Join 3,496 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Can you spare a dollar or two billion for the lesser off?
January 25, 2006 8:57 PM   Subscribe

Bill Gates or Steve Jobs? Who is changing the world more for the better? Some people believe Bill Gates and Microsoft are the Spawn of Satan, while others praise him for his philanthropy. [subs. req'd] Steve Jobs has more buzz on the internets than Bill Gates and a near religious following for his products with Apple. One might not give like the other, but one definitely is much more Zen-like.
posted by Mijo Bijo (92 comments total)

 
And the winner is:


who cares!
posted by stenseng at 9:07 PM on January 25, 2006


but one definitely has a much better design department.
posted by shmegegge at 9:08 PM on January 25, 2006


"Steve was upset that the Mac took too long to boot to boot up when you first turned it on so he tried motivating Larry Kenyon by telling him well you know how many millions of people are going to buy this machine - it's going to be millions of people and let's imagine that you can make it boot five seconds faster well that's five seconds times a million every day that's fifty lifetimes, if you can shave five seconds off that you're saving fifty lives. And so it was a nice way of thinking about it, and we did get it to go faster." - Andy Hertzfeld

Advantage, Jobs.
posted by insomnia_lj at 9:09 PM on January 25, 2006


If you give a lot of money, and then tell everyone about it, it's not exactly selfless.

But hey, whatever works. I wish more billionaire moguls listened to Warren Buffett.
posted by fungible at 9:10 PM on January 25, 2006


...and that's just starting up. If you were to total up all the time that a Mac has saved its users relative to doing the same thing on a box running Microsoft Windows, it's got to be hundreds, if not thousands, of lives by now.

Alternately, you can say that Windows -- and by association, Bill Gates -- is a mass murderer.
posted by insomnia_lj at 9:12 PM on January 25, 2006


Alternately, you can say that Windows -- and by association, Bill Gates -- is a mass murderer.

I'm going to hang that in needlepoint on my living room wall. Right next to where it says "God Bless This Mess."
posted by shmegegge at 9:18 PM on January 25, 2006


Please tell me that you dips aren't gonna start up that whole OS debate thingy again. 'Cause that one seriously licks.
posted by PareidoliaticBoy at 9:25 PM on January 25, 2006


Please, pit them against one another in a cage fight. If neither wins, add lions to the enclosure.
posted by killdevil at 9:32 PM on January 25, 2006


If we come to an agreement on this, can we tackle the "Coke vs. Pepsi" debate next? I'm not enough of an independent thinker to handle that one myself.
posted by milnak at 9:33 PM on January 25, 2006


Pepsi sucks. Don't even come near me with that "taste of a new generation" bullshit.
posted by shmegegge at 9:35 PM on January 25, 2006


If you give a lot of money, and then tell everyone about it, it's not exactly selfless.

Who the hell cares? He's giving away BILLIONS of dollars. JUST GIVING IT AWAY!

Give the man a fucking break. He's not some omniscient diety. Sure, his company has been unscrupulous at times, but what company hasn't (yes, even Apple)? Sure, his products aren't as good as they could be, but whose are (yes, even Apple)?

The Gates-hate is something I only understand as pure, unadulterated envy. And it's stupid. If he ever starts a war based on lies, lets his stranded employees die without food and water, and/or denies millions of senior citizens an effective prescription drug plan, then by all means, let's start hating him. Until then, let's fucking keep our priorities straight.

Jesus Christ.
posted by ryanhealy at 9:46 PM on January 25, 2006















I like both OSs, but the zen perspective is pretty funny.
posted by Tlogmer at 9:51 PM on January 25, 2006


Fungible: That rant wasn't directed at you but at the common notion that Gates is evil incarnate (which you followed up with a nice sentence about how Gates isn't all bad because he listens to Buffett).

In summary, not an attack on you, etc. etc. ad nauseum.
posted by ryanhealy at 9:51 PM on January 25, 2006


From this article in Forbes:

In April the NYPD reports that, after a decade of steady declines, subway crime jumped 18 percent in the first quarter of 2005. The culprit? None other than Steve Jobs. According to the department's statistics, more than a third of the rise in felonies came as the result of iPods being swiped or stolen with the threat of violence.

Deuce!
posted by insomnia_lj at 9:58 PM on January 25, 2006


ryanhealy: Thanks, I was rather confused.
posted by fungible at 9:59 PM on January 25, 2006


Take a deep breath, ryan.

