Slashdot Mirror
A Look Back At the Career of Steve Jobs
Zothecula writes with a rather extensive piece in Gizmag about Steve Jobs's various business endeavors. From the article: "Revered by many, hated by some, but respected by most, the indisputable fact remains that Steve Jobs is the most successful business leader of his generation and quite possibly of all time. The numbers are impressive in themselves but the most remarkable aspect of his success is how it was achieved. Though he remains at Apple, the end of his tenure as CEO is the end of an era and an opportunity to try and grasp just exactly what it is he did and what lessons there are for all of us 'trying to make a dent in the universe.'"
I like how when Apple introduced the iPod, they thought of it as practically a novelty. IIRC, I think they targeted 10,000 sales.
Can we hold off on all this retrospect until he's actually dead.
Bill Gates, was never fired, Microsoft has better market, more value and far more in people's lives. Now that Bill doesn't direct MS we all known what happened. I like Jobs but the phrase "the most successful business leader of his generation and quite possibly of all time." is a fallacy. Thomas Edison, Henry Ford come first easily.
The Life and Career of Steve Jobs, from Next Media Animation in Tapei. Enjoy.
Regardless of what you think of Mr. Jobs' company's products, you must admit the man had an almost unparalleled vision for the future.
In a hyper-connected world of ethics-free corporate drones apathetic about anything past this quarter's profits and stock price, Jobs stood apart by having a 5, 10, perhaps even 20 year plan for Apple that he ruthlessly pursued at the expense of anything standing in the way (be it under-performing employees or products). As a commenter last week put it, he set out to make a dent in the universe, and actually did it.
Enjoy your retirement, Mr. Jobs, you've bloody well earned it.
He did what he wanted and he had good ideas. He didn't compromise. He was kind of a dick at times but he was generally right and he knew it, and stuck to his ideals.
He had the luxury of being in a position to do that. It was only when he lost that ability that he got fired. He left. Apple sank. When he went back it was on his terms.
I think he was in the right place at the right time with some damn good ideas about how to build computers and products. But without the initial products to launch everything, courtesy of Steve Wozniak, Jobs would have been all dressed up with nowhere to go without getting even luckier.
All the articles I've read have an *obituary* feel to them. It's like he's already dead except his body hasn't read the news yet.
I will always remember Jobs as the greatest hypocrite technology has ever known. Yet somehow worshiped as an innovation loving, creativity coddling, God among artists. For some odd reason all of these people think the i in i products stands for them.
1984 commercial, iPhone.
"We have always been shameless about stealing great ideas."
"They are shamelessly copying us." (Re: Microsoft)
"Good Artists Copy, Great Artists Steal"
There are no records of public donations.
Does not mean he never donates, just means if he does it's for the sake of donating, not as an action of PR.
Bill Gates has saved more lives than any man this century. I do not see Steve Jobs fighting malaria or donating to charity. He is not trying to have people like him. They already do as his reputation as CEO when he quit. True Steve Jobs is a better CEO in my opinion, but I would respect him more if he felt that having all that money meant he should put it to good use. I respect Warren Buffet too for donating half his money to the Gates Foundation and promising to give away the rest of his fortune to other events when he retires.
http://saveie6.com/
Perhaps Jobs just prefers to donate anonymously, as many of us do.
Wow. It's a good thing you're poor.
yeah because an endless parade of shiny gadgets that billions of people will never see is SOOO much more worthy than spending your own money to fight disease, poverty and illiteracy on a global scale. Bill isn't trying to buy his way to anything. Hey, maybe Steve gives privately, but the fact that Bill Gates gives publicly doesn't give Steve some moral high ground.
I feel kind of uncomfortable judging anyone about what they may have/have not done for charity. Jobs is a relatively private person when it comes to his personal life and a pretty deep thinker. Yes, he has no public record of philanthropy. Who's to say he doesn't do it privately or hasn't set up his will for postmortem charitable contributions?
Bill Gates and Warren Buffet bank on their reputations as front men for their charitable organizations. That's their right and they do a lot of good work. But that's not the only way to do it.
It's so awesome that reading it makes me feel like a koala farted a rainbow in my brain.
Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
That's right â" Steve Jobs, worth $5.1 billion, has no public record of philanthropy.
I am all for encouraging charitable giving, but this is not a respectful way to do it. This is attempting to impose a value judgment ("People should have a public record of philanthropy") rather than talking about why charitable giving is a good idea and why the potential donor might be interested.
Regardless of whether he has given or not, Steve Jobs has served the public admirably. He has created wonderful products that people are willing to pay for, so obviously his service must have been valuable to some people. We live in a Jetsons age thanks to Steve Jobs. I haven't even bought an Apple product in eight years, but I'm still benefiting from the impact his company's designs have had on the industry.
I think it would be spectacular if Steve's billions were now spent looking for a cure for the medical conditions that are plaguing him. Doing so might seem "selfish," but would in fact serve the public yet again. Extending Jobs' lifespan would be a wonderfully fitting reward for the valuable service he has already provided for the world.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
This.
Steve Jobs has a publicity problem. It's basically at the point where the news goes wild everytime he breathes. His every action is scrutinized and criticized and commented and such 10 times over.
Now imagine how it applies should he not give anonymously. If he gave to a pro-gay-rights group, he'd have half the US population cheering him, half the population jeering him (and death threats). Ditto if it was a religious organization. Or minority group. Or whatever he honestly believes in. The act of donation would basically bring on such a wrath of coverage and commentary that really, I doubt even the charity itself would want that sort of scrutiny (especially since it often takes away from whatever goal they want to accomplish).
He gives anonymously, the charities respect that (and thankful the media doesn't go over their charity) and life goes on.
Hell, given his Spartan lifestyle (does he have a couch yet?), he may be giving a ton away - he certainly doesn't have a need for money.
Mac OS X is built on stolen GPL and Open Source projects where Jobs is paying the developers to be silent about it and never releases their changes
back into the community. Jobs is a liar and a thief and if he is remembered at all, this is how he should be remembered.
No it is not and Apple gives back: http://www.opensource.apple.com/
Every OS X installation is a stolen Linux installation. We must not forget or forgive this treachery.
Apple must be destroyed for the sake of the Open Source world. and I will not rest until justice is done!
OS X is not based on Linux it is based on NeXTSTEP which in turn is based the Carnegie Mellon Mach kernel with elements of BSD thrown in.
Oh look, parasites demanding food! Let me note that the people who run change.org would directly benefit from any money tsunamis unleashed by their challenge. And they are for-profit , making their demands unusually self-serving even by the weak standards of the charity industry.
More than Jonas Salk? More than Charles Drew? More than Alexander Fleming?
Why? There is no moral advantage to more business.
Personally I don't believe in charity. You can't just throw money on social problems and have them magically disappear. History has shown that time and time again. It's feels more like an American cultural phenomenon where people expects celebrities to make shallow statements on how "world peace is great" and donate some money "to the cause". I'm not a big fan of Steve Jobs but the fact that he hasn't thrown away his money on some temporary Africa projects and rather invested them in the economy (the real eradicator of poverty) doesn't affect my view on him negatively the slightest bit.
Inheritance tax is not theft. It is a very progressive tax in that it serves to prevent the perpetuation of wealth, free of tax, in wealthy families and are “a certain corrective against the development of a race of idle rich”.
FTR, agree with most of your post.
> Yes, he has no public record of philanthropy.
Philanthropy is not a black or white issue. His salary at Apple was $1.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-dollar_salary
> Who's to say he doesn't do it privately or hasn't set up his will for postmortem charitable contributions?
Exactly.
The best thing he could do with the money (if he is not going to leave it to his heirs, and BTW, inheritance tax is real theft) is "donate" it to somebody who already has a lot of money and is running a successful company or to set up an investment fund to have the money invested into various start up businesses.
OTOH he could just burn it, wouldn't have to pay any inheritance tax at all and it would be something different for a change.
I'd rather see inheritance taxes than people gaining wealth due to nothing more than an accident of birth. Especially since money = political power^w speech, why should some people inherit a greater say in the political process than others. Seems the founding fathers fought a revolution against inherited political standing.
but I didn't want that somewhere to be based on MP3 players, locked into an amazingly shitty media player.
