digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

Actually, It's Bill Gates

wired.com — Until recently, Bill Gates has been viewed as the villain of the tech world, while his arch rival, Steve Jobs, enjoys an almost saintly reputation. But these perceptions are wrong. In fact, the reality is reversed. It's Gates who's making a dent in the universe, and Jobs who's taking on the role of single-minded capitalist...

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • derekstech, on 10/11/2007, -830/+45I CALL *****!
    • aragon127, on 10/11/2007, -44/+778You go dude. Don't let facts get in the way of your opinion.
    • SirBotchness, on 10/11/2007, -155/+8i call blocked HURR
    • mrmagenta, on 10/11/2007, -183/+18your obviously some sort of idiot
    • musters, on 10/11/2007, -17/+194calling ***** on an interesting article? did you read it?
    • jrbrewin, on 10/11/2007, -20/+106Little tip for you. Please use correct grammar when insulting the intellect of someone else, otherwise you end up coming off like a dweeb.
    • robbh66, on 10/11/2007, -38/+178"your obviously some sort of idiot"

      Oh the irony....



      Anyways, while I'll agree that Bill Gates is a wonderful philanthropist and Jobs is questionably one of any note, I don't see how it relates to them being a villain or saint in the tech world- especially when you look at how each guy got that rich.
    • orp2000, on 10/11/2007, -94/+26@aragon

      It is BS, because Gates didn't get his rep initially for not contributing to charities. He got it for, among other things, predatory and monopolistic marketing strategies with windows and other MS software, and for engendering a greedy aggressive milieu at MS that created a raiding approach to the market rather than innovation. For years he was completely absent from the charitable contribution scene as well, even though he was often listed as the "richest man in the world," not the 194th as this article lists Jobs as. After being pressured for many years to not hoard his vast fortune he finally started to capitulate, with the help of his wife. This coincided with him stepping away from his hands-on approach at MS and handing the control more over to Ballmer. Jobs is still very much hands-on at Apple. He is probably a bit too engrossed in Apple to get involved in a very big way in charities. He's not just going to throw money around haphazardly, he'll want to do it in a way that has the most impact and creates the best legacy for him, much as Gates has. This requires thought, time, and strategy.
    • grve, on 10/11/2007, -87/+69***** THE J.O.B.S., ***** THE A.P.P.L.E.
      haha been waiting to say this
    • masterofNone, on 10/11/2007, -56/+12blog entry 01.25.06

      not just *****... old *****.
    • runeasgar, on 10/11/2007, -59/+19Bill is worth 53 billion dollars in networth. Steve is worth almost 5 billion dollars.

      So.. to summarize: Bill has a LOT more money to give away than Steve. More money than he knows what to do with. Which probably has a drastic amount to do with his charitable publicity.
    • ninetimes, on 10/11/2007, -60/+32I don't think the article is incorrect in its facts: Bill Gates is known to give away large amounts of money. If Steve Jobs gives massive amounts of money to charity, he doesn't do so publicly.

      I don't see how you can draw any conclusions from that, though. Even after giving away large amounts of money, Bill Gates still has more than 10 times the fortune Jobs has. Maybe Jobs gives away money on the DL-- we really don't know.

      The author claims it would be "rare" for a billionaire to give money away quietly. First, Jobs is a rare guy, so that's not much of an argument. Second, how do you know how rare it is? If it's given privately/anonymously, then there's no public record, and so no way to be sure how common the occurrence is.

      Finally, all of this is has to do with what the men do with their fortunes, but none of it is related to how they amassed those fortunes. Do their respective companies provide good value for what they charge? Do the companies treat their customers well, compete fairly, and push technology forward? Or do they rip people off, abuse their customers, and stifle innovation in order to maintain an anti-competitive advantage?

      These are the questions that should be asked. The article doesn't really offer any relevant information about these men as businessmen. It just says (basically), "we have records of Bill Gates giving money away, which makes him a good person, which means he's better than Jobs." That doesn't mean much to me.
    • th3heretic, on 10/11/2007, -36/+231Pretty easy to tell look at Apples policy vs Microsoft's. Microsoft just wants everyone to run windows, and use xbox 360's. Apple wants you to run OSX only on Apple hardware, only use their software (itunes, quicktime) with their music play which they want you to get with your mac, they want to own ALL of your digital entertainment not just your pc and console.
    • runeasgar, on 10/11/2007, -57/+16You are conveniently ignoring the monopoly that microsoft already has.

      Apple uses that strategy to try to compete with microsoft's pre-existing monopoly.
    • Jabertsohn, on 10/11/2007, -43/+10Why does everyone equate greed and evil?

      Why does everyone think that rich people should get involved in politics?

      I admire Jobs more for being greedy and getting what he wants and for sticking to what he's good at instead of trying to be a politician.
      I imagine this is an unpopular opinion however.
    • chronusmcgee, on 10/11/2007, -16/+241I was at Apple computer the first time Jobs got fired, and I will tell you, he threw a pretty decent fit. He is a spoiled as a person in business can get. Apple internally isn't any different than Microsoft. Same bean counters, same dead-weight executives, same overworked engineers, same self-promoting middle managers. Comparing the two is like comparing apples and apples.
    • rheaume, on 10/11/2007, -28/+11derekstech
      "I CALL *****!"

      Actually, its just *****, and it means you need to shower
    • orp2000, on 10/11/2007, -61/+25WOW, and I thought there were a lot of Apple fanboys on Digg. The MS fanboys are worse, and it seems much more numerous. Look at the comments that are getting dug down in this thread. They have substance and are not necessarily argumentative, but they don't agree with the article 100%, so they're buried.

      Meanwhile comments like "F--- APPLE" get thumbs up.

      It's too bad people can't have conversations anymore.
    • knobtwiddler, on 10/11/2007, -39/+9nope i agree, it is *****. wired has been pissing me off lately with their tech-propaganda.
      if you knew what the bill and linda gates foundation actually did... there is a sinister down-side to it. its not all saving african children. they funded the buyout of san jose mercury news, for example.
    • tateswayz91, on 10/11/2007, -28/+8Well, if Jobs IS giving his money away quietly, then wouldn't that put him a few places ahead of the ostentatious billionaires that that have articles written up about their latest givings to charity?

      Just because Jobs isn't calling attention to his donations doesn't mean they are non-existent.
    • gmillerd, on 10/11/2007, -26/+6I could care less which one of them worships satan, fact is tivo, netflix, ipod, osx are stuff I like. not that intellimouse and office97 were not cool, i just dont think anything beyond intelli-mouse and office97 was good from microsoft.
    • bias, on 10/11/2007, -18/+139@dfick
      He gave away 30+ Billions to help the world, probably more than the whole friggin Apple Community including Steve Jobs combined.
    • HarryHunt, on 10/11/2007, -8/+101You know the thing with fanboyism is that you become so convinced of something, you stop questioning it. "Apple is great, so clearly Steve Jobs must be some kind of saint." Is that naive? Sure it is, but it's also really dangerous because that's the same concept underlying any kind of extremism. "If I blow myself up, I will go to heaven and will be provided with 70 virgins". Is that insane? Sure it is, but some people actually believe that, because they stopped questioning.

      Comparing fanboys to terrorists may be a bit harsh, but it really works the same way. So no matter what opinion you have, what religion you follow, what bands you like, what political party you support or what companies/products you're a fan of, never stop questioning! And relax! You can be a fan of something and at the same time disagree with some of it. As far as I'm concerned, Steve Jobs could be the devil and the iPod would still be a pretty good MP3 player.
    • 2shae, on 10/11/2007, -14/+5@th3heretic:

      It''s called business...they do it in every industry.
      Making money & gaining market share is what a business man wants.

      Otherwise you get something like Linux


      PS: Orp2000 is right!!!
    • dixta, on 10/11/2007, -47/+8Dugg down for being sensationalist *****.

      It's not until you take the time to read the article that you note the "oh btw, he may be donating anonymously and he IS a very private man, so...."

      And so what? Bill Gates has vastly more money that Steve Jobs, and most of Steve Jobs' "billions of dollars" is probably tied up in Pixar/Apple. Not to mention Microsoft raping the industry in general "but oh, they give money to charity so it's all ok!!". Yeah, ok, uh huh. "Right on". (JackT paraphrase).

      How many people on this board give away a substantial proportion of their income to charity?

      .... <crickets>

      Yeah, that's what I thought. Shut up.
    • DeathfireD, on 10/11/2007, -2/+49@dixta - theres a major difference between donating money to stop illness and donating money for a democratic party.
    • nharpe, on 10/11/2007, -8/+40FINALLY!!!!
    • CamperBob, on 10/11/2007, -16/+53@chronusmcgee: "I was at Apple computer the first time Jobs got fired, and I will tell you, he threw a pretty decent fit. "

      You'd throw a fit, too, if the company you started was being run into the ground by idiots, and they'd just fired you.

