Nate said: but he was using it as context around his larger point about Jobs' lack of public philanthropy
My feeling is that choosing to become publically active in social issues is a personal decision, and should not be the result of pressure from a writer employed by Wired.
Outside of the context of this specific piece, I'm a bit skeptical about articles that are designed to be so cutting. Authors know when they're pushing buttons, especially with Apple. Some do it because they legitimately care about the issue, others (hopefully, far fewer) do it for clicks.
I don't have any reason at all to believe Kahney is in the second category, it's just something that's always in the back of my mind.
I don't think it's a private matter that people are amassing fortunes so far beyond their means
If total wealth is your concern, I'd think Bill Gates would be your target with more money than Jobs by an order of magnitude or so.
by Scott Stevenson — Jan 25
My feeling is that choosing to become publically active in social issues is a personal decision, and should not be the result of pressure from a writer employed by Wired.
Outside of the context of this specific piece, I'm a bit skeptical about articles that are designed to be so cutting. Authors know when they're pushing buttons, especially with Apple. Some do it because they legitimately care about the issue, others (hopefully, far fewer) do it for clicks.
I don't have any reason at all to believe Kahney is in the second category, it's just something that's always in the back of my mind.
I don't think it's a private matter that people are amassing fortunes so far beyond their means
If total wealth is your concern, I'd think Bill Gates would be your target with more money than Jobs by an order of magnitude or so.