C'mon ... Admit it. Gates would be WAY more appealing if he listened to Jimmy Buffett,
posted by PareidoliaticBoy at 10:00 PM on January 25, 2006


Bill Gates donated money to our spankingly awesome library (Now with a Graphic Novel Section!!!).
Steve Jobs greenlighted(lit?) those horrid 'Think Different.' ads, which were just as shameful as any Fred Astaire/Dust Devil pas de deux.

Advantage: Gates.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 10:00 PM on January 25, 2006


"It has recently come to our attention that Apple Computers' new television commercial for the Intel chip features a shot-for-shot recreation of our video for 'Such Great Heights' made by the same filmmakers responsible for the original. We did not approve this commercialization and are extremely disappointed with both parties that this was executed without our consultation or consent." -Ben Gibbard, The Postal Service

Video. Commercial.
posted by You Should See the Other Guy at 10:04 PM on January 25, 2006


pirates are cool.
posted by pruner at 10:05 PM on January 25, 2006


Interesting blog on presentation, Tlogmer. Thanks.
posted by NewBornHippy at 10:10 PM on January 25, 2006


Interesting blog on presentation, Tlogmer. Thanks.

ditto on that.
posted by pruner at 10:15 PM on January 25, 2006


Wow Tlogmer, great link That point really nails the whole difference between the OSes, I think. Thanks for sharing.
posted by xmutex at 10:20 PM on January 25, 2006


It's from the FPP. :p
posted by Tlogmer at 10:25 PM on January 25, 2006


And heck, if we're talking time wasted as lives wasted, Gates is the Christianity to Tim Berners-Lee's Communism; small beer in comparison, but dang if it doesn't so much easier - and trendy! - to shit on.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 10:26 PM on January 25, 2006


(You Should See the Other Guy: it's not like the band shot the footage themselves. They shouldn't get to control what the people who they hired to make their video do for the rest of their lives.)
posted by Tlogmer at 10:27 PM on January 25, 2006


Who is changing the world more for the better?

Neither one.
posted by rough ashlar at 10:37 PM on January 25, 2006


Who is changing the world more for the better?

This isn't really the question as far as I am concerned. These two men are responsible for the design and production of computers. It's my opinion that one does this far and away better than the other, so much so that the comparsion is laughable.
posted by xmutex at 10:39 PM on January 25, 2006


Tlogmer, sorry, but I disagree. If I hire someone to make something for me (a video, a layout for a newspaper, play guitar on my song, whatever), the work belongs to me. For them to then "redo" it for another paying client is, if not illegal, certainly unprofessional and unexpected, not to mention downright lame.

It is almost certain that Apple hired the director specifically to recreate the images from the video (it's too big a coincidence to be anything else) and, imo, that makes Apple pretty low, also.

Earlier this year people (including MeFites) took Nike to task for duping the cover of a Minor Threat album and turning it into a marketing campaign. Apple's done nothing differently here and deserves as much derision, if not more because the Nike campaign was obviously referencing the other work (the slogan for the campaign was Major Threat), whereas Apple hasn't even acknowledged the other work. I imagine they simply thought no one would have seen the earlier work as the band's independent and it got little play.
posted by You Should See the Other Guy at 10:39 PM on January 25, 2006


I imagine they simply thought no one would have seen the earlier work as the band's independent and it got little play.

They're both rip-offs of the same thing.

posted by Mijo Bijo at 10:48 PM on January 25, 2006


"Two years from now, spam will be solved.” - Bill Gates, Jan 24, 2004.

Deuce!
posted by insomnia_lj at 10:49 PM on January 25, 2006


if you can shave five seconds off that you're saving fifty lives. And so it was a nice way of thinking about it

Sure, if "nice" means "really fucking stupid". It's not like those millions of people can cash in all those little five-second chunks of their lives after a while and go on a holiday with them or something. In practical terms, it's as ludicrous as my getting together with nine 30 year-old friends and each of claiming to be 300 years old.
I don't really care about either Jobs or Gates, but I think Jobs did well to hire people who can be smart enough to have created and engineered such impressive machines and dumb enough to fall for "but you'll be saving lives" bullshit like this.
posted by bunglin jones at 10:49 PM on January 25, 2006


So, on the awesome side, this isn't about operating systems at all!
posted by hackly_fracture at 10:49 PM on January 25, 2006


No, it's about personalities instead.
posted by PareidoliaticBoy at 10:56 PM on January 25, 2006


*Suddenly*

...a tear in spacetime opens, threatening the stability of our very existence! One dimension run by Bill Gates, the other by Steve Jobs.