      I don't even own a Mac, but I'd say the performance of the company since his return has adequately demonstrated who was right.
    • metalhead3767, on 10/11/2007, -9/+52If Apple and Microsoft's positions were reversed think of how it would be. 97% of people would be running overpriced apple hardware, with the apple OS, on machines they bought at the apple store. Apple is trying as hard as they can to rake in every cent. I like Microsoft's strategy a lot more.
    • RealHyperX, on 10/11/2007, -16/+10Jobs is an example of what an average Mac user is. A liberal (who studies show gives less to the charities than a right winger), a person very opinionated, and arrogant.

      I love my mac, I hate the crowd.
    • zappo1776, on 10/11/2007, -26/+16Actually, It's Melinda. It was her idea to found the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Bill's understanding of the world doesn't go far beyond Microsoft.
    • digitalarcanum, on 10/11/2007, -14/+34Dugg. Bill Gates in spite of everyone bashing him is more of a saint than Jobs ever will be. Watch pirates of Silicon Valley. Note the difference. Jobs worked his programmers to insanity. Gates was just a smart gambler.

      A gambler, yes, but a gambler who has no problem giving away a great deal of his money, voicing his beliefs and propelling the home and business world further than ever before.

      .. and before I get the "LOL HE STOLE FROM JOBS M$ SUXXXX" crowd, let me just say this: Jobs stole from Xerox first, and as far as security goes, OSX really isn't that much more secure than windows.. at least from what I can tell what will all the " 12 OSX security holes patched today with no warning" stories and whatnot. Least MS has the balls to say "hey, guess what? we ***** up. Until we have a patch to deal with this problem here's how to get around it:"
    • colincornaby, on 10/11/2007, -33/+6"If Apple and Microsoft's positions were reversed think of how it would be. 97% of people would be running overpriced apple hardware, with the apple OS, on machines they bought at the apple store. Apple is trying as hard as they can to rake in every cent. I like Microsoft's strategy a lot more."

      And charging $499 for an operating system isn't trying to rake in every cent they can?

      Apple stuff being overpriced is a myth. Nothing more. Sure, you'll have a few things that are probably overpriced (AppleTV?), but the hardware is generally price competitive. And software wise, there is no competition. Look at the prices for the server versions of their OS's. Mac OS X Server Unlimited Client is $1000. Windows Server doesn't even come in an unlimited client version, but you can pay $1900 for a Windows Server 10 client version, along with a 20 user expansion pack, for a total of 30 users. And that server isn't even the version of Windows Server that has the same services as Mac OS X server, it's the basic version.

      And this is just one example, across the board Apple making the entire package allows them to produce cheaper hardware because they aren't charging themselves a license fee for the software. We're not even getting into client side operating systems. And don't forget Halo 2 for PC. If you want to play Halo 2 on PC, you've got to buy Vista, when Halo 2 doesn't even use any of DirectX 10's features. So why can't you play Halo 2 on XP? Because Microsoft wants to take your money for more software you don't really need.

      Microsoft's strategy is to save you money my a$$. Do you think they have nuns for accountants or something?
    • digitalarcanum, on 10/11/2007, -9/+54@colincornaby:

      name an affordable mac.

      Go ahead, I can wait.

      I keep saying this and keep getting dugg down but a macbook pro costs nearly 800.00 more than a comparable dell e1705 with all the same hardware. this is same hardware, three year warranty and vista home premium. Of course if you want ultimate, you might have to pay a hundred bucks more or purchase an upgrade disc or something. Even so, PCs are cheaper and just as good a quality if not better quality than a similarly specced mac. Now if an 800 dollar difference isn't an operating system premium, than what the hell is?
    • wTheOnew, on 10/11/2007, -9/+49"And charging $499 for an operating system isn't trying to rake in every cent they can?"

      Good call, The retail version of the highest end version of Vista is what $350 from Newegg? nice 30% miss...

      and that statement is incredibly flawed, Ultimate is called Ultimate for a reason. When you buy a car do you HAVE to buy a Ferrari? no, only the people that want the best do, there are a few other version that are quite adequate for the average user.

      If your going to use facts to bash something, at least get them right.
    • phantom_mullet, on 10/11/2007, -10/+6@jrbrewin

      your comment gets dugg up by me for the usage of the word "dweeb"!
    • Djchicken, on 10/11/2007, -15/+13While Gates may be a saint and Jobs Satan himself, it doesn't change the fact that Microsoft's monopoly on the computer industry has really slowed progress in the digital world. For those who think that Microsoft doesn't have an unopposed godlike presence in the computer market, think of this: the term "personal computer" or P.C., no longer implies a computer sitting in your house, it means a computer running a Windows operating system. It's this branding of objects that shows a monopoly. Take, for example, Kleenex. Interview a dozen people, and see how many of them refer to a box of tissues as Kleenex. And while windows monopolizes OS's and word processing, the iPod has nearly destroyed any form of competition in the MP3 player market. And honestly, the format issues of iTunes/iPod would be gone in an instant if there was any reasonable competition. Likewise, Windows Vista would be as screwy as it is if Tiger or Ubuntu posed a threat to the power of the common consumers familiarity with Windows.
    • jeff303, on 10/11/2007, -9/+2@digitalarcanum

      "Now if an 800 dollar difference isn't an operating system premium, than what the hell is?"

      It's the profit margin on the hardware/software. AFAIK, there has never been any secret about this.
    • Soulglow, on 10/11/2007, -8/+4"your obviously some sort of idiot"

      Oh the irony.
    • JMaelstrom, on 10/11/2007, -10/+22Lol - OSX has a SERVER version? Who the hell runs that? Lemme guess - the fanboys will say either a) everybody or b) everybody should

      Wow...
    • geniusj, on 10/11/2007, -12/+5@JMaelstrom
      So quick to judge something you've never heard of or used. How is that rational?
    • Rhino2, on 10/11/2007, -1/+23"" but the hardware is generally price competitive""

      *cough*

    • Wivell, on 10/11/2007, -13/+4@JMaelstrom

      A product is pointless simply because you don't have a use for it?

      Go ***** yourself.
    • Rhino2, on 10/11/2007, -5/+11@JMaelstrom

      Underneath all of Mac OSX's "pretty" GUI front is, a Mach Kernel with a xBSD "Base" system.
      Without getting into much detail, it basically xBSD with a complete rewrite of X Windows System (actucally their GUI has anothing to do with X Windows, but basically the same thign... "generic unix like" 'core' system with nice graphically over lay on top of it).

      So... a server version, is basically Darwin, which evolved from FreeBSD which evolved from "Unix".
      Meaning. OSX Server is basically a Unix server... In short.

      I'm sure someone will pull out a big book of facts on me, but at the most basic level it's just another Unix server.

      (Disclaimer: FreeBSD junkie.)



    • GawtMilk, on 10/11/2007, -0/+25@dflick

      Microsoft earned it's money by telling vendors that they could get prices cuts if they only sold Windows. If they sold *ONLY* Windows, they'd get a big price cut that would lead to higher profit margins. The companies never *had* to sell Microsoft, they were doing it because it was in their best interests. They wanted money as much as Dell did. Microsoft selling at a lower price to increase marketshare isn't illegal.

      Apple, on the other hand, is *NEVER* looked at as being a monopoly. Microsoft wants to be the highest selling operating system, and to have a highest selling game console, but that's it. You can buy whatever hardware you want and run a Microsoft operating system.

      Apple wants to have the highest selling operating system, applications, developer kits, media players, digital audio players, RAM, hard drives, processors, motherboards etc. Apple's want for 100% ownership of "the computer" ruined them. Now, they're stuck...if they started leasing OSX out, they'd be screwed because they depend on the premium they put on the hardware. They've got no support from huge vendors, which will keep them in the low-end of the marketshare forever.

      People always think it's a good thing that Apple makes much higher profits than Microsoft does, with a much lower market share. Ever think of what that means? It means they're charging much more money for the same thing.
    • GawtMilk, on 10/11/2007, -3/+9Oh, kind of forgot something in my comment.

