Wired on Steve and Bill's Social Status
In a somewhat bizarre article, Wired's Leander Kahney is confused by the fact that Steve Jobs receives more cultural admiration than Bill Gates considering Gates gives away lots and lots of money. He's just thinking too hard about it.Listen, it's not exactly rocket science. In the grand scheme of things, giving away $29 billion dollars to charity is world-changingly fantastic (although it's easier to do when you are worth $51 billion). At that amount, I don't think it even matters if it turns out the donations are largely for PR reasons. But admiration comes in many forms for many reasons.
The bulk of people that line up at a concert are not there because of the lives that the band members lead when they're off stage. They're showing up because they like the music. This is a different kind of admiration than one has for a charitable organization.
Steve Jobs exists as a icon of sorts because his companies have had a long-term impact on people on a creative level. Apple is significant because it works to advance the state of the art, even when this leads to the path of most resistance. This earns respect. In a similar way, Pixar has advanced the state of the art in film production, setting a new standard for emotional appeal along the way.
These are not the same as founding a charitable organization in one's name, but they're not meant to be. In reality, Apple may be one of the few large technology companies with a culture that doesn't take itself or the industry far too seriously. Who else would personify a microprocessor in a television ad or design a login dialog that shakes its head when you mistype a password? It's this side of Apple that is often just out of view of mainstream journalists and the typical technology worker.
Bill Gates's PR problems in the technology industry come from foisting low-quality products on an unsuspecting public. No clear-thinking, healthy person will confuse these misdeeds with the issues of the human race. In the same sense, no sane individual will directly compare the merits of Pixar to that of the One Campaign.
That said, when you have to use a frustrating piece of software for at least eight hours a day, it does have an impact on your quality of your work life. There's no reason to ignore that just because the company's co-founder donates money. You'll still go to work the next day. More to the point, Microsoft can't and shouldn't earn credit for what the Gates Foundation does.
The author finishes up the article by suggesting Jobs should speak up on social issues. This strikes me as a very personal decision, not one that should be made to please journalists.
Wired on Steve and Bill's Social Status
Posted Jan 25, 2006 — 35 comments below
Posted Jan 25, 2006 — 35 comments below
Mickey — Jan 25, 06 688
Steve — Jan 25, 06 689
I'm not even sure what the author's point is. Gates is good because he flaunts his charitibility? Jobs is bad because he doesn't?
Nate — Jan 25, 06 690
I agree with the article in its criticism of Jobs -- I don't think it's a private matter that people are amassing fortunes so far beyond their means; there is far too much need out there for the super-rich (be they professional athletes, movie stars, producers, or captains of industry) to continue the concentration of wealth. If he's engaging in these issues anonymously, then great. If not... Well, I have issues with Paris Hilton, too.
Ravi — Jan 25, 06 691
Steve — Jan 25, 06 692
Maybe he donate millions of dollars anonymously, or maybe he shoots kittens. We don't know. An article forming this opinion without any factual groundwork is not only pointless, but vapid speculation.
Scott Stevenson — Jan 25, 06 693
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.
Tim — Jan 25, 06 694
It's true that there's a value in adding PR value to your donations -- I'm not going to fault Bill G for getting ink with his donations because that gets people thinking about helping with Africa themselves. But private giving is worthy of respect and I'm sure Jobs does give back -- certainly more than Mr Kahney.
And its also true that Jobs contributes far more in his day job than Gates by bringing excellence into the computer universe.
The thing that's bothersome about the Wired article is that its showing a trend -- edgy, hip journalists making the choice to get personal and even attack someone because that person is a cultural icon. It's like a literary version of a paparazzi. Pick the right target and your article gets way more traction.
What gives a journalist the right to judge another person's approach to charity -- especially since Kahney has no idea what Jobs does privately. It's totally bogus.
These kinds of lame attacks are especially bad for the Web. To me the standard should always be, would I say this to someone I know in real life. I hope Mr Kahney would tone things down a bit if he knew Steve Jobs personally.
Personal attack pieces, grossly one-sided articles, name calling blogs, email flames -- it cheapens the Internet and makes people think they don't need to take responsibility for their own actions. So a thoughtful piece like this one is a nice relief.
Andy — Jan 25, 06 695
mbaudis — Jan 25, 06 696
it is a bit more complex with international project support; but there, any billion ut of somebodies pockets is "peanuts" compared to government money spent on "peace and stabilization missions" - in iraq and elsewhere.
so, maybe some 10000 from the jobs family towards the democrats may matter, in the end, more than m$ billions ...
Muntzx — Jan 25, 06 697
Michael — Jan 26, 06 699
patrick — Jan 26, 06 700
Why is it that when Jobs has his company's home page changed (free) to alleviate a temporary set-back in New Orleans (and generate goodwill for Apple in the process) he earns widespread applause. And why is it that when Gates uses his own money (billions) to help solve long term, hard problems, everybody yawns? Now this would make for an interesting article...
James Gowan — Jan 26, 06 701
James Gowan — Jan 26, 06 702
If there are still people who have a problem with Gates (money-giving or no) it's for the simple fact that he makes billions of dollars and millions of PC users still deal with virus and bugs by the trillions. Who's going to be happy with that? Jobs "gets it" and he gets it right most of the time.
Abbi Vakil — Jan 26, 06 703
Anon — Jan 26, 06 704
Then he started saving Music. He (and his talented team) has single-handedly given the vast majority of the world's music buyers a real place to go to enjoy buying music legally and helped to pour almost a billion dollars back into the music industry.