Apple has moved past that. Why can't you? All the newest stuff is way past the iPod era.
Going forward with iCloud, you almost never even have to use iTunes...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I don't understand, what would you rather do? You are talking about actual investment capital, that is made from work of an individual, this is definitely the most moral way of saving money - working for it, as opposed to how gov't creates it - printing/borrowing (inflating and stealing from you now or borrowing - forcing deferred taxes upon those, who will pay them in the future for the spending done now.)
What do you mean "no moral advantage to more business"?
I can actually turn this right around and say that it is the most moral thing that can be done - investment into more business. Do you know what investment (deferred consumption) got for people? Everything you have and you use in your life is done from one form of investment or another. All products and services that market demands and market wants to buy and to pay for (when I say market, I mean individuals, who also have to work to exchange their work for yours), all of those products and services need to be produced.
The more competition there is in every sector the better. Would Steve Jobs benefit from less government involvement into health care and insurance in terms of regulations, taxes and subsidies? Of-course he would. Who can say what the state of medical advancements would have been by now if it was not for government regulations that destroy competition? Maybe his (and other people's) problem could be actually fixed for real if government was not allowed to interfere with the medical field. Government interference with the electronics and other technology fields is less than with medical, and look what happened in 40 years with computers. Computers are more powerful than ever and cheaper than ever.
Same applies to all technologies, as technology improves, it frees up more of the human time and reduces costs as well as it creates better, quicker, safer ways of delivering whatever the need is, so in case of cancers for example, it is possible to fight many cancers without surgery, with just certain types of drugs, which is a clear advancement in everything - from technology itself, to the difficulty of recovery, to amount of work that needs to be done, etc.
Without government interference and with more private investment that is the outcome - more competition, more choice, better choices, lower prices.
So I don't know what you would do with money, but the best way to spend money is to generate more business opportunities via investment AFAIC, I think it actually is the most moral thing that can be done. You cannot raise standard of living with hand outs, but if you create a business and a product, you do in fact increase standard of living for many.
You can't handle the truth.
When the network gets choppy you are going to wish you bought devices that actually aimed at storing data locally instead of relying ONLY on the "cloud".
With iCloud you get the best of both worlds - any media you want on-demand, but stored away so you can really access it any time you want.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I've often thought that the USA way of taxing is a lot better than the Canadian way. In the US, money that you really don't deserve (inheritance, lotteries, etc.) is taxed quite hard but the money that you earn or invest (to create jobs) is not. In Canada, it is the reverse - lottery wins and other winfalls are not taxed at all but the money you actually earn is way, way over taxed.
Our society it predicated on making a mark on the universe. We are obsessed with painting the scenery with our big fat egos. Its kind of sad and pathetic.
I don't see your concern here. Humans are, among other things, capable of changing the universe profoundly, not merely making a mark on it. It's not magical. Any intelligent, self-reproducing machine could do the same.
You don't see astronomers with ego issues for the most part, because they have a fair sense of man's importance in the big picture.
They don't. Ask them where humanity will be in a billion years. The question is unanswerable.
Until we get over ourselves (as individual selves), our focus won't be contributing to a future worth living in for human beings, and with 7,000,000,000 on the planet now, perhaps its a good time to make this shift while there still is a future left for human beings.
What shift? To a humbler, unambitious useless creature which will die off in time, leaving no trace? What reason is there for you to issue this call to seven billion people, if you're intent on being so humble? Maybe you should practice what you preach? Or maybe you should eat your words.
Rockefeller easily beats him for that (who most people would think of), but the slightly more obscure, though overwhelmingly beat-the-piss-out-of-Jobs-in-business-hands-down, fellow is Anton Fugger who was estimated to be worth about $1.3 trillion in modern dollars.
Anyone with enough resources to pay themselves in dividends and stock options would be stupid to take a large annual salary. Capital gains taxes are significantly less than income taxes.
It could be that Steve Jobs donates anonymously. If that is the case, it should be pretty easy for you guys to find some press releases or other PR material where Steve Jobs is at least speaking positively about groups he feels strongly about. Surely there is a lot of that information out there. Right?
I tried to search for some and this is what I came across.
http://www.stephenthomas.ca/steve-jobs-hates-good-it/
You could turn around and say this, and you'd still be a running dog lackey libertarian fool. Investment strategies are understood very well, and the power of cogent capitalism. It needs oversight because there are assholes out there that think nothing of the lives of others and what their product methodologies can do to fuck them up. You need oversight because you're not trustworthy, and the greed motive makes quote unquote "moral" decisions for many abberant capitalists, just like it does for abberant socialists.
So, be careful of that high horse there, fella. We need conscience and scrutiny to prevent the assholes from taking over.
Oh, wait....
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
In fact, Jobs even went so far as to eliminate corporate philanthropy programs at Apple.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jobs#Philanthropy
That is not the behavior of someone who agrees with charitable giving, anonymous or otherwise.
Ten Times the man Bill Gates is. Bill Gates is now trying to buy his way to people liking him.
You realize Steve Jobs isn't going to sleep with you, right? I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure Bill Gates never fathered an illegitimate child and then refused to acknowledge it was his. People already like Bill Gates for the fact that he was essentially responsible for bringing personal computers into homes, regardless of how you may feel about his business practices.
If you want to talk about "likability", talk to people like Wozniak, John Sculley, or anyone else that worked directly with Jobs.
That's not to suggest that he ever became easy to work for. Jobs is even known to yell at company directors. Asked how she dealt with her boss, former Apple PR chief Laurence Clavere once told a colleague that before heading into a meeting with Jobs, she embraced the mindset of a bullfighter entering the ring: "I pretend I'm already dead." (Clavere says today that she doesn't recall making the comparison but notes that "working with Steve is incredibly challenging, incredibly interesting. It was also sometimes incredibly difficult.")
Often Jobs would suddenly "flip," taking an idea that he'd mocked (maybe your idea) and embracing it passionately - and as his own - without ever acknowledging that his view had changed. "He has this ability to change his mind and completely forget his old opinion about something," says a former close colleague who asked not to be named. "It's weird. He can say, 'I love white; white is the best.' And then three months later say, 'Black is the best; white is not the best.'"
I challenge you to find a single account from someone who personally knows Bill Gates who claims that the man is unlikeable.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
I see you failed American History of the 20th century.
Progressivism as a political movement emerged in reference to a more general response to the vast changes brought by industrialization: an alternative to both the traditional conservative response to social and economic issues and to the various more radical streams of socialism and anarchism which opposed them.
Theodore Roosevelt, Wilson, FDR and LBJ are noted Progressives.
I believe that the Estate Tax system, even if the Bush cuts are repealed, will not lead to all of an estate's wealth going to the government, at the same time with an Estate Tax, it does not create a noble class of ultra wealthy land owners. I don't see government spending and welfare as an evil.
Reasonable tax regimes don't lead to the abolishment of private property, the 1950s saw the highest post-WW2 tax rates in the United States and also the lowest unemployment rates.
A progressive tax is a tax by which the tax rate increases as the taxable base amount increases. Income taxes are progressive as are Estate Taxes, sales taxes are regressive in that everyone pays the same percentage, leading to the poor paying a greater share of their disposable income.
So in no way does "progressive", either in politics or tax systems mean theft.
ROFL. "Jobs contributed nothing to NeXT, he MERELY BANKROLLED IT."
Please tell me this was snark! LOL I'm sure there are a lot of cool ideas out there that we'll never see because they were never "merely" bankrolled.
Some of the earnings are taxed, note I have no state income tax in Alaska, other states vary in income tax rates.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payroll_tax#In_the_United_States
But were I to win a million dollars in Las Vegas or from a Lottery, the IRS automatically gets 25%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lottery_jackpot_records#United_States
If you use a smartphone or tablet with anything better than PalmOS5, then yes, Apple HAS made your life better....indirectly, at least. Competition with Apple's progress spurred other manufacturers to up the ante in the products you probably enjoy today.
A sentence you'll never see on an Internet discussion board: "You know what? You're right."
I don't own a single Apple product and most likely never will.