      Walk up to Dell and say, "Hey...I'll let you sell my feces at 20% less than what it's sold at by itself, if you promise not to sell Windows". It's not going to work, because they realize there's a market for your fecal matter. The *ONLY* way there will ever be a market for a product is if people plan on buying it. You could peddle your turds wherever you go, but the thing that'll never change is that no one want's to buy it. Microsoft never forced people into buying things they didn't want, they only sold at a loss to increase their market share.
    • ts8lemonade, on 10/11/2007, -9/+3Well, first off let me say that I agree Gates is a great guy for donating all that money and helping to further the world, but he didn't have to. Like, the article makes it seem like Jobs is a bad guy for not donating most of his money. ***** that, it's his money, he doesn't have to donate it if he doesn't want to. It doesn't make me think any less of him. ***** all the people that look down on rich folk just because they aren't readily giving away the money they earned.
    • Bryn, on 10/11/2007, -6/+1- 640 diggs for derekstech, quite an achievement.
    • EruLabs, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6@Rhino2:

      As a user of GPL software... don't you think its a little wrong to credit Apple with a server OS thats... as you said... unix. And the http deamon? apache. Why in the hell do you have to pay for OSX again? How is that legal?

      Maybe I'm wrong about something, but I'm working on an OS for the palm650, and we're under the GPL... wouldn't it be illegal to NOT be open source? Please, prove me wrong here. Also, think about this:

      freeBSD : developed by everyone
      OSx86: delevoped by everyone at apple

      Even if OSx is based on a great Mach kernel, id rather have bleeding edge open-source software. I'll take my Gentoo and K2.6 thank you very much.
    • pbuschma, on 10/11/2007, -6/+6It is so unbelievable ... all apple/MS threads are the same. so many people seem to have emotional involvement. at the end of the day they have more in common than they differ. digg me down if you want to but this articles is an op-piece. At the end of the day when i read most of these comments I end up being ashamed of how an opinionated a blog I am contributing to.

      It shows how digg 's user base is dominated by 18-25 year olds. you weren't even born when Steve and bill got started and you are drinking the cool-aid and contributing like you know your *****. Now, boys (and it is mostly boys) ... you are being marketed to .. you watch ads like "I am a MAC and I am a PC" and you like it .... you buy it or you like being different and digg UBUNTO threads. it is soo sad to see "enlightened" users being such sheep.

      Here is the rub... gates got billions to give away and so does Steve .... whoppppeee. look at what the gates foundation sponsors and look at what organizations like the red cross are doing. understand where they come from .. what their goals are and you WILL look at it in a different way.

      I am done here.
    • cernicalo, on 10/11/2007, -6/+3I have a question regarding the responses to this article. The average person would agree that the majority of the posts here are anti-Jobs to neutral. I would be willing to bet that if one actually looked at the primary used OS of said posters, you'd find they were probably MS Windows users. There might be some Linux people thrown in, but again I'm talking about the actual OS not which OS people will claim to be using. Now given that if the anti-Jobs to neutral posts are posted by primarily MS Windows users, isn't that "fanboyism" which is the same thing people are harping on in these posts?

      @subdir
      If you want to be misleading, sure that's accurate. I guess you neglected to inform people of a couple minor aspects.

      1) Requirement to purchase a new version.
      If you purchase a new Mac you will receive a copy of OSX along with that computer for "free". Yes I know you pay for it, but just like you pay for it if you purchased a computer from Dell, HP, Sony, etc.

      2) Updates.
      MS released a ton of minor fixes as well as two large bug-fix updates: SP1 and SP2. If you ever tried to install a pre-SP1 version of XP on a machine and have it connected to the Internet, you'd be in for a world of pop-up fun.
      SP1: added USB2 and program defaults, removed the MS JVM (if installed), added SATA support, and a bunch of bug fixes.
      SP2: added Windows Firewall and Windows Security Center, added pop-up blocker for IE, new version of movie maker, changed some networking functionality, and a bunch of bug fixes.
      OSX 10.1: *FREE UPGRADE FOR 10.0 users*, DVD playback, and a bunch of bug fixes (seems more like a SP release)
      OSX 10.2: Quartz Extreme (faster eye candy), Address Book, iChat (ok MS gives their IM client for free), bunch of bug fixes. (I'd give you this as sort of a lame $129 to have spent from 10.0 or 10.1).
      OSX 10.3: Updated UI with brushed-metal look, new Finder (think Explorer), Expose, Fast User Switching (marginally lame to pay for), File Vault, Safari, video-conferencing iChat (see 10.2's comment on iChat), and better MS Windows interoperability.
      OSX 10.4: Spotlight, Smart Folders and Automator, Dashboard, Safari v2, newer Mail client, Core Image and Video, and effectively x86 support.

      So lets say you've bought a mac when 10.0 came out and you're still using the same one from 2001: $129 * 4 = $516.00 vs MS Windows which from your figures would be $559.98. If you bought a new computer from 2003 and on, you would get iLife for free with it as well, but then again MS doesn't include an application with similar functionality to iPhoto, iWeb, or GarageBand. iMovie and iDVD are sort of wrapped together with MS Movie Maker, but please see point #3.

      3) Included software.
      Well minus your standard desktop features, with the exception of iLife. Given that MS "has" iMovie+iDVD (their iPhoto is basically an Explorer "plugin"), but OSX has GarageBand, iWeb, and iPhoto I think we can call it about even. OSX also includes FrontRow which is basically the big deal about MS XP Media Center Edition. Now OSX is based on BSD Unix (which Apple calls Darwin) which has a ton of functionality.
      Programming Languages: Bash/Tcsh/Zsh shell script, python, perl, ruby, php, m4, Java, GCC (C/C++/Obj-C/Obj-C++ Fortran requires an older GCC).
      Servers: Apache, Samba, CUPS, BIND, Sendmail
      Utilities: too many to list so just think of a standard unix utility and there ya go
      Not to mention XCode/IB which is a complete IDE for C/ObjC/ObjC++/C++/Java

      XP gives you VBScript and Batch files. I dont know about Vista.

      Anyway, I have 3 Windows machines, 4 Debian machines, and 2 Macs. I've switched from DOS and Win95 -> Linux (with some Win95/98/Me for games) -> XP -> OSX. I do some computer consulting and do software development for both work and hobby and I have to say I love OSX for that. I think as far as the "user experience" goes, OSX is what GNOME/KDE want to be but probably never will be. I still love Linux for server development and some embedded stuff. All I use XP for is games and computer support. I guess I've turned this into more one OS vs a computer system + OS, but I'm not the first to do it in this thread.
    • ubuntuedgy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+13I had to replace a motherboard in an Apple laptop once. I could only buy it one place. It cost $600 dollars to get replaced. Yes, I would say they are a monopoly.
    • SVPirate, on 10/11/2007, -4/+3Jobs, Gates, Balmer, they're all money-grabbing spin doctors... Then again Open Source Junkies are all whining hippies... Where are you supposed to draw a line??
    • AlexFerny, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6@colincornaby

      And guess what, for $0, or a much smaller fee than Apple/MS should I wish, I can get a much better system - called Linux!

      Apple is now nothing more than BSD, they took someone else's work, packaged it and are selling it.
    • cbreaker, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1@digitalarcanum: OSX is more secure, don't fool yourself. The basic design of Unix is inherently more secure, and you don't have to do much to "lock it down." Windows has so many hacks and work-arounds to keep it as secure as it is. This isn't a dig at Windows or a plug for OSX or UNIX; it's just the truth.
    • ragonamuffin, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Steve Jobs is an *****, thats already been established. On the other hand he has started 3 quite successful businesses.
      Apple, of course, which he also resurrected.
      Pixar, the company that disney hopes will save them.
      NeXT, the chosen system by Tim Berners-Lee to be the first web server. It is also what OS X is based off of.

      I don't know if Steve is a nice guy, but he has landed some pretty large landmarks in his life.
    • OBKenobi, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Why is it always either or with you Americans? Have you ever thought that the answer might be BOTH!

      Yes, they are BOTH jerks.
  • diggeon, on 10/11/2007, -165/+15As a technical person I give Jobs more credit because his company isn't trying to make every idea legally theirs. Perhaps Gates feels more guilty about the negative impacts technology and his strengthening IP laws has had on the world. I seem to recall some articles by medical researches saying they don't research certain things because the legal IP issues make it to risky. While I am not blaming Gates for medical patents, patenting trivial and obvious technical advances strengthens the arguments for medical patents. I also wonder if Gates efforts to make a dent in the universe amount to more than the combined efforts of those his monopoly has and is destroying, guess we will never know.
    • Anrkist, on 10/11/2007, -36/+240Monopoly?? There's no competition out there for Windows? Or other countless products that come from MS? I've made the choice to use products by his company, they didn't make the choice for me. If people felt his products weren't worth using... then they wouldn't use it. Give people a little more credit then that, stop talking down to everyone with your high & might attitude.

      ME is a good example of how the people react when you release a crappy product. They quickly released XP soon after and the people were happy again.