Jobs and Gates are sucked inside, their expansive egos sealing the rift. Some rejoice, but some ponder the cost...

posted by insomnia_lj at 11:09 PM on January 25, 2006


It was about two-thirds of the way through that video when I realized that it wasn't an ad for the Postal Service at all, but was in fact a music video by a band of that name. Thanks for making me feel dumb.
posted by Jawn at 11:13 PM on January 25, 2006


Bill Gates runs like a girl.
posted by fandango_matt at 11:45 PM on January 25, 2006


*growls at fandango*
Now I can't remember what I was arguing about. I fell off my chair, damnit!

Anyway, what was I saying?

Oh yes- Pepsi 0wns Coca-Cola.
posted by malusmoriendumest at 12:04 AM on January 26, 2006


A friend of mine was diagnosed with schizophrenia after convincing himself that Steve Jobs was trying to communicate with him through the chess game on his computer.

No sh*t. He was pretty messed up for a while and to this day isn't the same person.

I know this doesn't really have much to do with the post but I just happened to recall this event while reading the comments.
posted by RockPaperScissors at 12:44 AM on January 26, 2006


These two men are responsible for the design and production of computers. It's my opinion that one does this far and away better than the other, so much so that the comparsion is laughable.

This is untrue, Microsoft doesn't 'design and produce' computers. They make operating systems. I like macs too, but this is a silly comparison for you to make.
posted by Thoth at 1:12 AM on January 26, 2006


IKEA!
posted by srboisvert at 3:07 AM on January 26, 2006


Right, a search for anything + jobs on google will get you more results. Here's the corrected search. Without quotes, the results are meaningless.
posted by Eideteker at 5:03 AM on January 26, 2006


I'd just like to drop in to say that Mr. Gates is doing some good things. He's given a great deal of money to some worthy causes, and more importantly, he's spent considerable time and energy working to make sure the money is spent well.

So kudos, Mr. Gates.
posted by justkevin at 6:05 AM on January 26, 2006


Bill Gates: Spending billions of his own money on the World Health Crisis.

Steve Jobs: Making shiny gadgets for the upper middle class.

In terms of who is having a more positive effect on the universe, I gotta give it to Mr. Gates. And as for frowning on him for having public foundations and making public presentations re: his charitable causes - a large part of his mission is raising awareness. So that's a pretty shitty callout.
posted by glenwood at 6:16 AM on January 26, 2006


I think Windows and Microsoft stuff is shitty shitty shitty. "You can take my mac when you pry my cold dead fingers off the mouse!"

But, there is no comparison, Bill Gates is one of the greatest philanthopists of all time, spending his money on crucial life and death problems throughout the world. He is a deeply good man, in that he uses his resources to work for the good of all mankind. He's awesome!
posted by OmieWise at 6:32 AM on January 26, 2006


He's given a great deal of money to some worthy causes, and more importantly, he's spent considerable time and energy working to make sure the money is spent well.

If by spent well, you mean donating money to schools to buy Microsoft products, I guess.
posted by Rothko at 6:34 AM on January 26, 2006


Or, if by spent well you mean spending millions on public health initiatives, on treating TB, on treating Malaria, on treating HIV/AIDS, the I guess.
posted by OmieWise at 6:40 AM on January 26, 2006


In the "Rants & Raves" section of Wired news, Bo Iniguez takes the words right out of my mouth:

"Gates is giving away his fortune with the same gusto he spent acquiring it, throwing billions of dollars at solving global health problems."

Of course he is. He's following a time-honored tradition among robber barons. He wants to be remembered for how he spent his money, not how he acquired it. I hardly think the disgorging of a portion of his ill-gotten gains should make him a saint. But surely it will, as happened with robber barons past -- and with a little help from Mr. Kahney.