And yet Apple has still made your life better.
There is no standard connector that could have replaced the iPod dock connector, at least not at the time. Can you name one? (which supports video out, audio both ways, lightweight interface to USB/Firewire)
Apple has generally been a good corporate citizen in terms of supporting open standards where they have no value-added differentiation--that's about all you could hope for out of a business, frankly. Firewire is a standard, so is Thunderbolt, they have one of the most standards compliant web browsers out there and they put it on every product they make.
Is it possible you just don't understand technology, but you've adopted some sort of anti-Apple stance out of pure dogma?
" BTW, inheritance tax is real theft)"
No it isn't.
And he would never pay any inheritance tax, sine he would be fucking dead.
You're little unthinking excuse to rant does nothing for the conversation, fucking flamebait.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
You call people thieves and hacks, but then tell others THEY won't be polite?
you Hypocritical ass.
Government spend has ALWAYS created jobs. It is the only way ever to get us out of any recession.
"As to lowest unemployment past WWII, well of-course, government finally stopped spending after the war was over and it allowed the depression to stop and since 1947 there was growth helped by USA's virtual monopoly on labor (on production, because USA had intact infrastructure and others didn't)."
this is factually wrong.. and stupid.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Charity doesn't fix underlying problems any more than antibiotics fix underlying systemic failure that lead to life threatening infections. However, if you don't provide the antibiotics, the patient dies. Hundreds of millions of people are alive today because of people who were generous enough to help those who could not help themselves, and that help includes money, time, labor, and the essentials of life. To be clear, I'm not talking about cultural failures, I'm talking about disasters (some natural, many man-made.) From Catrina to the Indonesian Tsunami, from Haiti to the devastating earthquakes in China and Japan, we've helped those who were in no position to help themselves, and these are true acts of charity. This is distinct from assuaging a guilty conscience by giving a bum a buck, who will promptly drink a dollars worth of rot-gut. That buck honors neither giver nor the receiver.
So if you are saying that saving those in need is pointless because it doesn't address the real problem, I would counter, save the people in need, then by all means, address the real problem. That doesn't mean let millions die a horrible unnecessary death. Of course you might be more of the mind "If [the poor] would rather die, they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population" -- Ebenezer Scrooge.
Steve's lack of philanthropic endeavor paints a picture of a man more interested in himself than others. Absolutely not a crime, its not even evil per se'. Its just small.
Most charities are essentially scams. Giving to them accomplishes almost nothing.
If he believes in a cause, he should be a coward about it.
Nothing says spartan like large mansions, private jets, 100,000 dollar cars.
Not that there is anything wrong with that, just pointing our it's laughable to call him spartan.
He certainly is a minimalist.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Ah yes, wild speculation based on the lying bitch known as hindsight.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Astronomers sent a probe out into the universe with a gold disk because they feel aliens would want to know about are species. How is that not a big fat ego?
And you know what? it's that big fat ego that builds huge bridge, building covered in glass that touch the sky., It's that ego that put us on the moon, and sent rovers to mars, it's that ego that allows us to make better vaccines, and better cars.
Ar ego is awesome, inspiring and makes us the greatest species on this rock.
The problem is the few psychopaths that run large corporation, or any large body of people.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Ok then I guess I stand corrected. You're on the fringe that may not have benefited. Though tell me, by which operating system and desktop environment are you posting, now?
A sentence you'll never see on an Internet discussion board: "You know what? You're right."
If you own a smart phone, then, yes, Jobs has made your life better. Regardless of your choice in phone, Jobs has directly or indirectly made your phone smarter, cheaper, and easier to use.
"Poverty, AFAIC, is created by government spending (and regulating/taxing/subsidizing) and wealth is created by the private sector investment. Government is not (or shouldn't be) here to invest. It's here with a specific spending function - protect liberties. That's all that all of the government must be concerned with."
Have you read the United States Constitution?
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
Article 1, Section 8
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
General Welfare means social programs, they aren't theft, and the US began taxation programs during the Washington administration.
As for the statement that no one paid income tax in the 1950s, that is just ridiculous, there were accountants, there were ledgers and people went to prison for tax evasion.
http://ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of-federal-individual-1.html
http://www2.census.gov/prod2/popscan/p60-018.pdf
1952-53 - 22.2% on income above $4000.
92% at $400,000.
Average income was $4011
And the bulk of US households made more than $4000 a year.
If welfare is evil, does the US military-industrial complex strike you as evil? Lockheed Martin for example makes the vast majority of it's income from US government contracts, as does Northrop Grumman, General Dynamic Land Systems, TRW and many others.
http://www.macrumors.com/2011/08/30/despite-apples-denial-itunes-match-is-streaming/
this is definitely the most moral way of saving money - working for it, as opposed to how gov't creates it
Right, those nasty governments which do nothing except borrow money, invest in building shared infrastructure, and then levy taxes on the users of that infrastructure, and return any excess to the public purse. They're totally different from private companies which borrow money, invest in building shared infrastructure, and then levy intellectual property rent fees on the users of that infrastructure, and return a sizeable profit to a bunch of speculators in another country who don't use or care about the products at all.
You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
except borrow money, invest in building shared infrastructure
- this is beyond federal government authority, which is only there to protect liberties, which is the role of government (used to be.)
By the way, I did leave a lengthy comment on this, it's not worth cutting pasting if I can just reference it.
and then levy taxes on the users of that infrastructure
- but that's not true at all. It's not just the users who are paying for this, otherwise it would have been not a tax, but a user fee.
return any excess to the public purse.
- right.
private companies which borrow money, invest in building shared infrastructure
- of-course it is different because the risk is to the investors, not to all tax payers. If this thing does not work out why should the risk be socialized?
levy intellectual property rent fees on the users of that infrastructure,
- I don't know about 'intellectual property rent fees' on infrastructure, but I am against all government interference in business, which means no government issued patents or any corporate protection whatsoever. What the hell is "intellectual property" if it's not protected by government for the sake of a monopoly?
return a sizeable profit to a bunch of speculators
- we are all supposed to be investors into our future. When you say "speculators", well, some people invest for the long term and some invest for shorter term, but their risk is higher. As long as government stays out of bailing them out, it is purely a localized problem of those particular people. As long as government stays out of creating moral hazard, there cannot be such a monstrosity created by the free market that is "too big to fail". This concept doesn't exist except in government halls.
You can't handle the truth.
The 16th Amendment made Income Tax constitutional, as did Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 and Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
If there is a Constitutional Amendment, then it's not unconstitutional.
As for the "effective taxes", there are not historical documents or data sets to support that claim.
Income Tax in the US dates to 1861, not 1913.
In order to help pay for its war effort in the American Civil War, the United States government imposed its first personal income tax, on August 5, 1861, as part of the Revenue Act of 1861.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1861
Yes, income tax did exist temporarily and it was repealed.
In 1913 though it was created at the same time with the Federal reserve, which made it possible to grow the government beyond its intended scope. As to the 16 amendment, that's what I meant earlier in this thread that I do not trust that government can run the justice system effectively and without corruption either. Obviously 18 amendment also existed in the Constitution. It was a mistake, just like the 16th.
You can't handle the truth.
The "iCon" biography makes a reference to him donating to a charity for blind children. The SIVA website confirms this and puts it around 1979 which is about the time the Apple II was released, so before they were big-shots really.
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
It's feels more like an American cultural phenomenon where people expects celebrities to make shallow statements on how "world peace is great" and donate some money "to the cause". I'm not a big fan of Steve Jobs but the fact that he hasn't thrown away his money on some temporary Africa projects and rather invested them in the economy (the real eradicator of poverty) doesn't affect my view on him negatively the slightest bit.
Poverty has been around a lot longer than Americans, and quite likely from before civilization. The difference is, we have texts discussing alms for the poor going back thousands of years, whereas when a pre-historic hunter-gatherer tribe or individual needed the benefit of charity because of natural disaster, accidents, or conflict, no one wrote about it.
Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
No, but it's up to him what to do with his money (or lack thereof). Steve's wealth is primarily in Apple stock, he could give it back to the company, thereby enriching his shareholders, he could prefer his shares go to his children or whatever. He doesn't have to give it away, and while he can't take it with him, he could split it up 4 ways amongst his children.
