> That doesn't make him a saint, but I think it makes him someone worthy of respect.
I totally agree about respect - but respect is not charity. Charity refers to noble goals/intentions - Steve 'only' built great products - those products are great - but there is nothing inherently noble about them.
If the OP had said Bill Gates is amazingly charitable - I would be more inclined to agree. Bill Gates has worked to make the world a better place and has self-sacrificed his wealth to help others. Steve did none of that - Steve is incredibly entrepreneurial and deserves boatloads of respect - but don't say his actions where charitable.
I have real problems with declaring Bill Gates 'amazingly chartitable'. Yes, he's given away huge chunks of money to worthy causes, but how did he get that money? By operating a business in a way that twice got him convicted as an abusive monopoly.
Microsoft's market position was hugely enhanced by them illegally using one captive market to create another. They forced up prices for their customers and forced competitors out of business by illegal means.
So yeah, he's giving away lots of money, but to me it's stolen money. That's not charity.
Those of you who have heard Bill Gates speak about global health will know that he is NOT just "giving away lots of money". Doing that would be easy, for somebody who has so much money (though Steve Jobs never bothered!).
I've heard Bill speak about global health issues in large plenary sessions and in small poster sessions. Speaking as somebody who has spent two decades working in this area...Bill's command of the issues is stunning and far ahead of most of the scientists I work with on a daily basis. He has the kind of knowledge that comes only with a huge investment of /personal time and energy/ spent flying all over the world, speaking with scientists, politicians, educators, and people affected by these various conditions. Frankly, I have the impression that global health is now an 80-hour-a-week job for Bill Gates. He has that kind of knowledge and passion about the issues when he speaks.
Bill's investment of personal time and energy is what really impresses me. If I had $50B or so, I'd probably give most of it away, but I'd probably do that while lying on a beach somewhere. Not Bill. He's working hard to give his money away in the right way, while taking time away from his family to do it.
>I have real problems with declaring Bill Gates 'amazingly chartitable'.
He's given away billions and billions of his personal fortune. If he literally stole the money (which he did not), the giving away of it would still be amazing. He's also giving away his substantial creative energy and his time.
Wasn't the central reason for the US anti-trust action over bundling and distributing IE for free to undercut the paid stand-alone Netscape? Today this is Google's basic strategy for everything.
I was very much "against" MS in those days, but looking back on it now, I feel like it was the beginning of a big part the modern web/software business model.
It's not "stolen," just because we don't like how he earned it. Committing to give away one's entire fortune - and actually doing it - is hugely generous, our feelings about MS aside. It is very much charity.
It seems the collective wisdom of HN disagrees with me, but....
Microsoft were barred from compulsory bundling with Windows after bundling that essentially gave away MS-DOS with Windows to try to undermine DR-DOS. There were recorded cases of them developing software specifically to sense a competitor title and induce incompatibilities that weren't necessarily there. Back when Microsoft Office still had significant commercial competition it was noted that it had substantially weaker copy protection than other Microsoft software, suggested to be on the basis that an illegal copy of Office was better for Microsoft than a legal copy of competitor software.
Microsoft were recorded as saying they were giving away Internet Explorer to 'cut off Netscape's air supply'. Netscape were marketing their web server as a superior product running on NT Workstation to IIS on NT Server, so Microsoft bundled IIS with NT Server and changed the terms on NT Workstation to prevent its use as a server.
Microsoft were specifically challenged that their line on IE being inextricably integrated with Windows was incorrect and produced false videos in testimony to back up their case. When they were ordered to produce an edition of Windows without IE they insisted they could then only produce either an obsolete or non-functional edition. Bill Gates' giving of his testimony was described as 'evasive and non-responsive' and many of his denials were directly undermined by his own emails. Bluntly, in trying to defend the case they committed repeated perjury.
From this, findings of fact were issued (which still stand) which stated that Microsoft's standing in the x86 operating system market constituted a monopoly and that they had taken actions to crush threats to this monopoly, including Apple, Java, Netscape, Lotus Notes, Real Networks, Linux, and others.
Microsoft's behaviour was illegal under US anti-trust law and had abused market positions to the detriment of competitors. Microsoft's business tactics were illegally stifling their new entrepreneurial challengers.
Which is why, still, I consider Bill Gates' money to be tainted. He may well be doing a fantastic, dedicated job of his philanthropy at present. He may well have been somewhat similarly wealthy regardless. But, regardless, he still worked to obtain a dominant position for his company, at the expense of competitor software that could have promoted a more dynamic, diverse ecosystem, by means that were found to be illegal and anti-competitive.
I totally agree about respect - but respect is not charity. Charity refers to noble goals/intentions - Steve 'only' built great products - those products are great - but there is nothing inherently noble about them.
If the OP had said Bill Gates is amazingly charitable - I would be more inclined to agree. Bill Gates has worked to make the world a better place and has self-sacrificed his wealth to help others. Steve did none of that - Steve is incredibly entrepreneurial and deserves boatloads of respect - but don't say his actions where charitable.