      You can then argue that "Windows comes on purchased PCs!! The people don't have a choice!" - You have the choice to use the Internet and download another O.S. There's hundreds of choices, people have the options, they just choose not to use whatever else is out there.

      You can be Anti-Gates/MS all you want, the fact is his company has helped shape the technology world for the past 2-3 decades & given the growth in technology over those past few years, it doesn't seem like such a bad thing.
    • grogan, on 10/11/2007, -11/+94The patents are purely defensive. Gates has been on record calling for patent reform countless times.

      The latest talk about patents that Linux infringes is an attempt at Microsoft to stop GPLv3 from going forward, because they believe it will harm interoperability between open and closed source software.

      Microsoft really changed after the anti-trust lawsuits.

      • balazsbela, on 01/18/2008, -0/+1"The latest talk about patents that Linux infringes is an attempt at Microsoft to stop GPLv3 from going forward, because they believe it will harm interoperability between open and closed source software."

        Why don't they say that, Instead of "you stole our ideas, we'll meet you in court" ?

        And how would GPLv3 harm interoperability ?
    • jrbrewin, on 10/11/2007, -8/+46Diggeon, please back up your wild claims about research, and the mental reasoning behind steve jobs' day-to-day business. Otherwise it looks like anicdotal evidence which prooves nothing. I'm sure you wouldn't want that now, would you?

      either way, bill gates donates massive amounts of his personal wealth to exceptionally good causes aiming at fighting, poverty, desase, and climate change. Steve Jobs doesn't. If you deny that very simple fact, then you're more foolish than you first looked... technical or not.
    • vulgrin, on 10/11/2007, -6/+94Yeah, because Apple doesn't hold ANY patents... and won't enforce them if someone else starts muscling in on their product lines...

      Give me a break....
    • tmbrwolf19, on 10/11/2007, -2/+38@ diggeon

      I am suddenly reminded that Apple patented the click wheel and any similar type circular touch pad. All companies patent ideas (even those that seem rather obvious), and to think Apple isn't one of them is just silly. Please stop blaming one company and turning a blind eye to another's practices simply because you like one more then the other.

      Patent laws need to be fixed, but in the mean time, companies can't ignore them or they face the consequences.
    • Logicwax, on 10/11/2007, -14/+50I know it sounds crazy, but what if Billy never had the balls to create such a monopoly. what if Microsoft never was that aggressive to begin with.

      you think plugging in your USB scanner would make your computer automatically install drivers? ha!
      Microsoft got things rolling by making sure everyone sticks to a standard. Look at how fragmented Linux is/was between distro's and windowing systems. Yeah, choice is great......but for the home PC market, microsoft making sure everyone using one OS was what catapulted PCs into every home of america.

      right now they are all high and mighty, and don't really NEED to improve their products. so now we have the mess that is Vista and some really competing players right now (Linux and OSX). Backing away from microsoft now is perfectly understandable......mmm capitalism at its finest.


      just think if MS was never this aggressive how set back computers would be for the general public
    • marx2k, on 10/11/2007, -30/+1@Anrkist - Do you really think that Windows/Microsoft helps push technology forward? Are you joking?

      The only way technology is pushed forward by MS (and Apple) is by requiring larger caches of memory, speed and money to use their products.
    • Fartag, on 10/11/2007, -25/+13Anrkist says: "Monopoly?? There's no competition out there for Windows? Or other countless products that come from MS? I've made the choice to use products by his company, they didn't make the choice for me."

      Microsoft _is_ a monopoly, they've been convicted in the US courts, and investigated as such as early as 1991. 16 years or so of monopoly benefits obviously skews the playing field. They've been working very nastily against competition, against standards they do not control, and against compatibility with competitive systems over the years. They've "shaped" the field mostly through restrictions they've effectively imposed.

      There are now reasonable alternatives to MS products that do more, work better, and are free. But there is a great amount of inertia in the market associated with a monopoly especially when the courts do very little even when they're convicted. Buying pre-installed Windows systems _still_ funnels money to MS regardless of what you download later. When you use Ubuntu / GNU / OSS, this does not happen. And even pirating software encourages dependence that affects your decisions in the future against better alternatives.
    • generalloy, on 10/11/2007, -14/+5wow anrkist. Read the US Findings of Fact from the second antitrust charges (first in 1994, then 98). That will tell you why competition doesn't exist in the marketplace.

      read the 2004 European Commission findings.

      Then come back and tell us MS doesn't enjoy monopoly power and aren't anti-competitive. read how they funded the SCOG in their lawsuits against IBM and shaking down of companies.

      grogan: you're wrong too. GPLv3 stops aberrations from the license. Microsoft wants patent royalties for their 'interoperability', *snicker*. Read the GPL for why royalties are illegal under it.

      BTW, the EC called all of Microsoft's patents non-innovative.
    • generalloy, on 10/11/2007, -10/+9"I know it sounds crazy, but what if Billy never had the balls to create such a monopoly. what if Microsoft never was that aggressive to begin with.

      you think plugging in your USB scanner would make your computer automatically install drivers? ha!
      Microsoft got things rolling by making sure everyone sticks to a standard. Look at how fragmented Linux is/was between distro's and windowing systems. Yeah, choice is great......but for the home PC market, microsoft making sure everyone using one OS was what catapulted PCs into every home of america."

      Yes, MS wants to be called a natural monopoly and would like you to think that they have done the world wonders. However, USB may work nicely today (...on ALL operating systems), but it was also called Plug n Pray in 1995-98. Microsoft foisted a buggy Windows 98/SE on the world when they integrated Internet Explorer, and all its wonderful security holes, into the OS in order to negate the Department of Justice's investigation into predatory behavior against Netscape in 1996.

      Talk to BeOS, or NeXTSTEP whom Microsoft played a large role in killing. They were innovative. Multi-threading toolkits.

      You should take note that there is one Linux kernel, one KDE, and one GNOME. Two main distros: Red Hat and Debian. (deb and rpm).

      grogan: Microsoft has used patents AGAINST interoperability. See fat32, asx, WMV, Active Directory, etc.

      Let's not even get into how they killed DR DOS----this from their early years!!
    • toxicvarn90, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5What does it matter? Computers are computers, first day you buy it, you are over joyed by the overflow of features. Next thing you know, their useless paperweight that can't keep themselves from crashing even if you opened a text files.

      This whole MS v. Apple is an unnecessary shenanigans of counter culture. These companies are just selling you computers, not a lifestyle, or a team to root for.

      When this apple of mine crashes or goes ape ***** on me, I'll use windows. If I feel like experimenting, I'll use linux. Same goes for firefox and IE7. If either one goes nutty on me, I switch to the other.

      God it's like Republicans v.s. Democrats. Two sides, when there could be more. And your always going back and forth.
    • maexus, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3Just have to throw my 2 cents in. The only real issue I have with MS is that they are much like Sony, they try to push their own standards or version of standards out on people. I'm a web developer and designer so I'm a little biased but IE is rendering engine stone age. They couldn't leave JS as is, no, they have their own little version of it. Same with Java. Those who understand why we have standards in the tech world will understand what I'm talking about.
    • diggeon, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1http://www.aidsnews.org/2005/06/patent-gridlock.html
      http://www.pure-insight.com/webinars/patent-intelligence-for-open-innovation
      http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=40853
      http://www.news-medical.net/?id=24707
    • diggeon, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3@grogan - "The patents are purely defensive"

      When the gun is pointed at your head, it is hard to see the difference between defensive and offensive.
      Seeing the recent Microsoft patent claims against FOSS as a defensive move seems to backup the idea that they own all the IP and FOSS is trespassing.
    • diggeon, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1@ jrbrewin - "If you deny that very simple fact"

      I never denied the fact that Gates has given more, if numbers of dollars are the only things that count in denting the universe I would have to agree he wins. I however don't think only numbers of dollars count. Take Tim Berners-Lee for instance, seems to me he as dented the universe in a rather large way using something other than numbers of dollars.
    • jrbrewin, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1diggeon: okay. well, in the case. as well as the dollars argument in favour of bill gates, you also have things like, he made computing mainstream with his mantra of a personal computer for every household - which in turn lead the way for pioneers like tim. You can argue this point all you like, but if it wasn't for the bill and the other guys at microsoft the computing business would be radically different, and not necessarily for the better. I'd argue in this arena he's made more of an impact than steve, whether you like / use microsoft windows or not. The sales figures show you the kind of penetration microsoft products have in peoples' lives. Don't get me wrong, this isn't to take anything away from steve - who despite many of my other comments on digg, i actually think is an exceptional and inspirational guy, a great visionary, and businessman.
  • Menso, on 10/11/2007, -25/+176"It's shameful. In almost every way, Gates is much more deserving of Jobs' rock star exaltation."