He isn't a minimalist, he's an egomaniac, one tends to appear like the other but they aren't the same (he builds things he can control, which are necessarily minimal since he has to control those parts completely). If he gives up Apple stock he risks losing his hard won (back) control. When he dies almost certainly his heirs will have to pay estate tax (35% federal + state). If he gives away the money, there's no estate tax. If you believe that, on average, how the government spends it's money is good enough, then simply letting your wealth be split up with inheritance tax is just as good, if not better, than giving it away. And this way he doesn't have to micromanage what happens to it. Could you imagine a stand alone Steve Jobs charitable foundation? He'd have his little paws all over it, as would be his right. But that doesn't seem to be what he wants to do, and I think he's more the type to let any donating be done after he is dead, and can't mess with it, than before. I think he knows he's a control freak, and is sufficiently aware of his skills to think it best he not get in the business of charity. But I could be wrong.
He pretended he didn't have a daughter and made her live on welfare when he was (only) a millionaire. He has a problem.
OTOH he could just burn it, wouldn't have to pay any inheritance tax at all [......]
Who do you think ends up with the money when you burn cash?
I have owned many apple products, they are just products
It's obvious he doesn't do it privately because he's not stupid. You don't get to be in his position without pushing everything possible to further both your own career and your company.
Everything will be taken away from you.
You need to ask how much extra the world of charity received as a consequence of what Jobs did. Apple employees, stockholders, middlemen who made a profit -- some of them must have given money to charity, and I can guess that combined amount is quite high. Jobs created conditions where value is created and some of it inevitably passed on to less fortunate. That is far more than you or I have done.
Who do you think ends up with the money when you burn cash?
Lawyers. Burning money is a crime in the US.
.sig withheld by request
Lawyers. Burning money is a crime in the US.
Not a hope. If you're on your death bed and you've burnt all your money, they can't get anything out of you.
I have a flip open phone that is dumb as a brick. My life would not improve by paying 4x more to have youtube and facebook with me 24/7
as far as OS in my house you have the choice tween windows and linux
Co0Ps, Jim here. Look, we've been on a hiring spree recently, and you know as well as I that unemployment rates have been at an all-time high for years. Therefore, I'm afraid we're going to have to let you go. I know, employing you probably resulted in some net good in some abstract sense, but the fact remains that employing you has basically had zero effect on unemployment overall. I men, it's not like you can just hire people and make unemployment magically disappear. I'm sure you'll therefore understand why this company just doesn't believe in employment anymore. Sorry!
Going forward with iCloud, you almost never even have to use iTunes...
you cant even turn on your phone or tablet without being strongarmed into an iTunes account. I dont want to pay 600$+ for a toy and instantly be forced into signing up for a service I will never use
Well, this is the web we are talking about, invented by Tim Berners-Lee on a NeXT machine...
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
I don't consider emergency relief "charity" so I think there is some mix-up in terminology here. When it comes to emergency relief there are already systems in place, if not governments then at least the UN. If you want to talk about the real problems like world poverty, lack of education, widespread disease, non functioning markets and election systems things tend to get a lot more complex than "people starving because this disaster cuts of their supply of food so we need to give them food". You need to realize that most of the world is actually not in a state of emergency but have problems just as pressing in the long term as people starving in the short term.
What I'm criticizing here is that many charity projects just burns a pile of money for the sake of easing the consciousness of people that are better off, which helps nothing at best and is counterproductive at worst. For example building a bunch of schools so children can get education. Very heart-warming but futile when you don't have teachers and the kids needs to work anyway to provide for their family so the families are not interested in getting education for their kids. The well functioning market economy is the best tool invented so far to generate wealth - and charity is just a temporary flow of resources that could actually interfere with that mechanism. Especially when the goal of the investment is to have a huge impact in the short term just like many charity projects do, since the easiness to gather money is proportional to how seemingly pressing the issue is that being addressed by the charity is.
What's interesting though is charities that attempts to kick start business and entrepreneurship in poor regions. There has been some interesting projects in that area that touches on micro-loans, hands-on education and getting involved with the actual people you are trying to help. I don't want to call that "charity" though since that word has another meaning to m. ("blindly giving away money to things that makes me warm and fuzzy"). If charity was more focused around those kind of projects though I would be less critical of the form it takes today.
Come back with assertions like that when they are published in Fortune, Forbes, or the Wall Street Journal.
Some blog called Gizmag? Why do I scent a whift of fanboy spirit?
I would love to hear steve job's ideas. so far all he has left us was work from his talented pool of engineers
A man who owns his own Gulfstream V does not live a "Spartan" lifestyle.
he may be giving a ton away
I find this hard to beleive. Unless the cayman islands banking association is a registered charity.
If he was really interested in creating good will, he'd use his public persona to raise awareness of issues in need of charity in the same way Bill Gates does.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
You seem to think charities exist only to help the poor. With that in mind, many, many people will fall upon hard times at some point in their life and need assistance from others. Apparently you would rather they die off than help them out for a while until they get back on their feet.
Aside from helping the poor, charities also exist to:
The iCloud is USA only.... So everyone else in the world is stuck with the iTunes! That and oh btw the iCloud isn't OUT YET!!
Yes, he has no public record of philanthropy.
Philanthropy is not a black or white issue. His salary at Apple was $1.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-dollar_salary
A $1 salary is not an act of philanthropy, it's a tax dodge.
Any high ranking businessman does not earn the majority of their income from salaries, they earn it from shares, gifts (from the company), trusts and other means that are: 1) tax deductible.
2) non-taxable
3) taxed at a lower rate.
How many restricted shares in APPL (the kind that pay dividends and are not permitted to be sold openly) does Steve Jobs own. A lot more then $1 worth I'd bet. Meanwhile he compares all his expenses against his $1 salary in order to gain tax deductions on his other sources of income. Not that I'm singling out Jobs here, just pointing out that it's far from philanthropy, in fact it's getting out of paying income taxes.
> Who's to say he doesn't do it privately or hasn't set up his will for postmortem charitable contributions?
Exactly.
Love how fanboys need to make up these little fantasies to justify their beliefs. It's so cute that you hold onto the threads of hope like that.
Maybe Steve Jobs is undergoing a metamorphosis (like a butterfly) into a younger version of himself in order to complete his plans for galactic domination. That would certainly explain his absence from Apple's leadership.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Philanthropy is using great wealth to live a legacy. It is not charity in the sense that it is a gift. Yes other do benefit but is like receiving socks and underwear for christmas. Someone has decided what the world needs, and they are going to make it happen. Philanthropy is about control, legacy, and fundamentally tax evasion.
For instance it is arguable that the Gates simply took a low hanging fruit, malaria control, and used as a means to set up a foundation to launder money. Sure they do some good, but does it do net good. If that money was taxed by the relevant government, if they simply gave their money as charity to existing NOG, might there be more good. Was it necessary to set up a whole new bureaucracy to fight what many were already doing, if they only had the cash the Gates had. The problem with simply giving to charity is that they Gates would not be able to insure that even though they money was legally theirs, it would still be available to enrich them.
Buffet is the same thing. I believe the foundations are headed by each of his three children. What a wonderful way to avoid inheritance tax while still insuring his kids have a guaranteed lifetime income and looking good in the process. He could have just given the money in trust to a charity, but he wanted to launder the money instead. Again, there is nothing wrong with philanthropy, it is just not charity.
Many people in the US claim that christianity is the basis of this country, yet they forget the story of the poor women giving her last penny to the church. How this gift was more valuable than all the others in the pot. How the people giving publicly to show how generous they are were simply hypocrites to be pitied. I am not that extreme. I think the world has greatly benefited from philanthropists. OTOH I think we benefit greater from the true spirit of giving. Those that will give a dollar simply because someone needs it. Those that will pay taxes even though much of it funds things, and people, we do not like. Those that will give even though they do not have control over where the money goes.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
"Do not tell me of my obligation to put all poor men in good situations. Are they my poor? I tell thee, thou foolish philanthropist, that I grudge the dollar, the dime, the cent, I give to such men as do not belong to me and to whom I do not belong." Ralph Waldo Emerson.