Jobs is certainly no saint, and he may well go to the grave with his every penny in his pocket, but his drive for a better computer experience has been and is a positive contribution to society. He may say nothing of his politics and where he stands on the issues of his day , but do keep in mind that one of the harshest critics of the current administration -- Al Gore -- sits on the Apple board.

posted by Scoo at 7:00 AM on January 26, 2006


Jobs is certainly no saint...but his drive for a better computer experience has been and is a positive contribution to society.

Bullshit. Jobs' drive is for maximizing profit for his corporation. The whole 'Zen" imagery and elegant design angle is simply a mathod of marketing to a consumer group that Microsoft hasn't targeted.
As businessmen, both are savvy and successful - equal points there. As human beings, Gates has been much more philanthropic...and he's just getting started.
posted by rocket88 at 7:25 AM on January 26, 2006


Off topic: why can't Microsoft hire good graphic-designers? Any theories, research papers, doctoral theses, machinima documentaries on the subject?
posted by signal at 7:26 AM on January 26, 2006


We apologize for this brief interruption. The Steve Jobs blowjob fest you were previously enjoying will resume shortly.
posted by baphomet at 7:33 AM on January 26, 2006


Whatever good deeds Bill Gates does are eclipsed by the aggrivation he caused us with Windows.
posted by mike3k at 7:40 AM on January 26, 2006


Robber barons? Mac fans can be insanely grating.

Unless Steve Jobs starts giving money to good causes, Bill Gates wins by default. Anyone who tries to make this a fight to decide whose operating system is cooler is missing the point. Of life.

BBC:
In February 2004, the foundation pledged $83m to help fight tuberculosis, a disease which the World Health Organisation says kills nearly 2 million people a year.

In 2003 it donated $168m to fund research into malaria and made $60m available to fund research into how the risk of HIV infection among women in developing countries can be reduced. [...]

The foundation's single biggest grant - of $1bn - was awarded to the United Negro College Fund, America's largest minority higher education assistance organisation.
Etc.

Now list what Steve Jobs has done.
posted by pracowity at 8:06 AM on January 26, 2006


Of course he is. He's following a time-honored tradition among robber barons. He wants to be remembered for how he spent his money, not how he acquired it. I hardly think the disgorging of a portion of his ill-gotten gains should make him a saint. But surely it will, as happened with robber barons past -- and with a little help from Mr. Kahney.

That is just unfuckingbelievable. What a crock of shit. Seriously. Anyways the only person being sainted around here is Mr. Jobs. Yes, at least he's not doing grandstandy things like giving billions of dollars for vaccination research in third world countries. It's much more important that he uses tasteful, minimalist backdrops for his product demonstraitons.
posted by glenwood at 8:40 AM on January 26, 2006


Whatever good deeds Bill Gates does are eclipsed by the aggrivation he caused us with Windows.

Go live in poverty-stricken Africa and lose some children to Malaria, then come back and make cracks like that.
posted by glenwood at 8:42 AM on January 26, 2006


" If you give a lot of money, and then tell everyone about it, it's not exactly selfless. "

Especially if you stole the money in the first place.
posted by Mitheral at 8:42 AM on January 26, 2006


It would have been nice of Bill to start donating all this money before the lawsuits started. You know, PR being what it is and all.
posted by Rothko at 8:43 AM on January 26, 2006


Will someone please explain how Bill Gates "stole" his money? Also, can you please explain why I had to pay $30 dollars for Apple to replace my dead 7 month old iPod?
posted by glenwood at 8:44 AM on January 26, 2006


Also, can you please explain why I had to pay $30 dollars for Apple to replace my dead 7 month old iPod?

I don't know, but I suspect you believe Jobs is to blame?
posted by Rothko at 8:47 AM on January 26, 2006



I don't know, but I suspect you believe Jobs is to blame?


Of course I don't. My very silly point was that companies exist to remove people from their money. Microsoft is not unique in that regard.
posted by glenwood at 8:48 AM on January 26, 2006


posted by mike3k Whatever good deeds Bill Gates does are eclipsed by the aggrivation he caused us with Windows.

Indeed. If Bill Gates was a doctor, he'd be inoculating villages against cholera and then shitting in their wells.
posted by fandango_matt at 8:50 AM on January 26, 2006


posted by signal Off topic: why can't Microsoft hire good graphic-designers? Any theories, research papers, doctoral theses, machinima documentaries on the subject?