    For truth. No matter how much people may dislike Gates/Microsoft, Gates/Microsoft have done much more for people than Jobs/Apple has done for anyone. Although Microsoft is still pretty shady business wise...

    Granted, Gates does have billions to give away and Jobs doesn't, but still.
    • Dweller99, on 10/11/2007, -15/+102"Gates gives away his billions, Jobs doesn't."

      Fixed that for ya.

      http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/54/biz_06rich400_Steven-Paul-Jobs_HEDB.html
      Net worth: US$4.9 billion (2007)
    • tanveer, on 10/11/2007, -5/+52Action speaks louder than any words, no matter how 'reality distortion worthy' they are!

      Its about f'ing time someone in the major tech journal/publishing did away w/ trendy snobbery of looking bill/microsoft w/ an biased eye and admitted the truth - which honestly has always been obvious as a day light for anyone interested in the facts and not what's considered 'cool' or 'hip' by the fellow 'tech-savvy' crowd.

      I don't hate apple, i think they make beautiful machines (albeit pricey - but worth it - except for AppleTV, oh and mighty mouse...and in-your-ear ipod ear buds, iMac keyboards...)

      I just can't stand baseless anti-Microsoft/Bill Gates cow dung!
    • runeasgar, on 10/11/2007, -20/+3Yeah that's not exactly "billions to give away."

      Why don't you look up Bill Gates' networth for me, and then we can do a proportional comparisn of their "charities."
    • morcheeba, on 10/11/2007, -19/+4A good chunk of rockstar-dom is about charisma and being entertaining, not how much you do for people, or how you spend your money. In those respects, Jobs wins.
    • runeasgar, on 10/11/2007, -25/+6Actually, nevermind. I did it for you.

      http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/54/biz_06rich400_William-Henry-Gates-III_BH69.html
      Bill Gates, $53 billion in Networth.

      http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/54/biz_06rich400_Steven-Paul-Jobs_HEDB.html
      Steve Jobs, $4.9 billion in Networth.

      Yeah, I'm sure that has nothing to do with the staggering difference in charitability.. nothing at all.
    • gbarger, on 10/11/2007, -2/+49@runeasgar

      "proportional comparisn"

      You know, I was anti-apple for years until recently. I now have an iMac and love it. I like both Apple and MS products, but I am going to have to say this about your quote.

      I believe you need to look at the requirements set up in the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Bill has basically set up his own supported payments into the foundation (as has Warren Buffett) to nearly completely exhaust his fortune. He's not going to have much left (comparatively) to even leave for his family. He's bleeding his whole fortune to the foundation to help worthy causes.

      So...where can that comparison be made with Jobs? I haven't heard anything about it.
    • Fartag, on 10/11/2007, -12/+2@Menso

      Note to future self, if I attain billions illicitly then donate 30% to try for sainthood!

      Seriously, I'd rather it stayed in the hands of those that didn't want to have to hand it over to a monopoly to accomplish things on your computer easily. Linux / Ubuntu / OSS has presented an alternative here, and if you use it instead of buying another MS product then you can use the cash however you like. Maybe you use it on your family or even donate a percentage of it. Donating it to promote advancement of free software technology (OSS) instead of restricting it in every way possible is much more of a humanitarian feat than what Bill did to get it to begin with.
    • phytonix, on 10/11/2007, -11/+3I disagree.
      Microsoft ripped off so many people in the entire world to be rich. Their ***** product also caused so many econimical losses in the meanings of security, virus, etc. Yes they gave money back to the community, but only small portion of what they ripped us off.
  • Dweller99, on 10/11/2007, -40/+6"Gates gives away his billions, Jobs doesn't."

    Fixed that for ya.

    http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/54/biz_06rich400_Steven-Paul-Jobs_HEDB.html
    Net worth: US$4.9 billion (2007)
    • runeasgar, on 10/11/2007, -27/+8http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/54/biz_06rich400_William-Henry-Gates-III_BH69.html
      Bill Gates, $53 billion in Networth.

      http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/54/biz_06rich400_Steven-Paul-Jobs_HEDB.html
      Steve Jobs, $4.9 billion in Networth.

      Yeah, I'm sure that has nothing to do with the staggering difference in charitability.. nothing at all.

      Bill has "billions to give away", Steve just has some pocket change that he occasionally throws to the homeless.
    • runeasgar, on 10/11/2007, -28/+6Truth hurts, doesn't it?

      It's easy to bash Steve's spending practices compared to Bill's when you aren't aware that Bill is worth more than 10x as much as Steve, isn't it?
    • DaveV, on 10/11/2007, -5/+70$4.9 Billion Dollars and Jobs only has pocket change to give away? One could not spend it all if you spent $100,000 a day for 100 years, and that does not include accrued interest. If Jobs made no money and earned no interest and gave away $100,000 a day, every day for 100 years, he would still have over a billion dollars left.

      And, apparently he doesn't give anything at all

      The truth hurts doesn't it?
    • Willd, on 10/11/2007, -6/+20There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics.

    • Willd, on 10/11/2007, -5/+15There is no solid proof of the amount that Jobs does or does not give to charity. Until one of you has had a look at his financial records, any statement about his philanthropy (or lack thereof) is pure speculation.
    • Dweller99, on 10/11/2007, -4/+15"Truth hurts, doesn't it?"

      Poor poor Steve and his measly single digit Billions... how does he manage?
    • mattstooks, on 10/11/2007, -8/+1Bill Gates has had the luxury of handing over day-to-day operations to someone else so he can spend all the time he does on his philanthropy. Steve Jobs can't get away with the same, so it's hard to expect an equal effort on his part. Bill's charity is in his name, so he has to do publicity for it. I don't know too many people who brag about what they give to charity, so it's a little lame to criticize Steve for not donating, when we have no idea if he does or not.

      It's even more irresponsible to say Jobs doesn't speak up on social issues when he's gone off on teacher's unions and talked openly about how Al Gore needs to run for the presidency. This is a pretty sad article. Bill Gates has done phenomenal things with his wealth, appreciate that without trying to use it to bring another good man down.
    • muikano, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2wait, we're supposed to give away money to charity? Or are we suppose to do what we can to make the world a better place. Say what you will about Jobs, but at least he believes in the products he espouses, good or bad.

      Bill Gates isn't that sort of person. He's calculation, aloof and utterly brilliant. He's never gonna win the popular vote and he knows it. But he does want his accomplishments recognized.

      But personal computing shouldn't require archaic language. Normal ppl shouldn't have to ask their nerdier friends to fix their computers. It should be easy. It should be fun. Programming should be fun.
      Dim Variable as Integer = "I have too much legacy to write a good scripting language"

      A Control Panel where the buttons are an utter mystery to people. A registry everyone is afraid to touch. A goddamn Administrative Settings that reqiures you to change several different items nestled down in several different folders in order to change ONE user setting.

      It's suppose to be Personal Computing. It should be more like Consoles.

      Get this straight. I can play a Dead or Alive Online game on my PC. Free multiplayer, free game. Fun as hell. Who in the right mind wants to pay for normal machine hosted limited number multiplayer?

      You want me to pay xbox live, Mr. Gates, make it an MMO.
  • lemur, on 10/11/2007, -13/+37Jobs and Bill Gates have two different roles. Jobs lives on social aptitude; his sole purpose in life is to be a personality, so he creates his own rock star aura for profit. Bill Gates approached his business a little differently... as you may have noticed, his social skills don't seem very refined. (the first time I heard him speak, I was shocked by how poor of a speaker he was)
    • mink78, on 10/11/2007, -8/+137Bill Gates is the uber-geek. And honestly, compared to the geeks surrounding me every day at work, I think Gates speaks pretty well.
    • grogan, on 10/11/2007, -28/+27He's an amazing speaker when he's in his element talking to other geeks. He's not really a business guy, though.
    • jrbrewin, on 10/11/2007, -1/+16mink, exceptional point, well made. :)
    • libertao, on 10/11/2007, -6/+80"he's not really a business guy"

      Are you ***** kidding me?
    • tutivlahos, on 10/11/2007, -4/+27"he's not really a business guy"

      Yeah, and Gates is a great dancer.
    • fittysix, on 10/11/2007, -12/+3@libertao & TutiVlahos

      He's really not, Ballmer does all the 'business man stuff' while gates was mostly on the business side of anything technical.
    • Ramble, on 10/11/2007, -2/+17Of course Gates is a business guy, he's been into business his whole life. Ballmer has not worked at Microsoft forever.