Where there is the necessary technical skill to move mountains, there is no need for the faith that moves mountains.
The Summary says "Of his Generation" - neither Rockefeller or Anton Fugger are really in the same generation as Mr. Jobs.
"...and quite possibly of all time."
Anton Fugger (and even more his uncle, Jakob) pretty much controlled the fate of
several kingdoms. Today's Murdochs pale in comparison.
And let's not forget Marcus Licinius Crassus, who personally owned a big
part of the Roman Empire at his peak. Seriously.
"most successful business leader of all time"? More successful than Rockefeller, who controlled a key commodity (oil) and who was worth over $600 billion in today's money? More successful than Gates whose company, no matter how unfashionable, still has an absolute hammerlock on computer desktop operating systems?
Jobs is a great business leader, but give me a break. He gets this fame because he knew how to give presentations in black turtlenecks. All these "Jobs came down from Mount Olympus to bless us with his awesome talent and leadership" stories are just ridiculous.
Penny - plain text accounting
There's another answer to the accusation: it's almost never a good idea to give gifts to charity under your name.
Once you're identified as someone who gives to the less fortunate, you'll have fundraisers and grifters of all kinds crawling out of the woodwork looking to get some for themselves.
By giving anonymously, you can do good deeds and move on to doing other good deeds without interference.
Try this educational experiment: give $5 each to three or four famous charities; United Way, Salvation Army, etc. Give them your name, address and phone number and see what happens. After a year you'll be much wiser and you'll be able to imagine what it'd be like if you were known to be super rich.
Heck, don't give them your address or phone number and they'll still find you. Of course, you'd probably already know this if you're someone who gives to those less fortunate than yourself.
you cant even turn on your phone or tablet without being strongarmed into an iTunes account.
Did I not JUST FREAKING TELL YOU ABOUT THE FORWARD THING?
With iOS5, devices activate without iTunes.
Sheesh!
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Let me know when they finally vanquished it for good and I'll jump on board.
Ok, in practical reality if you were dead-set against it would never have to use iTunes. You can activate directly on device with iOS5, all music/video purchases would be available from the cloud, app data should backup on iCloud.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
SMB support has been built in since 10.3
I have firewire ports on both my Dell and Sony. Firewire is not "Apple's" standard, it is an IEEE standard and Apple is part of the licensing pool. Just as there is a licensing pool for USB.
What is a DPort? Do you mean DisplayPort? The mini-DisplayPort that Apple uses was accepted by VESA.
So what "standard" is there that is able to duplicate this functionality cheaply?
http://pinouts.ru/PortableDevices/ipod_pinout.shtml
Or do you expect a $20 boom box to implement a USB host controller?
The Mac Mini has an HDMI port. All other Macs have DisplayPort. DisplayPort is not an Apple proprietary connector. Dell and other manufacturrers have been selling monitors with DisplayPorts for years.
You mean "headaches" such as using a DVI to VGA connector? In fact it has just been recently that at least Mac Minis didn't come bundled with DVI to DisplayPort adapters.
Only a few Macs had optional Zip Disk support. All Macs came with 3.5" disk drives up until the iMacs.
2007 Macs still did not have +/- DVD writers (they choked on -R blank DVD's)
According to this site:
http://apple-history.com/
Every Mac introduced in 2007 had built in DVD +/- drives
Apple is part of the licensing pool for Firewire. The licensing pool and operates under FRAND. Just like most other standards (mpeg, mp3, H.264, etc,).
Thunderbolt was created by Intel.
Well both my Dell and Sony have firewire. There is also a fee to use USB.
If you want to legally use a DVD Player there is a licensing fee....
You're not exactly batting a hundred....
Ego is not a dirty word. - Skyhooks
Sara
Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
"Apple's been actively rejecting the standards other people use, open or otherwise. There is no HDMI on Mac products, No VGA ports "
You must look at different Apple products than I do... These products support HDMI either directly or with a cheap adapter:
"Products Affected
iMac (21.5-inch, Mid 2010), iMac (21.5-inch, Late 2009), iMac (27-inch, Mid 2010), MacBook Pro (13-inch, Mid 2010), MacBook Air (Late 2010), MacBook Pro (17-inch, Mid 2010), Mac Pro (Mid 2010), iMac (27-inch, Late 2009), Mac Pro (Early 2009), MacBook Pro (15-inch, Mid 2010), MacBook Pro (17-inch, Early 2011), MacBook Pro (15-inch, Early 2011), MacBook Pro (13-inch, Early 2011), Mac mini (Mid 2010), MacBook (13-inch, Mid 2010)"
Practically every Mac made in the past decade supports VGA with a cheap adapter (usually from a high grade standard DVI connection).
If you're going to be an irrational hater, at least try to get some of your facts right.
A.
...bringing you cynical quips since 1998
For years they pushed AppleTalk over TCP/IP, even after OS X.
No, the primary networking for OS X always was TCP/IP. AppleTalk was there for compatibility.
Firewire is an open standard, developed by a few companies, but mainly Apple.
Apple contributed their mini-display port connector to the display port standard, and it was adopted. That's contributing to a standard, not proprietary.
iWhatever doesn't have a proprietary USB connector. It has a proprietary dock connector which carries USB signals along with other signals that USB, and no other connector of the time supported. If USB supported video signals, then they would have used it. Apple quite rightly creates their own thing when there isn't anything currently out there that provides the features they want in their products. That's one of the reasons they stay ahead of the rest of the industry.
MacBooks don't need HDMI and VGA ports when they have a DisplayPort connector. Having multiple obsolete ports is a PC laptop thing. It's one of the reasons PCs are bigger and heavier. But that's nothing to do with rejecting open standards. HDMI is supported on the Mac Mini. And of course DisplayPort itself is an open standard.
You mention ZipDisks as if bundling some third party large removable storage is a crime. Again there was no open standard with high capacity at the time. You say "when everyone else was using floppy disks", neglecting to mention the fact that Apple pioneered the use of 3.5" disks and the rest of the industry followed. And they were the first to dispense with floppies as standard, which again the rest of the industry followed. Apple tends to lead with technologies, others often follow.
If you check out definitions of "open standard", you'll discover that there is no consensus that there must be no cost for licensing. Only that such costs should be reasonable and non-discriminatory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_standard
I challenge you to find a single account from someone who personally knows Bill Gates who claims that the man is unlikeable.
Source: http://www.engadget.com/2011/04/18/paul-allen-compares-working-with-bill-gates-to-being-in-hell/ :
But the memoir's most intriguing (and controversial) revelations revolve around Allen's personal and professional relationship with Gates, whom he described to Stahl as a gifted businessman with a penchant for being a total jerk.
if you don't understand tech, as evidenced by your irrational post, then you shouldn't be here.
Inheritance tax is not theft. It is a very progressive tax in that it serves to prevent the perpetuation of wealth, free of tax, in wealthy families and are “a certain corrective against the development of a race of idle rich”.
That money has already been taxed when the deceased earnt it (except for "old money").
Any money earnt from it is also taxed as earnings or capital gains.
It is not technically theft since that has very specific meaning, but it does mean the government is saying a portion of what you have earnt is theirs once you die.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
When all of you are done arguing whether Bill Gates or Steve Jobs is the true Messiah, will you please wake up and join us adults in the real world? Both men are wildly successful because they knew how best to exploit others, were driven and hard working in doing that, and were lucky. Both men set aside morals and decorum throughout their career to behave badly. Both have a reputation for abusing staff who didn't perform. Both are happy to take credit and earn money from the work others have done. Both are happy to place restrictions on what their products can do and how useful they are to their customers in order to further their own goals.
Charity contributed by Bill Gates is a good thing - he did not have to do it, though obviously it serves his purposes. It doesn't change how he earnt his money in the first place.
Arguing who can walk on water best is purile.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Steve Jobs contributed nothing to Apple's early success, merely being present with money when Woz developed the technology.
So you think Steve Jobs (and not Mike Markkula) was the bankroll for Apple?