Because, to Bill Gates, it's a waste of money and does nothing to improve his bottom line.
posted by fandango_matt at 8:57 AM on January 26, 2006


The only reason you can list what billg has done is because everytime he opens his wallet, he issues a fucking press release. Hardly counts as altruism does it?

For all we know, Jobs might well be a heavy donator to good causes. Then again, perhaps he isn't. Why the fuck should I care about how either of them dispose of their cash?
posted by bouncebounce at 8:57 AM on January 26, 2006


glenwood I think you're getting a little too worked up about this. There are legitimate concerns windows users have with their product. I'm one of them, so I know. There are also legitimate reasons to dislike Steve Jobs. But your reactions are a tad... psychotic.
posted by shmegegge at 9:03 AM on January 26, 2006


posted by pracowity Now list what Steve Jobs has done.

• Designed and created a superior computer and OS
• Revolutionized and improved the way in which millions of commercial artists create and produce work
• Continues to improve his products

For starters.
posted by fandango_matt at 9:08 AM on January 26, 2006


bouncebounce writes "The only reason you can list what billg has done is because everytime he opens his wallet, he issues a fucking press release. Hardly counts as altruism does it?"

It doesn't have to be altruistic to be doing a fuck of a lot of good. I'd much rather someone gave billions to charity and told me about it than that they didn't. Go look at a sample of the grants awarded and then see if you think it's worthwhile giving.
posted by OmieWise at 9:09 AM on January 26, 2006


I know that Gates is fifteen times richer than Jobs, but do we have any statistics on how much more liquid his fortune is?

This, and many other monetary questions, are crap. The idea of changing the world for the better is amazingly subjective. Does it mean doing the most to reduce disease, poverty, hunger, and agression? If so, we'll be able to judge in time if Gates and his efforts in those areas have helped. If merely making the effort is the key to being a good individual, he may win the prize.

Jobs isn't just the "Apple guy," he's also the Pixar guy. And possibly soon, the Disney guy.
posted by mikeh at 9:10 AM on January 26, 2006


glenwood writes "Will someone please explain how Bill Gates 'stole' his money?"

Bill as the chairman of Microsoft (the source of his immense wealth) has acted to illegal maintain a monopoly in PC operating systems and to expand that monopoly in other areas. Those illegal actions are what makes him as wealthy as he is and not just Larry Ellison weathly. His wealth has been stolen from everyone, not just those who directly use his products but also all those whose goverments have been locked into MS products because of his illegal actions.
posted by Mitheral at 9:16 AM on January 26, 2006


None of that changes the fact Bill Gates made his fortune by selling crappy products that cause untold aggravation--it's like Philip Morris giving money to cancer research.
posted by fandango_matt at 9:21 AM on January 26, 2006


(that was for Omiewise)
posted by fandango_matt at 9:24 AM on January 26, 2006


Whatever good deeds Bill Gates does are eclipsed by the aggrivation he caused us with Windows.

Yes, that's right. The blue screen of death is a tragedy equivalent to a malaria death that could easily have been prevented. Stop and think about it for a moment.

And as for Bill Gates publicizing his philanthropy, note that his giving is grant-based, which means that in order to give the money away he needs to have people send in proposals for what they will do with the money and how that will contribute to improving global health. If he keeps hush-hush about how he's giving money away, just how many people do you think will put in proposals?
posted by duck at 9:36 AM on January 26, 2006


None of that changes the fact Bill Gates made his fortune by selling crappy products that cause untold aggravation--it's like Philip Morris giving money to cancer research.

Umm..no, you see, Philip Morris causes cancer. Bill Gates does not cause malaria or TB. The equivalent to your example would be Bill Gates giving money to alleviate computer rage. When he starts doing that, then you can start suggesting it's hypocrisy.

And yes, giving money away doesn't change the fact that his products can cause aggravation. The point isn't that it changes it, the point is that it far outweighs it. By far. To suggest otherwise is like saying that Mother Theresa may have cared for a lot of sick people but none of that changes the fact that she littered. It shows a complete lack of perspective and no understanding at all of the things that really matter.
posted by duck at 9:43 AM on January 26, 2006


None of that changes the fact Bill Gates made his fortune by selling crappy products that cause untold aggravation--it's like Philip Morris giving money to cancer research.

Umm..no, you see, Philip Morris causes cancer. Bill Gates does not cause malaria or TB. The equivalent to your example would be Bill Gates giving money to alleviate computer rage. When he starts doing that, then you can start suggesting it's hypocrisy.