      He is however, a geeky business guy.
  • hrhs556x, on 10/11/2007, -20/+77Why cant they both be awesome?
    • clownguyx, on 10/11/2007, -9/+119Then it is like the special olympics.
    • wild, on 10/11/2007, -9/+72Seriously, both men are more successful than anyone reading this. And almost all of us have at least one of their companies products in our homes.
    • Technopundit, on 10/11/2007, -15/+62I have nothing Apple in my home, and will never relinquish my pristine copy of Microsoft Bob.
    • asurroca, on 10/11/2007, -3/+11Does it count if I only own ancient Apple products that I found in the dumpster?

      No, really, I saved an old IIc from the dumpster years ago, and got a Newton from a friend that upgraded to a Palm Pilot when they first came out...
    • wild, on 10/11/2007, -10/+2"I have nothing Apple in my home"

      But you probably have something by MS, don't you? So either or, these two guys shape almost everybody's life in some way.
    • lukas88, on 10/11/2007, -4/+20@Wild

      I think the point of the article is this: Success alone does make a man great, but what he chooses to do with his success.
    • standinero, on 10/11/2007, -3/+26yea they are both awesome! unlike my uncle tim, he beats his wife and kids.
    • ucg1, on 10/11/2007, -11/+3I'm sure you've all heard of Linux. It's completely possible to own no MS or Apple products and be an avid computerist.
    • Ramble, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Possible, but hard. What about your smartphone? Any DVR that you own may be running MS software. Plus you're forgetting the past, everything would be radically different without these two men. So chances are you're running something that MS or Apple pioneered.
    • krebs, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Still laughing at clownguyx's comment...
    • ninj3, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1If they were both awesome, then we'd have no one to rant about.
      How boring would that be?
  • johncern, on 10/11/2007, -46/+12Article is lame. Both have made significant contributions.
    • Snootch, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9"Article is lame. Both have made significant contributions."

      Please, tell us about these contributions from Jobs. I know he only has about $5 billion so we can't expect him to do too much. Does he recycle his newspaper? Not use Styrofoam?

      Sarcasm aside, just because there is no record of contributions from Jobs does not prove that he does them anonymously. Maybe, just maybe, he is a greedy *****' businessman.

      I just wish some people would have some guts and admit that no matter how much you may hate Gates he does a great deal to help people in the world, even if he didn't do this his entire life.

      For the people who still bitch about Gates please let us know how much you make and what you give to various charities.
    • darkyoshi, on 10/11/2007, -7/+3Bill gates is the modern-day Robin Hood. He steals from the rich businesses and gives to the needy.
    • dvsbastard, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2Your post is lame. You have made no significant contribution to this discussion.

      (Yes, I realise I am being a hypocrite... I don't like it either)
    • MechaFenris, on 10/11/2007, -8/+1Snootch:

      So? Bill Gates is the richest man in the world... he got that way via convicted monopoly abuse by his company.. *shrug* Giving it all away now so his kids won't be billionaires is hardly generosity... But it is a nice gesture. Warren Buffett is dumping his cash for the same reason... Charity my ass.... these people didn't get this rich being nice and playing by the rules (Jobs included...)

      So what if Steve Jobs isn't trekking around the world with his wife proclaiming money for AIDs research etc etc.... He's busy running Apple. :) Bill Gates is retired. When he was the richest man in the world in the early 90's... did he give away billions in high profile charity and have the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation? *shrug* I'd be hard pressed to remember when that first came about. Ah well... it doesn't matter anyway... because in spite of the richest 1%'s 'good deeds', the world still has soul-crushing poverty, wars, genocide, and diseases thought wiped out returning...

      Arguing about who is the better "good guy" between a ***** sandwich and a giant douche is kinda pointless....

  • cesarandreu, on 10/11/2007, -8/+164Wow, a pro-Bill Gates post on digg? The dent he's making must be really big.
    • mobilehavoc, on 10/11/2007, -3/+36No *****, I had to re-read the description a few times to make sure I was reading it right...that someone is saying something positive about Gates and negative about Jobs. I hope this is a sign of change on Digg.
    • Fartag, on 10/11/2007, -11/+5@CesarAndreu

      You're right he has made a dent, but it's a dent that has already cost us untold mega-billions to fix. Fortunately many of us in the various software fields are fixing it now, and we're fixing it the right way!
    • succubuskiller, on 10/11/2007, -0/+11Great point, I was alittle shocked too. Why is it that Apple is so great yet, they don't allow anyone outside to really build on top of their products. Everyone rips on Gates being evil and never say anything bad about Jobs like he craps golden eggs.

      Eg 1: Apple iTunes. You used to only be able to purchase music that would work ONLY for the iPod and iTunes. Where were the the zealots complaining about that? So you basically locked into using what you solely bought for those products. Hmm, Play4Sure, regardless of its flaws/pros it still let the manufacturers have access and more portability, but I guess that makes them evil right? (Scrapping it for the Zune Marketplace, dumb move)

      Eg 2: iPhone. No third-party applications to the best of my knowledge. When I heard that I was thinking WTF were they thinking. Only reason I got a Windows Mobile phone was that I can have the ability to program an app if I needed to or have a larger pool of apps to possibly download. Though I have Windows Mobile 6, it truly is a piece of crap, only to top of the Verizon HTC phone that they slaughtered.

      I am not bashing either one, I like the interface for the iPhone more than the Windows Mobile hands down. If Micrsoft had their engineers do a little bit more logic when designing it would be better.
    • Shenanigans, on 10/11/2007, -2/+15I love seeing these pro-Microsoft comments being dugg up! It usually feels like we're a minority on Digg to prefer Microsoft products. I've always acknowledged Gates' donations and I'm glad he's being recognized more for it.
    • Fartag, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2"I love seeing these pro-Microsoft comments being dugg up! It usually feels like we're a minority on Digg to prefer Microsoft products. I've always acknowledged Gates' donations and I'm glad he's being recognized more for it."

      People that have been around in the computing field long enough and without a vested interest would never support a fundamental technology such as an OS being delivered closed source by a monopoly and in control of that monopoly to you. It makes even less sense when there are superior alternatives out there that are open and free and easy to use.
  • totorototoro, on 10/11/2007, -22/+6wow, Leander Kahney really has a bug up his ass about Jobs. He's ***** obsessed.
  • tehbored, on 10/11/2007, -6/+106Actually, I think Steve Ballmer is mostly to blame for Microsoft's *****-ness.
    • joshlrogers, on 10/11/2007, -4/+61I honestly think it is a shame that Gates takes the blame for Microsoft's shady practices. I believe Bill did do some very business savvy things in his time that could be mistaken as shady, but they are a publicly traded company now. Even as the primary founder and figurehead for the company his ability was limited. If I was to point blame to anyone for Microsofts practices I would blame Ballmer and the every endless supply of lawyers that are whispering in the boards ear "Must maintain IP ownership on every thought or fart that comes out of the employee base". If I patented every idea eventually one would hit and I could sue too. I think that is also more a loophole in our patent law that they are abusing, eventually enough people will bitch and it will be closed but until then this will continue.

      Disclaimer: I was, and still am, a Linux fan. Work forced me to become a Microsoft developer and since working with Microsoft Products more in depth have also become a Microsoft fan. Gasp! You can be both....
    • ucg1, on 10/11/2007, -18/+4Microsoft sucked before Balmer.
  • Technopundit, on 10/11/2007, -10/+34I hope Jobs doesn't become a bad influence on Bill.
  • dannygutters, on 10/11/2007, -12/+34Philanthropy has always been the historical way of redeming your image. I mean look up carnige on wikipedia, he made millions off pretty much what amounted to slave labor and now is remembered for building some libraries and concert halls. (In fact he treated his workers and unions so poorly, some towns response to him offering a free library was "pay us what we're worth and we'll build a library ourselves")

    I'm not saying these contributions are not good, Bill's work with the foundation is amazingly commendable, but really it's seperate from his buisness life. It's annoying to me that we have this desire to polarize people, figures must either be a hero or a villian, but really they are some amalgomation.
    • sophiaperennis, on 10/11/2007, -2/+9Holy *****, a comment that actually makes sense, and that isn't plagued by emotional bias!
    • mahmoodsdotjpg, on 10/11/2007, -2/+10get your logic and reason out of here, it doesn't belong on this site!
    • CamperBob, on 10/11/2007, -5/+22'In fact he (Carnegie) treated his workers and unions so poorly, some towns response to him offering a free library was "pay us what we're worth and we'll build a library ourselves"'

      Meanwhile, Microsoft has turned 10,000+ ordinary employees into millionaires, but hey, don't let that get in the way of a good robber-baron rant.
    • cthellis, on 10/11/2007, -7/+4@ CamperBob

      Got a convenient statistic on how many millionares Microsoft has sank by illegally leveraging their market position?
    • celerate, on 10/11/2007, -5/+2@CamperBob

      Have you got a source for that? I've only ever heard of Microsoft making it's original share holders millionaires.
    • CamperBob, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8@celerate: The employees _were_ shareholders (and, for the most part, still are, for what little it's worth). That's just one reason why comparing Gates to Carnegie and Rockefeller and all the other old-school robber-baron dudes isn't completely fair.