The truth is that Steve Jobs made the Apple II a consumer product. Woz designed all of the electronics (except the power supply), but he would have sold a bare board if it had been up to him. Jobs was responsible for the all-in-one plastic case, keyboard, etc. that made the Apple II a product that could be successful at retail.
I understand the tech, You were the one who called proprietary standards open, so feel free to leave any time you like.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Does anybody know how well does this correspond to the actual history?
SMB is a file sharing protocol (Server Message Block) not an transmission protocol like TCP or AppleTalk. I remember getting Macs in 2006, they had Apple talk on by default but not TCP/IP
I used to have IEEE 1394, the laptop I bought last week doesn't have them. Every device I have uses USB and none use Firewire.
Also use of USB is royalty free, unlike Firewire.
Then having it not work.
The headache comes when you dont have the converter handy, or having to carry around 30 connectors because your laptop doesn't have a port everyone else uses.
During my years of tech support, every time someone brings a Mac into a meeting I get called and asked "do you have a converter" when they find out we dont they roll their eyes and ask everyone to huddle around their laptop screen. There's your headaches, not just for you but for everyone else.
Fee to use the USB logo, the hardware is royalty free.
But you're out for a duck.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Yes, and here I also have another outlook. It's also pretty typical American to expect emergency relief (see http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2405282&cid=37260276) and institutions in society to be funded by charity. I, however think this is the governments obligation, and also UNs in case the government cannot help its own people. I don't refer to emergency relief when I talk about charity. See my other post.
Jobs is a Buddhist. Any money he gives to charity or for other good works is likely to be given anonymously.
I remember getting Macs in 2006, they had Apple talk on by default but not TCP/IP
Unless you are referring to OS 9, your memory is flawed. OS X has supported TCP/IP since day one, and has always been enabled by default.
As for OS 9, it's possible you might have had to enable TCP/IP in the Control Panel. It's been so long, I'm not sure if that was the cast at the time.
It's "theft" to tax income? Especially income that isn't earned?
Congratulations on your ultimate triumph of stupidity. Your mother must be very proud to have raised such a complete moron.
Try looking off the market then.
which is totally what she said
Actually I'm quite happy, thanks, but good failed attempt at pop-psychology there. Maybe try turning it around on yourself?
which is totally what she said
No, moron. The tax is levied against the recipient of the inheritance, not the deceased. The person inheriting the money is receiving it as income, for which they did no work and produced no value, and are being taxed accordingly.
If you ever gain the intelligence to understand the concepts in play, feel free to come back and discuss them. Until then, piss off.
If you burn the money then no one is receiving it, so there's nothing to tax. You argue against taxes but don't understand even the first thing about taxation.
Your comments aren't appropriate anywhere because they're ignorant beyond salvation.
Not if he donates to a charity that is clothing the homeless. How are they supposed to stay warm in the winter when the coats Steve bought them only have one button?!?
I send my sympathy to Steve Jobs, as with understatement he reveals he is in mortal straits.
The business started by Steve Jobs you can look at as a very pure business strategy play. They sell a computer hardware and software package that is primarily marketed to individuals.
At the onset, I mean the computer club and wire wrap era, there was this giddy excitement at having a CPU, some memory and a way of executing a programmable instruction set that could do any logic in software.
There have been a couple really big forks in the intellectual road since then: The IBM open bus and motherboard, the BSD software release license, the GNU and open source software system, TCP/IP, the Web, the CPU size and speed increase, the memory density increase, the plague of music copyright, the rise of software and business patents as an instrument of oligopoly, and the blocking of web sites by government administrative demand.
You can look at the company Apple and the products it has made and see how the company handled each of these computer developments. For each of these computer developments, Apple has stayed within a very careful framework: Every year Apple has avoided doing anything that allowed their customers to make non-Apple products the central part of their computer use.
An illustration of how Apple has been practising business strategy (as beyond simple design or programming) is the recent appearance of touch screen devices. Part of the strategy was waiting for key surface acoustic wave touch sensor patents to expire and at the same time developing and patenting software that worked with the patent expired technology. Remember Apple briefly included a USB wand touch pad with IMac laptops around 2004 ? (I guess) They added these gadgets to facilitate development of patentable display software.
So I look at Apple as having played a consistent business chess game. Their customer has been the individual and the business activity has been to recapture the customer over and over. Now those incredible stock prices, that is because Apple succeeds in charging a $40 to $200 per unit retail premium.
The real revolution is still open source software running on generic hardware using an open Web and serving peaceful human needs. It is interesting and elegant, that as closed as Apple computer hardware may be, their machinery still does many of the things one might wish of an ethically and socially ideal computer.
SMB is a file sharing protocol (Server Message Block) not an transmission protocol like TCP or AppleTalk. I remember getting Macs in 2006, they had Apple talk on by default but not TCP/IP
Your memory is flawed, TCP/IP has been the default connection protocol since Mac OS 9, which was released in 1999. It has never been the default on OS X, and is in fact not even supported by OS X any more.
I used to have IEEE 1394, the laptop I bought last week doesn't have them. Every device I have uses USB and none use Firewire.
So?
1) It's not like apple wasn't shipping USB on their machines as *well*.
2) While you may not own them there are many devices out there that not only had firewire, but needed it because USB simply didn't have enough bandwidth (see DV cameras for example). Given that one of apple's primary target audiences is video editors, that's a major market segment that they needed to address.
The headache comes when you dont have the converter handy, or having to carry around 30 connectors because your laptop doesn't have a port everyone else uses.
Except that VGA is actually incredibly rare these days. Yes many projectors use it, but actually the vast majority of monitors use DVI, and a good number use display port.
(I'm not American and I don't live in the USA)
I agree with your post up until you make an uncalled judgment, use it to support a stereotype and then go on to offend a nation. How can you be sure the poster is American, and why do you generalize like that? There are some great examples of wealthy Americans doing great things for social causes (Bill Gates, Buffet, etc).
SMB is a file sharing protocol (Server Message Block) not an transmission protocol like TCP or AppleTalk.
AppleTalk isn't an transmission protocol. "AppleTalk" is a set of protocols including a file sharing protocol. "AppleTalk Transaction Protocol" and "AppleTalk Data Stream Protocol" are transmission protocols.
Fandroids hate facts.
I have never understood the need to push people to donate. If they want to donate they will. If they don't then I see absolutely no need to ask it of them. He's earned the money so he's free to do what ever he wants with it. People who claim he MUST donate because he's a successful enterpreneur and should share the wealth are just plain stupid idiots. If he really wanted to get improve stuff he'd finance some startups or found more companies that earn people income, but just giving the money away to charity is plain stupid. Most charities have such huge overheads that only a small fraction of the money makes it to those in need and even then the need is not always best served by just throwing money and goods at it.
The good old saying that give a man fish and you've fed him for a day, teach him to fish and you've fed him for years to come still hold true. I've created a successful small company and live off quite nicely, but I wouldn't just go out and donate stuff to people just to feel better etc. There are rare cases where a helpful hand really helps, but investing the money in something that makes life in general better and allows you to reap the benefits of this R&D is a way better method. So if someone wants to invest in R&D of some cure and then get a % of the royalties I'd say that's a heck better spent money even if some of the time the R&D leads to nothing. Remember, 80% or so of money given to the red cross is spent on overhead so if one out of four R&D ventures comes back successful you've already beaten the charity market...
It's only the parts of iCloud that relate to music that don't work outwith the USA. If you only use iTunes to back up your phone, then you can replace iTunes with iCloud no matter where you are.
Not if he donates to a charity that is clothing the homeless. How are they supposed to stay warm in the winter when the coats Steve bought them only have one button?!?
Steve's coats would have zippers, not the three buttons that traditionalists say makes them a real coat.
Fandroids hate facts.
If he was really interested in creating good will, he'd use his public persona to raise awareness of issues in need of charity in the same way Bill Gates does.
If he did that, you would be the first to attack him for using charity as PR for Apple.
Fandroids hate facts.
If he was really interested in creating good will, he'd use his public persona to raise awareness of issues in need of charity in the same way Bill Gates does.