He saved the portable music player. Nothing worked and then... the iPod. He gave us "a thousand songs in your pocket". Four years later, it's "15,000 songs in your pocket... oh and pictures... oh and tv shows and movies and music videos". We love Steve because he cares enough to do things RIGHT. Bottomline, the Bottomline with Steve is NOT the Bottomline. The Bottomline has always been to bring something simple yet something great to all of us. With the iPod, even the PC users get to enjoy. And if he's making some money along the way, fine. He's earned it. He's giving quality goods and service for our hard-earned money. What else do we want as consumers anyway?
That's the Mac Faithful Image of Steve these days.
About his giving... which was the real rub against Leander Kahney. Consider this...
"So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing." - Jesus from Matthew 6:2-3 (NIV)
When one considers that Steve's not on the Cover of Time as Person of the Year for his giving, a person could assume it's because he just doesn't give at all. That he's a greedy, corporate power-hungry mogel.
Or one could give him the benefit of the doubt and assume it might be because he has a little conviction and humility about his giving.
Don't assume the worst, even when you don't hear the trumpet blasts. They're not always what they seem.
Anon — Jan 26, 06 705
Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, "I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on."
Drew — Jan 26, 06 706
But what Kahney's not considering here is that charitable giving is just one of many ways to "give back." Creating opportunities for self-sufficiency is another. Jobs built a company that employs a lot of people, and his growing field of products allow other companies to make new products (Bose, anyone?); those companies employ people, and so on. Offering someone a job is better than offering them a handout.
Anon — Jan 26, 06 707
Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, "I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on."
Muntz — Jan 26, 06 708
Dave Henderson — Jan 26, 06 709
Kettil — Jan 26, 06 710
iain — Jan 26, 06 711
iain — Jan 26, 06 712
Mickey — Jan 26, 06 713
It's 2006 and I'm still using a Mac. Right now I couldn't care less how much he gives or doesn't give to charity. He's given a lot to ME.
Besides, any Joe who's taken an economics course knows that Bono & Gates aren't making a dent in solving any long-term problems. I'd be afraid to think they might be making it worse, but so far I haven't seen them do anything.
By all means, invest in failing school systems. Fund social infrastructure projects in countries that are engaged in civil war. Just don't stop throwing money at the problem. Throw as much money as you can at it.
Whoever throws more wins!
Michael — Jan 27, 06 714
Or maybe he hates charity, nobody really knows.
Jon H — Jan 28, 06 725
Gates, on the other hand, has for years had a program of regular sales of large blocks of his Microsoft stock. He's much more diversified. And he was able to give large blocks of stock to his foundation.
If Kahney wants to look for stingy billionaires, he'd be better off looking at Larry Ellison, Paul Allen, Warren Buffet, Michael Dell, and Steve Ballmer. They have more money than Jobs, and no greater profile in charitable giving.
Come to think of it, maybe the difference between Jobs and Gates comes down to two things: the order-of-magnitude difference in wealth, and Gates' affluent family history.
Jon H — Jan 28, 06 726
David H Dennis — Jan 28, 06 727
So if someone makes a product I like, I'd rather have the money go to them than to charity. If Bill Gates wants to help poor countries, why doesn't he give away his software in Asia and China instead of sending goon squads to Internet cafes to arrest the poor but dishonest about software licensing? They're marginal operations that make so pathetically little they couldn't afford software licenses, but Bill doesn't care. You eliminate them and you eliminate the access to technology for poor people Bill says he wants people to have.
I hope his guys find a cure for AIDS - or at least that someone does - but I'm not inclined to praise him to the skies until we actually see if his giving away of money actually does some good somewhere. I've noticed that whether in government or the private sector, money that's given away is wasted most of the time.
I'd rather someone concentrate on making a great product than giving away his money, because it's the great products - and, unfortunately, the awful ones like Windows - that really affect people's lives. AIDS kills thousands; Windows makes virtually every man, woman and child on the planet just a little more miserable. It's tough to make any kind of moral equivalency in this case, but certainly I'm not going to forgive Bill Gates for creating the abomination that is Windows no matter what he does.
D
Jon H — Jan 29, 06 728
Gates owns about a billion shares of Microsoft, which is about 9% of the shares. While he's the largest shareholder, he doesn't have an overwhelming percentage, as is the case with Jobs. He could be outvoted by Ballmer and a couple of institutional investors, who each have about half as many shares as Gates.
And anyway, because there are so many shares of Microsoft outstanding, Gates can sell millions and millions of shares without really denting his standing. That's not really the case for Jobs, since Pixar is much smaller and has far fewer shares outstanding.
Anyway, the point is that Jobs' wealth hasn't been very liquid because he's had it tied up in Pixar with an intention to maintain control. I'd bet that despite his paper wealth, he probably has the liquid assets (and the lifestyle) of someone well short of a billionaire. It's probably more like a $300 millionaire. Rock star level, not globe-striding colossus level.
So it should be no wonder that he doesn't give money away like Gates - in liquid assets terms, he's probably one hundredth as wealthy.
Matt — Jan 30, 06 733
Unlike Bill Gates who heads a company that's appropriated most of it's products, leans on anyone who tries to offer or buy an alternative to the Microsoft hedgemony, including attempting to bully whole governments.
You know the whole illegal monopoly thing.
Lee — Jan 31, 06 735
Some of you people have your priorities completely out of whack. Seriously, get help, because if you can't separate your dislike for a software platform from the real problems of the world, there's something wrong with you.
Scott Stevenson — Jan 31, 06 736
With one possible borderline exception, I don't believe any of the comments here suggested that.
Jake — Apr 18, 06 1109
ivey duke — Jun 30, 06 1428