And yes, giving money away doesn't change the fact that his products can cause aggravation. The point isn't that it changes it, the point is that it far outweighs it. By far. To suggest otherwise is like saying that Mother Theresa may have cared for a lot of sick people but none of that changes the fact that she littered. It shows a complete lack of perspective and no understanding at all of the things that really matter.
posted by duck at 9:43 AM on January 26, 2006


posted by duck The blue screen of death is a tragedy equivalent to a malaria death that could easily have been prevented. Stop and think about it for a moment.

Think about this: Steve Jobs has focused his efforts on improving the way in which people use his computers and software; that is, he continues to improve the design by making it as easy as possible for people to use and work with his products. Bill Gates has focused his efforts on making money by doing as little as possible to improve the design of his software.
posted by fandango_matt at 9:48 AM on January 26, 2006


Think about this: Steve Jobs has focused his efforts on improving the way in which people use his computers and software; that is, he continues to improve the design by making it as easy as possible for people to use and work with his products. Bill Gates has focused his efforts on making money by doing as little as possible to improve the design of his software.

Conceded....but improving global health does a lot more towards "changing the world for the better" than designing better computers or software. Which means that in the "who's doing the most to change the world for the better" competition Bill Gates wins hands down. No contest.
posted by duck at 9:52 AM on January 26, 2006


posted by duck To suggest otherwise is like saying that Mother Theresa may have cared for a lot of sick people but none of that changes the fact that she littered.

Actually, the closer analogy would be to say Mother Teresa cared for people with AIDS while simultaneously opposing sex-education and the distribution of condoms.
posted by fandango_matt at 9:56 AM on January 26, 2006


Which, I meant to add, is absolutely true. Yeah, thanks, Mother Teresa. Now please start handing out condoms or get out of the way so we can stop the spread of the disease afflicting those for whom you profess to care.
posted by fandango_matt at 9:59 AM on January 26, 2006


Actually, the closer analogy would be to say Mother Teresa cared for people with AIDS while simultaneously opposing sex-education and the distribution of condoms.

No, a close analogy requires that the good be really big and important (like curing malaria) while the bad by bad but more trivially so (like designing bad computer interfaces) and unrelated causally to the good.

Your analogy would be accurate if Bill Gates were giving money to cure malaria while operating mosquito breeding farms all over Africa.
posted by duck at 10:00 AM on January 26, 2006


(Oh and I know there are legitimate criticisms of Mother Theresa, I'm not saying she's perfect. I'm saying that caring for the sick is more good than littering is bad. And similarly, deciding to cure malaria is more good than designing bad computer interfaces is bad).
posted by duck at 10:02 AM on January 26, 2006


Revolutionized and improved the way in which millions of commercial artists create and produce work

This is an exxageration at the least. As a commercial artist who has worked on both platforms extensively, I can honestly say that while a mac is better for the task, it is in no way a revolution over the pc. The software exists on both, (certain 3d apps, in particular, only exist on the pc (although that trend is changing)) the hardware works on both, and the workflow is identical. You're talking about minor aesthetic improvements at this point, and in the past it was minor render time improvements. Hardly a revolution. Most of the graphics revolution lay in adobe's hands, who haven't been mac exclusive in over 10 years.
posted by shmegegge at 10:08 AM on January 26, 2006


fandango_matt writes "Think about this: Steve Jobs has focused his efforts on improving the way in which people use his computers and software; that is, he continues to improve the design by making it as easy as possible for people to use and work with his products. Bill Gates has focused his efforts on making money by doing as little as possible to improve the design of his software."

Look, I hate MS quite a lot, I think their practices and products suck and that they've throttled a lot of innovation in the name of making more money. When Gates started his Foundation and wanted to focus on giving computers to African villages, I thought he was even more of a fucking tool; but when he made his speech recognizing that dying Africans need health care and not computers, and then switched his focus to improving the lives of people through his grants, I had to change my opinion of him as well. Jobs may be doing more to make my life better than Gates is, in fact, I'm sure that's true. We might even be able to expand that to the lives of all people in the industrialized world. But Gates is doing more to improve the lives of humanity as a whole. There is just no comparison. Better PCs are never going to cure malaria or TB, or even get us much closer to that goal. Gates funded initiatives give us a shot. Not only is his money helping to save individual lives, but the research he sponsors and the public health methods and techniques learned with his money are all extremely valuable.
posted by OmieWise at 10:15 AM on January 26, 2006


glenwood I think you're getting a little too worked up about this. There are legitimate concerns windows users have with their product. I'm one of them, so I know. There are also legitimate reasons to dislike Steve Jobs. But your reactions are a tad... psychotic.