The Gates foundation does evil, and does nothing to hide it save for releasing press, and most people lick it up. Jobs did not have a PR problem so he didn't have to kick out any of those press releases.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
He didn't sell out because he never had a position of integrity from which he COULD sell out; he was the business/money guy from the beginning, and the intent was always to make as much money from the customers as possible.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
In fact, Jobs even went so far as to eliminate corporate philanthropy programs at Apple.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jobs#Philanthropy
That is not the behavior of someone who agrees with charitable giving, anonymous or otherwise.
You attack Steve Jobs for cutting corporate philanthropy programs at Apple at a time they were supposedly dying any second now? Really? Let me guess, you are working for a bank that received a bailout.
Fandroids hate facts.
I work for a non-profit organization and we have received several contributions from Apple of equipment and software - they don’t have an established, formal program but there are many ways in which they have supported non-profit organizations. Just because (1) they don’t talk about it (2) you haven’t heard about it, and (3) there is no formal program they have for people to apply—it doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen!
An obvious one: http://www.apple.com/ipod/red/ Choose (PRODUCT) RED Special Edition iPod models and iTunes Gift Cards, and Apple gives a portion of the purchase price to the Global Fund to fight AIDS in Africa.
Fandroids hate facts.
LOL - all the iDrones assumed that iCloud was going to let them stream their music but they forgot that Apple products are always limited toys.
If Apple was as good at writing good software as they are at deputizing homosexuals iCloud would stream music instead of just sucking dick.
Despite Apple's semantically pedantic explanation that iTunes Match does not "stream" songs but instead "plays as it downloads," further investigation suggests that is not actually the case. Songs that are played by clicking on the title are effectively cached in full on iOS devices, then deleted automatically when navigating away from the song. These songs are not added to the library as they are when clicking the iCloud "download" icon.
Fandroids hate facts.
I don't have to admire the man in any way, shape, or form. IMHO, Making obscene amounts of money doesn't make a man great. Apple certainly hasn't made my life any better, I don't own a single Apple product and most likely never will.
Errm, if Jobs is making "obscene amounts of money", what about other people like the guys at Goldman Sachs? Jobs doesn't even make it into the Forbes Top 100 as far as total wealth goes. As for "I don't own a single Apple product" - that hardly proves that Apple hasn't made you life any better.
Fandroids hate facts.
I have a flip open phone that is dumb as a brick.
And yet it is still a smartphone - compared to you.
Fandroids hate facts.
I challenge you to find a single account from someone who personally knows Bill Gates who claims that the man is unlikeable.
Source: http://www.engadget.com/2011/04/18/paul-allen-compares-working-with-bill-gates-to-being-in-hell/ :
But the memoir's most intriguing (and controversial) revelations revolve around Allen's personal and professional relationship with Gates, whom he described to Stahl as a gifted businessman with a penchant for being a total jerk.
Gee, that's much stronger than any of the quotes he could find on Jobs.
Fandroids hate facts.
ok why am I dumb for not wanting to pay 80+ dollars a fucking month for a smartphone I would never user you fucking dickless, pointless troll?
Most things do.
http://www.usb.org/developers/vendor/
You are either technically incompetent or a liar if you got a new Mac in 2006 and couldn't get TCP/IP to work on it. It's been standard on every new Mac sold for the last 12 years.
And just because I've never actually seen the Tooth Fairy doesn't mean she doesn't exist.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Perhaps Jobs just prefers to donate anonymously, as many of us do.
And perhaps unicorns are just really good at hiding.
There's just as much evidence for that supposition as yours.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
So the new deal was a waste of time and money ?
In my humble foreign opinion it's what made you ready to reap the spoils of victory
which made you the nr 1 economic power.
Jobs actually inspired the current Android UI. If you look at the state of Android in 2007 (before the iPhone was released - I think it was CES 2007) Android was more like a Blackberry - it had a chicklet keyboard, you used the "ball" or navigator to slide through apps on the non-touchscreen, etc. It basically looked like a Blackberry UI or a keyboard featurephone.
Then the G1 comes out in 2008, with touch screen, apps and everything. Indirectly, Jobs had a hand in defining Android.
If the 16th Amendment is a mistake, it is a mistake made by 42 of the 48 states in existence at that time.
Three states rejected it Connecticut, Rhode Island and Utah, while three didn't even consider it.
Unlike the 18th Amendment, the 16th Amendment has never been repealed.
The Federal Reserve Act and the 16th Amendment are not linked. Ratification of the 16th Amendment started in 1909, the National Monetary Commission report wasn't submitted to Congress until January 9, 1912. By January 9, 1912 31 states had already ratified the 16th Amendment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Adoption
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_Act
TCP/IP was on by default in System 7.5 and later.
I worked in a mixed network of 7.1.x, 7.5.x and later OS 8 machines, it was the 7.1.x machines that required TCP/IP be toggled off.
TCP/IP going off on those was the first warning sign the PRAM battery was failing.
Right, that's why everyone and their grandmother knows how to navigate around AmigaOS. It must have been Atari that made the deal with IBM to write an OS for their machines and machines like them. Remember when Commodore '95 came out and had that huge advertising blitz? I remember thinking how weird it was to see a commercial on mainstream TV for software, an operating system no less. Apple was good about getting placed into schools, at least. Oregon Trail and Number Munchers really catapulted Apple machines into people's living rooms. It's why Apple has the market share they have today.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
ok why am I dumb for not wanting to pay 80+ dollars a fucking month for a smartphone I would never user you fucking dickless, pointless troll?
Wow, must have hit a nerve, you idiot. Note that I didn't claim buying a smartphone would make you any smarter.
Fandroids hate facts.
no you claimed I was dumb for not owning a smarphone
and yes you did strike a nerve, did you have a fucking point or are you a retarded child getting LOLZ over a statement that doesnt even make fucking since
GTFO Trollboy
oh I see your a mac fan, no fucking wonder. you are retarded to pay 3x market value for a pc in a pretty box
And just because we've never seen any sign of intelligence from you doesn't mean that you don't have any...
And perhaps you're intelligent. There's just as much evidence for that supposition as yours.
One reader pointed out that Jobs had really directly responded to these points in a 1985 Playboy Interview: [1985 Interview] ...
So what do you do?
Jobs: That’s a part of my life that I like to keep private. When I have some time, I’m going to start a public foundation. I do some things privately now.
You could spend all of your time disbursing your money.
Jobs: Oh, you have to. I’m convinced that to give away a dollar effectively is harder than to make a dollar.
Fandroids hate facts.
So the new deal was a waste of time and money ?
- not only that. It was not just a waste of time and money, the new deal is what allowed the depression to last for more than a decade. If government took the page out of 1921 book on depression, it would have cut spending dramatically instead of increasing it and would have allowed the recession to take course and restructure the bad debt and bad investments, would have eliminated the wrong businesses and would have allowed credit and other investments to be freed to be used for more useful purposes, re-creating businesses to build products that market needed.
In my humble foreign opinion it's what made you ready to reap the spoils of victory
- this is wrong reading of history and economics, which of-course dominates today simply because this is the reading that is convenient for the government, that wants to spend and wants to hear nothing of stopping that.
which made you the nr 1 economic power.
- USA became #1 economic power in 19 century, when it invested into manufacturing capacity, had no regulations and no income taxes or any other types of taxes that punished work. It didn't have any labor regulations, etc. This allowed USA to became the dominant manufacturer/exporter of high quality cheap consumer goods and it invited talent, that could produce without any government hindrance. People came to USA for liberties, not for any specific government regulation or handouts.
Once WWII ended, 1947 became the year that US saw a huge rise in productivity, which followed huge decline in government spending. The reason USA was able to come out of depression was the end of war and end of government spending and of-course for a while it was very useful that all competition had massive infrastructure problems after war and US dollar became the "reserve currency", which allowed USA to export inflation to the world once gold dollar was defaulted upon by Nixon in 1971.
You can't handle the truth.
Hey, idiot, would you say that a family member using the pool of cash that is earned by all family members must pay income taxes on that money if he/she buys something for himself/herself?
Aren't you an idiot for calling the other guy a moron while being completely wrong on all points yourself and him being completely correct?
You can't handle the truth.
