists on the planet.
- gizmo 15y ago
  Except he did make the lives of a few hundred of million people a little better. It's an immense accomplishment. Did he singlehandledly solve all the problems in the world? Nope. But he easily did a billion times more than you and me. The impact a single person can have on society is absolutely mind-blowing. Note that you're comparing him to Bill Gates, one of the (if not the) most effective philanthropists on the planet. By comparing him to Bill Gates you've effectively conceded the argument.
teyc 15y ago
That he was unstoppable, was not for our benefit. Steve Jobs couldn't help himself. He had to go on and climb the next mountain.

by nirvana 15y ago

tobtoh 15y ago

> I think that his continuing to work is the most charitable act I've observed in my lifetime. Really? I doubt he did any of the stuff for our express benefit. Steve had a personal drive to produce good products, to achieve his personal goals, and he did that really well and is rightly admired for pursuing his internal drive and making it such a success. Was his drive mainly for altruistic reasons? For the benefit of mankind? Come on - I'm all for admiring the guy, but let's not fawn over him. He's not a saint. If he is, I guess all those mega-rich CEOs of the Samsungs, Ford, General Electics of the world are also so admirable because they 'charitably' continue to work when they financially don't need to.

rayiner 15y ago
Look at it this way. With $140 million in 1985, Steve could've invested all of his money in a hedge fund and probably come out ahead of how he did investing in Pixar, Apple, etc. From $140 million to $7 billion over 26 years is about 16.5% return per year, which is less than the annual return of Berkshire Hathaway over the last 20 years (almost 19%). He's not a guy who took his millions and invested it in the questionably useful products of Wall Street. Instead, he built things that people loved. That doesn't make him a saint, but I think it makes him someone worthy of respect.
- tobtoh 15y ago
  > That doesn't make him a saint, but I think it makes him someone worthy of respect. I totally agree about respect - but respect is not charity. Charity refers to noble goals/intentions - Steve 'only' built great products - those products are great - but there is nothing inherently noble about them. If the OP had said Bill Gates is amazingly charitable - I would be more inclined to agree. Bill Gates has worked to make the world a better place and has self-sacrificed his wealth to help others. Steve did none of that - Steve is incredibly entrepreneurial and deserves boatloads of respect - but don't say his actions where charitable.
  - rayiner 15y ago
    I agree. I think charity is the wrong word. There is something between blind greed and charity, and that something is applicable here.
  - eftpotrm 15y ago
    I have real problems with declaring Bill Gates 'amazingly chartitable'. Yes, he's given away huge chunks of money to worthy causes, but how did he get that money? By operating a business in a way that twice got him convicted as an abusive monopoly. Microsoft's market position was hugely enhanced by them illegally using one captive market to create another. They forced up prices for their customers and forced competitors out of business by illegal means. So yeah, he's giving away lots of money, but to me it's stolen money. That's not charity.
    - spinchange 15y ago
      Wasn't the central reason for the US anti-trust action over bundling and distributing IE for free to undercut the paid stand-alone Netscape? Today this is Google's basic strategy for everything. I was very much "against" MS in those days, but looking back on it now, I feel like it was the beginning of a big part the modern web/software business model. It's not "stolen," just because we don't like how he earned it. Committing to give away one's entire fortune - and actually doing it - is hugely generous, our feelings about MS aside. It is very much charity.
delackner 15y ago
Please, altruism as defined your way does not exist. Altruism is at its core self-serving: We desire to feel better about ourselves, to feel we are good human beings. People admire different things, so their vision of how best to behave leads to different forms of self-satisfaction. Rather than focus on whether Steve did great things because of his passion for excellence, or because he wanted to have legions of fans, or for whatever other supposedly saintlike or selfish reason, focus on what he accomplished: bringing computing to the masses. That is an amazing thing.
- vinutheraj 15y ago
  The way you define altruism, would be the correct way to describe what Jobs did. Even though he was ousted from Apple he continued to work on his passion. His actions were at its core self-serving. The side-effects were the good things he added to humanity.
  - reddit_clone 15y ago
    Everyone is gushing about him like he cured cancer, abolished hunger or something. He ran a successful computer company and led the teams that produced some really nice gadgets. Get some perspective people !
- crag 15y ago
  "bringing computing to the masses." The masses in the West. You don't see to many Mac's running around Africa, India, China, or Russia. I'm not trying to belittle Steve Jobs at all. He was a visionary who had a stunning ability to spot and develop good products. It made him, and others VERY wealthy. And powerful. But don't think for a minute Mr Jobs did it out of the goodness of his heart. Profit and his vision motivated him. He wanted to push the industry he loved in a certain direction. And he succeded brilliantly. Oh and I admire him for doing what he loved to the bitter end. I can tell you, from personal experience (I lived though AIDS/Cancer) that was not easy for him. At all. I admire him a great deal for never giving in. //edited. changed the 1st line and added the last paragraph.
- thaumaturgy 15y ago
gizmo 15y ago
It doesn't matter if he worked for our express benefit or because he simply wanted to. Intent is nearly meaningless in the grand scheme of things. The bottom line is that he contributed an enormous amount and he inspired a generation of technical people. Maybe it doesn't deserve the label "charitable" but it most certainly is hugely beneficial to mankind.

cma 15y ago

>He could have even blown some of it on US festivals with Wozniak and still lived well. Woz had a near-death plane crash and lost his memory for several weeks prior to the festival stuff. Kind of hard to judge him comparatively like this, maybe he wasn't capable of the type of work he did at Apple prior to the crash anymore.

ramanujan 15y ago

Indeed. Not to criticize, though, but the underlying premise that industrial scale "charity" is necessarily good deserves a critical reassessment. Investment works and turns countries and companies into net producers. That's the story of countless Asian Tigers. At the largest scale, aid did not fix China and India, capitalism did. This is because charity/aid doesn't scale. It's zero sum, it does not teach the guy on the other side of the transaction to catch a fish, to determine what they can produce which is worthy of trading in the global market. I understand that Gates, Buffet, and now Zuckerberg had to throw their money away to buy respectability, in the same way people in olden times gave money to the church for various mumbo jumbo rituals. But I often wonder what could have happened had more of those billions been channeled into genuine positive sum activities like Nobel Laureate Mohammed Yunus' Grameen Bank.[1] Entities not necessarily focused on absolutely maximum profit, but which are at least self sustaining like Craigslist and hence not infinitely dependent on yet more infusions of cash from third parties. [1] I'm sure that with all the billions spent, at least some has gone into real social entrepreneurship, meaning profitable standalone organizations. But it's hard to escape the fact that Gates, by his own admission, wasted literally billions on education with little to show for it. The goal instead should be to identify the next Craig Newmark, Jimmy Wales, Salman Khan, or Mohammed Yunus and back them. Have them create a few billion in value and capture enough to remain afloat, and maybe dial up the next few efforts of this kind.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

TheDroids 15y ago

Him continuing to work was a charitable act and the end result was massive human good? Your reality is definitely distorted.

kayoone 15y ago

Touched billions of people ? Massive Human good ? I love Apple, but cmon. Steve built awesome products for the industrial countries to solve luxury problems, shaped the computer industry and thats awesome, but saying he made billions peoples lives better is some steps too far. In fact, Bill Gates probably did alot more good to humanity by being one of the most generous philanthropists on the planet.

gizmo 15y ago
Except he did make the lives of a few hundred of million people a little better. It's an immense accomplishment. Did he singlehandledly solve all the problems in the world? Nope. But he easily did a billion times more than you and me. The impact a single person can have on society is absolutely mind-blowing. Note that you're comparing him to Bill Gates, one of the (if not the) most effective philanthropists on the planet. By comparing him to Bill Gates you've effectively conceded the argument.

teyc 15y ago

That he was unstoppable, was not for our benefit. Steve Jobs couldn't help himself. He had to go on and climb the next mountain.