Objects typed into window may be far less worked up than they appear.
posted by glenwood at 11:16 AM on January 26, 2006


Also, I neither adore Bill Gates or dislike Steve Jobs. Just advocating for the devil again.
posted by glenwood at 11:17 AM on January 26, 2006


As a Mac user, I'll always think of Microsoft as the company that shamelessly ripped-off Netscape Navigator.
posted by disgruntled at 11:59 AM on January 26, 2006


What computer am I using to type this message in?

Guess what? It's the one I prefer. Means nothing more or less. The person is important.
posted by juiceCake at 1:39 PM on January 26, 2006


I listed a few things Gates has done ($83m to help fight tuberculosis, $168m to fund research into malaria, $60m available to fund research into how the risk of HIV infection among women in developing countries can be reduced, and $1bn to the United Negro College Fund) and ask what Jobs has done.

And fandango_matt matches them with:
• Designed and created a superior computer and OS
• Revolutionized and improved the way in which millions of commercial artists create and produce work
• Continues to improve his products

For starters.
Are you saying these are comparable lists? Like, well sure Gates is helping many black kids go to college, but Jobs "Continues to improve his products"? That's the best you can come up with for Saint Steven? That he improves his business products?
posted by pracowity at 1:58 PM on January 26, 2006


Bottom line: When all is said and done, the Gates Foundation's efforts will have saved tens of millions of lives, and alleviated human suffering on a massive scale.

Good on Gates. He could be spending it on an art collection.
posted by mr_roboto at 2:29 PM on January 26, 2006


Steve Jobs let himself get overruled and let the iPod come into existance. That's something.

Seriously, has no one read Hobbes' Leviathan?
Apple's model, for better and worse.

At least it is different, marginally.
posted by Busithoth at 6:03 AM on January 27, 2006


Jobs is certainly no saint...but his drive for a better computer experience has been and is a positive contribution to society.

Bullshit. Jobs' drive is for maximizing profit for his corporation. The whole 'Zen" imagery and elegant design angle is simply a mathod of marketing to a consumer group that Microsoft hasn't targeted.


The drive for a better computer experience and maximizing profit for his corporation certainly aren't mutually exclusive goals. Apple (and for that matter Pixar and NeXT) products are emblematic of this mindset.

Apple fans, many of whom admittedly are creative professionals such as myself, are frequently lambasted for placing such a premium on aesthetic experiences. Must we be concerned only with practical things? Why is the human sense of beauty given such short shrift? Stop and smell the roses gang.
posted by Scoo at 11:56 AM on January 27, 2006


Apple fans, many of whom admittedly are creative professionals such as myself, are frequently lambasted for placing such a premium on aesthetic experiences. Must we be concerned only with practical things? Why is the human sense of beauty given such short shrift? Stop and smell the roses gang.

I'm all for stopping to smell the roses. I think everyone should do it. The problem is, that people who die of malaria and AIDS and TB can't stop and smell the roses cause they're dead.

So in order to facilitate smelling of the roses in Africa, I think we should do something about malaria, AIDS and TB. You see, keeping people alive greatly increases the chances that one day they will see a lovely i-pod or maybe even a beautiful Apple laptop.

Yes, let's give the "bestest guy" award to the person who does the most to give people the chance to smell the roses.
posted by duck at 12:00 PM on January 27, 2006


Someone must stop this Gates madman before he saves more people.
posted by pracowity at 12:12 PM on January 27, 2006


Just to follow-up on this FPP, here is a slashdot thread about the first link.
posted by Mijo Bijo at 2:08 PM on January 27, 2006


I use OS X at some of the places I freelance at. I don't find it a better experience. I guess such things can be subjective. And I'm a creative professional to boot.

That said, I work with people on a number of different platforms and this sort of nonsense is not an issue. I'm struggling to figure it out.
posted by juiceCake at 10:55 AM on January 28, 2006


« Older The PacMan Frog!...  |  The strange story of Henry M. ... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments