5 ms·

Related article: http://www.infoworld.com/d/the-industry-standard/bill-gates-not-steve-jobs-the-real-hero-177864 http://www.infoworld.com/d/the-industry-standa

Related article: http://www.infoworld.com/d/the-industry-standard/bill-gates-not-steve-jobs-the-real-hero-177864 http://www.infoworld.com/d/the-industry-standard/bill-gates-... Quote: Since leaving Microsoft, Gates and his wife Melinda have made their foundation into one of the world's premier charities. Since 1994, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation amassed an endowment of more than $31 billion in funds to fight the world's most difficult issues. But it hasn't merely accumulated funds, the foundation has already given away more than $25 billion, as Wessel notes in his HBR essay. I don't know what Jobs did with his money. He may well have been a substantial donor to many a good cause. But at the end of his life, he was focused on business, while Gates is focused on broader and ultimately more significant concerns. In a note to the members of the Harvard community, Gates wrote, "I hope you will reflect on what you've done with your talent and energy. I hope you will judge yourselves not on your professional accomplishments alone, but also on how well you work to address the world's deepest inequities, on how well you treat people a world away who have nothing in common with you but their humanity."

raganwald 15y ago
I don’t know what Jobs did with his money and I don’t care, it has zero to do with what Bill does with his money. I can decide whether to admire Bill on the basis of his actions rather than trying to compare him to others. Am I to think more of him if he gave away more money than Steve Jobs? What a ridiculous notion. If you buy that argument, I ask you to think less of him because he spent fewer of the limited number of hours of his lifetime on philanthropy than some of the people who inherited a fortune and spend their lives on charitable causes. Or less of him because he didn’t minister to the sick and needy in Calcutta’s slums. Each person can be judged on their own merits. I have nothing against admiring Mr. Gates, and I don’t think we need to drag Mr. Jobs or anybody else into the discussion.
- varunsrin 15y ago
  Jobs is relevant to this discussion, because the article is based around the following quote: "Bill is basically unimaginative and has never invented anything, which is why I think he’s more comfortable now in philanthropy than technology" I've always considered charity to be a personal thing, and if Jobs didn't want to give it away, well that was his money, and his decision. However, attacking Gates for helping eradicate polio / malaria is simply unnecessary, and comes off as a childish retort.
  - raganwald 15y ago
    Are you summing the article up as an attack on one quote? Okay, if you like Bill, you can say that Jobs once said something that was wrong. Great. Next question. Or you can agree with Jobs but say that the world is still a better place for what Bill has done. Also great, next question. Either way, why waste time worrying about something a dead man said? Jobs is maggot-food now. Gates is here with us. Decide for yourself whether you like or dislike Gates. I can easily do so without worrying whether Jobs liked him or not. And I can easily decide to admire what Jobs did or didn’t accomplish without worrying whether he had anything of value to say outside of his field of expertise. Anyways, like I said, I’m supportive of people admiring what Mr. Gates is doing with his life today. And really, what he did with his life (past tense) is done, finished, no way to unwind it, so why worry about it. All I’m saying is, worrying about how it compares to Jobs or what Jobs said... This is not the best way to think about Mr. Gates, who deserves to be judged for his contribution just the way it is.
    - varunsrin 15y ago
      No, I don't think the article is an attack on just one quote (and quite didn't say that). I agree with you about almost all your points - its just that in your original post, you basically said 'leave Jobs out of this', and I'm merely pointing out why Jobs is relevant to this discussion - because a part of the article discussed Steve's attack on Bill. "Either way, why waste time worrying about something a dead man said? Jobs is maggot-food now. Gates is here with us." While I usually don't care for the Gates vs. Jobs arguments that particular statement irked me, because its not just a slight against Gates, its an indirect attack on the field of philanthropy itself. And Jobs' words have the power to influence many.
      - raganwald 15y ago
        I don’t dispute your ire at the statement. And it’s inevitable that people will idolize other people, especially when they’re dead. That’s unfortunate in so many ways, especially if given all of the things he said in his life, someone would pick one of his less exemplary utterances to carry around in their brain. It turns out people are... People. So I get why you are dismayed at the thought of people carrying Jobs’ statement around in their heads, just as I am dismayed at the thought of looking at Mr. Gates’s choices in comparison with Mr. Jobs choices.
- recoiledsnake 15y ago
  Sure, but Jobs himself says this and invites comparisons in the very article that this HN post points to: >“Bill is basically unimaginative and has never invented anything, which is why I think he’s more comfortable now in philanthropy than technology That does seem like a cheap dig to me against someone that is doing very important work in the third world. I guess Bill Gates gets a bigger thrill saving a hundred thousand of the poorest 10% of the world from suffering with AIDS or dying from malaria or starvation rather than sell an extra ten million phones or tablets to the richest 10% of the world. http://www.newser.com/story/130728/bill-gates-aids-program-saved-100k-indians-study.html http://www.newser.com/story/130728/bill-gates-aids-program-s... >Am I to think more of him if he gave away more money than Steve Jobs? What a ridiculous notion. If you buy that argument, I ask you to think less of him because he spent fewer of the limited number of hours of his lifetime on philanthropy than some of the people who inherited a fortune and spend their lives on charitable causes. Or less of him because he didn’t minister to the sick and needy in Calcutta’s slums. I think that when it comes to a human quality like selflessness and empathy there's nothing wrong with thinking more of people like Mother Teresa, and next billionaires who contribute a lot of their money or time to charitable contributions. You don't need to think of less of anyone to respect good qualities in others. Even Jobs took the help of philanthropic causes like the Hare Rama Hare Krishna temple's free meals to the poor. From his Standford commencement address: >It wasn't all romantic. I didn't have a dorm room, so I slept on the floor in friends' rooms, I returned coke bottles for the 5¢ deposits to buy food with, and I would walk the 7 miles across town every Sunday night to get one good meal a week at the Hare Krishna temple. I loved it. -- >Stanford Commencement Address, 12 Jun 2005 Anyway my personal theory is that Bill Gates had enough being on top of the world in the late 1990s and early 2000s that me moved on to bigger things, eradicating preventable diseases like malaria/AIDS and helping the poorest of the poor and felt it was a better use of his time and money for a higher ideal in life. Jobs had to prove himself after coming back to Apple and Apple is just now taking off under his stewardship and he's still too involved in Apple's day to day operations. I definitely believe he would have had the time and inclination to do better for the third world in his later years after leading success to Apple if he had survived his totally unfortunate cancer that cut his life short. He simply didn't have enough time.
  - raganwald 15y ago
Lennie 15y ago
I don't know why people think the foundation is a good thing. They deploy the same nasty tactics that the company does. That is not a charity.

raganwald 15y ago

I don’t know what Jobs did with his money and I don’t care, it has zero to do with what Bill does with his money. I can decide whether to admire Bill on the basis of his actions rather than trying to compare him to others. Am I to think more of him if he gave away more money than Steve Jobs? What a ridiculous notion. If you buy that argument, I ask you to think less of him because he spent fewer of the limited number of hours of his lifetime on philanthropy than some of the people who inherited a fortune and spend their lives on charitable causes. Or less of him because he didn’t minister to the sick and needy in Calcutta’s slums. Each person can be judged on their own merits. I have nothing against admiring Mr. Gates, and I don’t think we need to drag Mr. Jobs or anybody else into the discussion.

varunsrin 15y ago
Jobs is relevant to this discussion, because the article is based around the following quote: "Bill is basically unimaginative and has never invented anything, which is why I think he’s more comfortable now in philanthropy than technology" I've always considered charity to be a personal thing, and if Jobs didn't want to give it away, well that was his money, and his decision. However, attacking Gates for helping eradicate polio / malaria is simply unnecessary, and comes off as a childish retort.
- raganwald 15y ago
  Are you summing the article up as an attack on one quote? Okay, if you like Bill, you can say that Jobs once said something that was wrong. Great. Next question. Or you can agree with Jobs but say that the world is still a better place for what Bill has done. Also great, next question. Either way, why waste time worrying about something a dead man said? Jobs is maggot-food now. Gates is here with us. Decide for yourself whether you like or dislike Gates. I can easily do so without worrying whether Jobs liked him or not. And I can easily decide to admire what Jobs did or didn’t accomplish without worrying whether he had anything of value to say outside of his field of expertise. Anyways, like I said, I’m supportive of people admiring what Mr. Gates is doing with his life today. And really, what he did with his life (past tense) is done, finished, no way to unwind it, so why worry about it. All I’m saying is, worrying about how it compares to Jobs or what Jobs said... This is not the best way to think about Mr. Gates, who deserves to be judged for his contribution just the way it is.
  - varunsrin 15y ago
    No, I don't think the article is an attack on just one quote (and quite didn't say that). I agree with you about almost all your points - its just that in your original post, you basically said 'leave Jobs out of this', and I'm merely pointing out why Jobs is relevant to this discussion - because a part of the article discussed Steve's attack on Bill. "Either way, why waste time worrying about something a dead man said? Jobs is maggot-food now. Gates is here with us." While I usually don't care for the Gates vs. Jobs arguments that particular statement irked me, because its not just a slight against Gates, its an indirect attack on the field of philanthropy itself. And Jobs' words have the power to influence many.
    - raganwald 15y ago
      I don’t dispute your ire at the statement. And it’s inevitable that people will idolize other people, especially when they’re dead. That’s unfortunate in so many ways, especially if given all of the things he said in his life, someone would pick one of his less exemplary utterances to carry around in their brain. It turns out people are... People. So I get why you are dismayed at the thought of people carrying Jobs’ statement around in their heads, just as I am dismayed at the thought of looking at Mr. Gates’s choices in comparison with Mr. Jobs choices.
recoiledsnake 15y ago
Sure, but Jobs himself says this and invites comparisons in the very article that this HN post points to: >“Bill is basically unimaginative and has never invented anything, which is why I think he’s more comfortable now in philanthropy than technology That does seem like a cheap dig to me against someone that is doing very important work in the third world. I guess Bill Gates gets a bigger thrill saving a hundred thousand of the poorest 10% of the world from suffering with AIDS or dying from malaria or starvation rather than sell an extra ten million phones or tablets to the richest 10% of the world. http://www.newser.com/story/130728/bill-gates-aids-program-saved-100k-indians-study.html http://www.newser.com/story/130728/bill-gates-aids-program-s... >Am I to think more of him if he gave away more money than Steve Jobs? What a ridiculous notion. If you buy that argument, I ask you to think less of him because he spent fewer of the limited number of hours of his lifetime on philanthropy than some of the people who inherited a fortune and spend their lives on charitable causes. Or less of him because he didn’t minister to the sick and needy in Calcutta’s slums. I think that when it comes to a human quality like selflessness and empathy there's nothing wrong with thinking more of people like Mother Teresa, and next billionaires who contribute a lot of their money or time to charitable contributions. You don't need to think of less of anyone to respect good qualities in others. Even Jobs took the help of philanthropic causes like the Hare Rama Hare Krishna temple's free meals to the poor. From his Standford commencement address: >It wasn't all romantic. I didn't have a dorm room, so I slept on the floor in friends' rooms, I returned coke bottles for the 5¢ deposits to buy food with, and I would walk the 7 miles across town every Sunday night to get one good meal a week at the Hare Krishna temple. I loved it. -- >Stanford Commencement Address, 12 Jun 2005 Anyway my personal theory is that Bill Gates had enough being on top of the world in the late 1990s and early 2000s that me moved on to bigger things, eradicating preventable diseases like malaria/AIDS and helping the poorest of the poor and felt it was a better use of his time and money for a higher ideal in life. Jobs had to prove himself after coming back to Apple and Apple is just now taking off under his stewardship and he's still too involved in Apple's day to day operations. I definitely believe he would have had the time and inclination to do better for the third world in his later years after leading success to Apple if he had survived his totally unfortunate cancer that cut his life short. He simply didn't have enough time.
- raganwald 15y ago

Lennie 15y ago

I don't know why people think the foundation is a good thing. They deploy the same nasty tactics that the company does. That is not a charity.