I've often thought that the USA way of taxing is a lot better than the Canadian way. In the US, money that you really don't deserve (inheritance, lotteries, etc.) is taxed quite hard but the money that you earn or invest (to create jobs) is not. In Canada, it is the reverse - lottery wins and other winfalls are not taxed at all but the money you actually earn is way, way over taxed.
first off you should do some research on the canadian taxation system. you will note that canadian income taxes are not much higher (and are lower in many brackets) unless you are making over $100,000; that corporate taxes are significantly (more than 10 points) lower; and that universal healthcare is included in the deal. the pension plan is also fully funded and the banking system is the strongest in the world. lottery wins, estates, and other windfalls are taxed quite heavily in canada as well. however, the size of the US debt, deficit, income disparity, and unemployment rate certainly point to an enlightened taxation system south of the border.
i wonder how this gets a troll mod?
WE MUST NOT HAVE DISSENT AGAINST OUR LEADAAAR!
i suppose he can't defend himself, with his billions and lawyers. we must defend him from the internet trolls on his behalf.
- of-course it is different because the risk is to the investors, not to all tax payers. If this thing does not work out why should the risk be socialized?
sometimes you need to build something that is quite likely to run at a loss, or at least not return an immediate profit this generation.
it is a sad state of affairs that a business is more likely to think long term than one of the current crop of western governments. but that is not the fault of governments, or regulation. it is more to do with the lack of long term thinking that comes with (relatively) short terms, and term limits. for "the leader of the free world" to never think beyond at most 8 years is unbelievable folly, and the USA is paying dearly for it.
the other great folly in policy is that so much is driven by personal interests (usually business related). conflicts of interest abound, and the pork flows free where it could be used for useful things.
take an example of a government that thinks long term: China. the USA is running scared from China. their government doesn't need to worry about next term, and doesn't even have to worry about what the voters think. that's a double-edged sword right there, but one advantage is that policy can be formulated without worrying about how it'll look on Fox news to laymen that have no understanding of how things work, and the policy can pass without care for which congressmen don't have a personal cut of the spoils of it.
of course, i'm not saying either model makes sense. just encouraging you to run a few though experiments in your head, and see how your worldview works with them. you might find that as soon as you run the "arsehole" scenario, the libertarian worldview turns to shit, just like every other worldview. what's needed is a system that works in the presence of arseholes, and you'll get the closest to utopia that humanity can give.
Your childish abuse and lack of manners in your post say it all really.
Have you paid tax on every cent of pocket money your parents gave you? You clearly don't understand the the meaning of the word "income" in this context. Something that is given to you by your parents posthumously is not taxable income - hence the need for a separate inheritance tax. Your confusion doesn't make me a moron, unintelligent or mean I don't understand the concepts in play. That means you're an abusive uneducated troll.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
I sure hope everybody is an self centered asshole. Self centered assholes are easy to understand and when they are doing something you know they are doing it for their own profit. Self centered assholes, working for their own profit - this the best possible hope for a stable sound wealthy economy.
I want any concerned busy body to go immediately fuck themselves the moment they decide that yet another thing needs to be done for the 'public good'. There is no such thing as public good, what you think is good for everybody always ends up being good for nobody, but more precisely it ends up being good for very few who profit from that 'public good' and everybody else loses even more liberties.
Socialism is cancer and it needs to be eradicated.
You can't handle the truth.
The best thing he could do with the money (if he is not going to leave it to his heirs, and BTW, inheritance tax is real theft) is "donate" it to somebody who already has a lot of money and is running a successful company or to set up an investment fund to have the money invested into various start up businesses.
OTOH he could just burn it, wouldn't have to pay any inheritance tax at all and it would be something different for a change.
I agree w/ this one. He should just start a VC fund, and let them focus on funding all sorts of new businesses that fascinate him. Last thing I want him to be is another Bill Gates - who funds weird causes in Africa that haven't really improved things there b'cos of the levels of corruption involved. I'm glad that he doesn't make a public spectacle of his charity, if any!
Incidentally, does Steve have any heirs to inherit this? One thing he could do - have everything cashed after he's gone, and cremated w/ him. You can take it w/ you, Steve!
Another question - is Larry any less of a tight wad than Steve?
Inheritance tax is not theft. It is a very progressive tax in that it serves to prevent the perpetuation of wealth, free of tax, in wealthy families and are “a certain corrective against the development of a race of idle rich”.
X dies, and 40% of his estate has to go to the IRS from his heirs. Only difference b/w that, and somebody shooting X and departing w/ 40% of what he owned is...?
It's not income - it's just a transfer of ownership from a person who's no longer around to a person of his choice who is.
So if A one time signs off ownership of a part or all of his assets to B, then that is B's income?
Not only that, burning money - especially the amount probably under discussion - would reduce the total number of dollars in the world, and thereby increase its value. The reverse of what happens when the feds, or any counterfeiters, print it. So if Steve burns the money, he'd be doing quite a patriotic thing.
Be careful with your opinions here. /. is no place for any free type of thinking. They catch you - you'll have to go for "reeducation" somewhere.
You can't handle the truth.
you are a jack ass - that's an appropriate comment for any place.
Inheritance tax is theft.
Any amount of money earned by a family is a pool of money anybody in the family can use and they don't have to pay income taxes when they use it. Your kid spends your money? Income tax time, right? Fucking waste of skin flakes you are.
You can't handle the truth.
Except that Steve is no conservative - he's consistently supported the Democrats, whether it was Clinton, Obama... So ironically, the same people he's supported @ political levels would be indirectly responsible for his heirs being robbed, whenever he passes on...
It doesn't matter what he is, his private liberties must be protected regardless of his political convictions. Just because he is wrong, doesn't mean he forgoes his liberties.
You can't handle the truth.
Thanks for the support. I took the down modding (after having been at +5 initially) to mean that it hit a little too close to home for the Apple brigade. There were not any good counter arguments presented, so they had to mod it to 0 to remove that point of view from the discussion.
My favorite claim made in this thread was, "Steve Jobs created a large company that employs a lot of people, and some those people probably gave to charity." That probably is true given that in a large enough sample of people, there will be a few charitable members. Yet just because other people hired by Steve Jobs give to charity does not make Steve Jobs charitable.
The guy has a net worth of about 8.3 BILLION dollars. He will never spend all of that money. He could give his family that money and they would never spend. There is no reason to have that much wealth concentrated in the hands of a single individual. If I had that kind of money, there would be community gardens all over the place. There would be art and music and concerts for the neighborhood. Not a single one of my friends would have any debt.
Of course I say that now. Who knows what earning that many zeros does to a man's mind. Maybe Steve needs to sit on it all of it, to make his life worth something in his own head.
Sometimes I don't understand the reaction to posts. I get marked as flamebait for saying that I don't like Apple's computers? Here's a couple examples of why I don't like iTunes. 1. You can't just load music onto your iPod by dragging a folder onto your device, you need to do it through iTunes. 2. If I want to sort my music by mood I can't, iTunes just reorders everything by artist/album. I hate the fact that Apple tries to dumb everything down. I want control over my devices and Apple doesn't seem to give me that choice.
And I don't have a phone. I can't stand the interruptions, if I need to turn it off I may as well not have one or pay for it.
Since I'm completely correct, no. You're just proving that you're as much of a moron as the other guy. Move along now, son.
I should have expected this from a ron paul fan :D
but at least he's consistent.
Yes, but by that logic, if it weren't for Hitler's persecution of the jews the international community might never have acted to overthrow him and Britain may never have created the post-war NHS built on the idea of helping your neighbour and it might never have existed to plaster my arm when I fractured it. Thus, Hitler made my life better.
Unfortunately you can find a positive resultant effect from almost any scenario and make the claim that it hence indirectly made your life better, but it's a bit meaningless.
Fundamentally the issue is broader than that though, it's whether the knock on effects of a companies actions made my life better than if that company hadn't existed. If Apple hadn't had an effective media player and digital media store monopoly then there's a fair argument that digital content would be cheaper, less restrictive, and the jump from media players to smartphones would've happened far earlier due to increase competition speeding up the evolution of that market.
So yes you may be right- Apple might have indirectly made my life better, but it may also have made it worse. Who knows?