      The only union problems that Microsoft has had involved temp employees bitching because they didn't get the same stockholders' benefits that the rank and file did.

      I will certainly not try to defend Gates and MS's business practices, but anyone who claims they didn't add one _hell_ of a lot of value to the tech industry is smoking something illegal.
    • krebs, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7Comparing Gates to the ravages of the robber barons is reaching. I'm pretty sure the guys he "destroyed" at Netscape drove away from the wreckage in chauffered cars...
  • SirBotchness, on 10/11/2007, -24/+23why the hell are we dwelling on year old articles?
    • HUKI365, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Because it makes more sense than dwelling on a picture of the Google Street View team?
  • ElectricSoup, on 10/11/2007, -29/+8"Until recently, Bill Gates has been viewed as the villain of the tech world ..."

    Well, you know just maybe having to be hauled into court to answer for his company's illegal activities has a little something to do with that:

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1960403143809172490

    Microsoft has behaved in a completely despicable manner for years - a few wry grins in front of the rolling cameras with Mossberg doesn't change that.

    This is all matter of public record and quite extensively documented. How can _Wired_ possibly be so incompetent as not to know? I suggest someone there needs to do a little reading. A good starting place would be the exhibits in this case:

    http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=2007021720190018
    • musters, on 10/11/2007, -7/+44however all of these illegal activities consist of pushing MS products from within the operating system. For example, Internet Explorer. But wait. Doesn't Apple do that too? Yes. Why is MS being called on it? Because their software is running on 90% of the computers.
      Deal with it fanboy.
  • mywhitenoise, on 10/11/2007, -12/+3I always thought Gates was cooler, in the sense that he's more charitable, and funds progressive movements...the guy has tons of money, it's the least he could do. Jobs is cooler by his modern approach.
  • endorphin, on 10/11/2007, -14/+63Bill Gates is my hero.
  • mrgreenjeans9, on 10/11/2007, -39/+4bill gates is the antichrist and is responsible for the lack of competition
    and choice in the marketplace

    hopefully his personal hell will burn brighter and hotter
    than any that have burned before

    can you digg it?
    caaaan yooouuu diiiigg iiiit?
  • FoolsRun, on 10/11/2007, -13/+18The article is all well and good, but people don't hate Bill Gates because of his philanthropy and they don't love Steve Jobs for his lack of it. Sure, Gates is a more conscientious philanthropist, no contest, he wins that fight, and Jobs makes operating systems with fewer bugs.

    So sure, you can proclaim to the heavens that Gates gives away more money than Jobs, and no intellectually honest person is going to disagree or speak ill of his generosity, but that's not the area in him or his company with which people typically find fault.
    • Stevethegreat, on 10/11/2007, -3/+17I'm sure that if Bill worked with his hardware ONLY (like Apple's closed architecture) would make an equally non-bugged out OS. I can't get why Apple gets all the praises while it clearly got the easy way out (working with the hardware of their own choice). Just think about it for a bit, Windows work with a million different combinations of hardware and relatively unbugged lately (Windows XP onwards), I would like to see Apple doing so. I thank god everyday that Microsoft won the battle of the OSes, nowadays we would never have imagined the marvel of PC hardware (I'm looking at you 8800 Ultra), Macs would at best become a polished console which does work instead of playing games, now we have PCs which do about anything. And if you don't like Windows you can always install Linux, that's how freedom of expression should be, not the bastardized version of Apple....
    • Terr01, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7I've been working on this Intel Mac at work for the last several months... The rate of hard reboots and task kills per hour is about the same as for my older-with-more-crap-installed XP box at home.

      Heck, I've had Terminal break. Force quit? Nothing. Use sudo? Tough: The terminal is frozen. Hard reboot time...
    • JMaelstrom, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8Fewer Bugs? Only fewer bugs because it isn't stretched nearly as far as windows... Really, how many applications does OSX support? 5,000? I doubt it. Windows supports tens of thousands of apps - not all of which are written very well (by the third-party vendors)...

      Hell, if I had to develop an an OS that only had to run Photoshop I could make it pretty flawless, too...

      And don't even start on security... Why would anyone try to hack or infect a Mac? A waste of effort seeing as how only 5-8% of the world uses one. Of course Windows will have more published vulnerabilities...

      While we're on that topic - have any of the Apple fanboys ever subscribed to a linux or bsd security mailing list? Probably not, or else you wouldn't be talking about Windows security holes - you'd be more worried about the 10 or so vulnerabilites exposed every couple weeks for THOSE systems - they just aren't exploited BECAUSE NO SELF-RESPECTING HACKER WOULD BOTHER...
  • Technopundit, on 10/11/2007, -2/+36Suddenly there's this crazy good guy / bad guy reversal. It's like professional wrestling or something.
    • bill.clark, on 10/11/2007, -4/+3Yeah, but neither of them are as badass as "Hacksaw" Jim Duggan!
  • lorisa, on 10/11/2007, -3/+17I wouldn't say that Gates has been completely vilified - after all, he and Melinda were named People of the Year by Time (along with Bono). This author has created his own reality in order to make his argument. I personally can't stand Steve Jobs and his black turtlenecks. *shiver* I'm sure I'm not alone.
    • Gemini4t, on 10/11/2007, -5/+4Being named Person of the Year is not an award given out to philanthropists. It's simply who Time Magazine feels has had the greatest impact on the world in the past year. They've considered great villains for person of the year before, such as bin Laden and Hussein, so don't automatically assume that because someone is named Person of the Year that it's an award. It's just acknowledging that their actions have an impact on the world, whether positively or negatively.

      That being said, Steve Allen pwns them both. Bill Gates' philosophy is "Let's donate moneys to charities and the childrens," while Steven Allen goes "YEEEEHAWWWWW! LET'S BUILD SPACESHIPS!"
    • H0mez, on 10/11/2007, -2/+24I was a Time Man of the Year myself. Well according to the Time magazine with the mirror thing on the cover....
    • josefstalin, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2so wait, vampires can't be "person of the year"? That's discrimination!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11
  • Ramenhood, on 10/11/2007, -5/+1... Isn't this what many have thought before-hand?
  • sparquay, on 10/11/2007, -12/+4This is a old story and I've read it from a link here before.
  • satanatnmtedu, on 10/11/2007, -22/+3They are both pro-Capitalist dicks.

    It is kinda like asking which is worse, Republicans or Democrats? Both parties are corrupt and out of touch with reality.
    • heresyforme, on 10/11/2007, -6/+21There is nothing wrong with capitalism. Most likely you are referring to corporatism by which government favors corporations, which is a type of socialism since its puts the government directly involved in the means of production.
    • OutcastJiob, on 10/11/2007, -8/+14@satanatnmtedu: Seeing that you hate capitalism so much, I assume you'll be moving to North Korea shortly and surrendering all your foul capitalist "money" and every innovation that has been spawned by capitalism. Right? I would hate to think you're just a loud-mouthed hypocrite or something.
    • Novagenesis, on 10/11/2007, -8/+2My pity for you, satan

      Capitalism is defended in the US more now than patriotism. "If you don't like it, move to "

      Capitalism and the Free Market economy have done good things in their time, but now the corruption created from it has caused stagnancy in the areas of technology, human rights, and raising the bar on poverty.


      But all in all, I still remember bill gates as that guy who took the freely traded ideas of the computer clubs of Berkley, then stood on the shoulders of the giants saying "I OWN THIS".

      Imagine if Einstein had patented Relativity.
    • cynicist, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5"There is nothing wrong with capitalism"

      Except human nature
    • raynevandunem, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Actually, you're talking about Neo-Corporatism, which involves the ties between big business, big military and big government (the Military-industrial complex).

      Corporatism, on the other hand, is much older and refers to "a political or economic system in which power is given to civic assemblies that represent economic, industrial, agrarian, and professional groups", traditionally known as "corporations". Haiti post-2004 is one such example.

      And "state corporatism" refers to the usage and co-opting of legitimate civil organizations by the state government in order to manipulate the movements and decisions of a given civil society. The appointment of Catholic bishops and Muslim imams by the PRC government in mainland China is one such example, as the government there is very strict against the idea that their own citizens would owe some sort of spiritual allegiance to a non-Chinese individual(s) in Rome.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Association_of_China
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Patriotic_Catholic_Association

      So, in that case, if I go by the logic of the FOSS advocates like schezowitz, what would the alleged usage and co-opting of civil organizations by *corporations* such as Microsoft (Alexis de Tocqueville Institute, for example) be called? "Business corporatism"?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism
  • mykroft42, on 10/11/2007, -11/+6What's all this ***** about "responsibilities of wealth"? So Jobs has a lot of money. This doesn't obligate him to do anything, he earned it he can spend it as he pleases. So he had cancer that doesn't mean he has to "raise awareness" of it (honestly, who hasn't heard of cancer). The man clearly enjoys his privacy who are we to criticize him for that, other than a bunch of geeks (myself included) who wish they'd been the ones to found multi-billion dollar companies out of their garages.
  • UrbanVoyeur, on 10/11/2007, -17/+6Bill has billions to give away because his company, under his direct supervision, engaged in wholesale and repeated intellectual property theft, predatory pricing, illegal and anticompetitive monopolistic practices, along with healthy doses of FUD, vaporware and a "so sue me" attitude. The list of MS crimes is very very long. Just ask the US DOJ, the EU or the attorneys general of over three dozen US states.

    That he is giving away some of his fortune in no way mitigates how it was acquired.
    • Escamillo, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5I don't agree with your statements, but for the sake of argument, let's grant their validity.
      Robin Hood is lauded for "stealing from the rich to give to the poor". So the head of one rich corporation "stealing" tech from another that of another huge corporation, then turning around and giving those "ill-gotten" gains to the poor is a *good* thing.
      I really couldn't care less that a rich fat cat like Larry Ellison (scumbag, BTW) has a few billion less because of Gates' business practices, particularly when the poor benefit in the end.
  • NSMike, on 10/11/2007, -3/+19While they both have very different personalities, they both have very dominant personalities as well. Gates may not be a social butterfly, but he's got the good where it counts, and is bold enough to make it work. Jobs spits out products that fit a very specific vision. Sometimes they work, but history has proven that most don't. Sure, the iPod is a tremendous success, but that's one product with many revisions. But look at his computer offerings and the appeal has been pretty small outside of specialized markets. Maybe those exclusive markets are only where he wants to be, but I doubt it.

    Microsoft makes products for the people and businesses to use. Because they make the right deals and have the hardware to back them up, it's pretty hard to supplant them.

    Apple makes products for Apple, then works hard to convince people it's what they need. Once you're converted, you're pretty solidly converted, but it takes effort to make it that way. Jobs has chosen the harder business model, and has suffered for it in the past. Only his success with the iPod has recently catapulted him into the spotlight. I knew about Bill Gates well before Jobs' name ever came up in casual conversation.
  • turnthepage, on 10/11/2007, -8/+3Woohoo for Single-Minded Capitalists!!!
  • retrospect, on 10/11/2007, -10/+4What? I see a flawed logic.

    No one knows these people on a personal level. Job's doesn't have to broadcast donating money to the entire world. Donating should be something you do, because you want to give back - not because you need publicity for it. I'm sure he has made significant contributions to several charities, if not who are we to judge. How many people here actually donate money consistently? If you do, do you call your local news station? Or do you do it out of the goodness of your heart? Not everyone wants their donations to be publicized.

    Besides 3-4 billion is a lot smaller than 64 billion. Both are significant amounts, but we can't tell people what to do with their money. I commend Gates for giving away so much, but if he was as private as Jobs, no one would know and think he's evil as well?
    • FancyLudwig, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Gates has a foundation, which has a mission and employees to carry out the mission. That is way different then just donating to a charity.

      You can't just anonymously cut a check for a few billion dollars made out to the poor people of the world and expect that to help the impoverished. You need people with a plan on how to translate that money into getting actual help for people where they need it. In addition, the foundation itself brings awareness to people so that they can help financially or by voluneteering their time.

      Plus, even if he was just cutting a check to a charity, do you honestly think the charity isn't going to make your donation public for you? If I were running a foundation that's used to having to beg for grant money and someone comes along and dumps a billion dollars in my bank account, I'm calling the news.
    • Escamillo, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6The notion that a guy with an ego the size of Jobs' would give large amounts of money to charity *anonymously* is laughable. Jobs does't publicize his donations because he doesn't make donations. Occam's razor.
  • cybrguy, on 10/11/2007, -2/+24I don't know about you guys but I have personally seen some of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation money do work in the real world.
    In my opionion the most amasing development is that Warren Buffet is putting in 1.5 billion per year into the B&M Gates foundation. This is because he sees Bill Gates as being not only a philantopist, but an effective one.
  • units, on 10/11/2007, -8/+3Of course, the article _is_ entirely speculative, and the author does go on to say that if Jobs has given any amount of money to charity anonymously (which the author also states is likely, given his propensity for privacy/secrecy), thus negating the entire point of the article.
  • lonemarauder, on 10/11/2007, -22/+9Fail.

    If you're a lying, thieving, predatory, monopolistic son of a bitch, no amount of giving to charity is going to change that fact.
  • Pseudorious, on 10/11/2007, -2/+23I don't understand why the author feels that charitability and cut-throat capitalism are at odds. How one earns the money is not coupled to how one spends it. The Carnegie Foundation brought libraries to the world and eradicated many parasites. Rockefeller took UChicago from a small baptist college to the best university in America (IMHO, and no I didn't attend, I mistakenly turned them down). Warren Buffet, who is as capitalist as they come, has now pooled his funds with Gates.

    And just to get dugg down a little more for stating facts, Republicans tend to be more charitable than Democrats in spite of earning less.

    http://www.philanthropy.com/free/articles/v19/i04/04001101.htm
    • totorototoro, on 10/11/2007, -4/+6Because that wouldn't make for a good sensationalist article?
    • zenerdiode, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2from the article itself

      "Most of the difference in giving among conservatives and liberals gets back to religion. Religious liberals give nearly as much as religious conservatives, Mr. Brooks found. And secular conservatives are even less generous than secular liberals."

      Also per the article, taking religious contributions out of the equation (i.e. donating money to build giant mega churches), the conservative gives $88 more than the liberal. Hardly surprising when you also consider that conservatives generally have more wealth and have a greater grasp of Form 1040 with Schedule A, B, C and D.

      Basically, religious people give more money to their churches...not very surprising and really doesn't say anything about Democrats or Republicans, IMO.
      • breezytrees, on 09/10/2008, -0/+1Religious charities don't just build "giant mega churches"

        Look at any soup kitchen or homeless shelter and I almost 100% guarantee you that it is church owned. A donation to a religious charity most definitely still counts.

        Get your head out of the sand. Religious people are less selfish than Atheists. Get off the one track in your mind and consider other viewpoints.
  • scoot2006, on 10/11/2007, -11/+8Who cares who donates more to charity. It's THEIR money. They can do as they please no matter how selfish they are/aren't with it.
    • Pseudorious, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5They can do as they please, but most here seem to care if they care.
  • runeasgar, on 10/11/2007, -19/+2Good for Steve.

    Morality is for morons.
  • Aleks, on 10/11/2007, -5/+5Actually if you see their actions in the past and present, they BOTH want to provide innovations to the IT/Media industry in their own ways.

    Gates only comes off as evil because he didn't have the authority over Microsoft to get what he wanted (e.g. DRM - he thought it was evil, yet Microsoft caved in to any studio demands).
    • vulgrin, on 10/11/2007, -7/+6Wrong. Gates comes off as evil because he has the charisma of a garden slug like a lot of people with similar personalities and passions - aka, programmers. (of which I'm one of) And there are definite strong signs of Aspergers syndrome in his personalty.

      Whereas Steve Jobs has the charisma of a born sales person. Remember, back in the day it was Woz doing the building and Steve doing a lot of the selling.

      Its probably actually a pity that Steve, Woz and Gates never partnered up back then. Steve selling, Woz doing hardware and Gates doing software would have been a fomidable company - until their conflicting personalities tore them all apart of course...
    • Ramble, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1If only Gates had the power of the Force...
  • quaff, on 10/11/2007, -8/+3Leaving out the fact that Steve Jobs probably doesn't have as big of a guilty conscience as Bill Gates do, or the fact that Bill Gates probably NEEDS the good publicity. Maybe Steve Jobs is a libertarian and doesn't give a crap about all the big government issues that are going on in politics? Either way, just because he isn't as "giving" as Bill Gates, doesn't make him the bad guy.
  • chrisutley, on 10/11/2007, -14/+8As the article pointed out, we have no idea how much Jobs could be giving to charity anonymously. Additionally, Steve Jobs isn't hailed as a great human being that's solving the World's problems. He's worshiped for his prolific knack for creating great products with style. He's also worshiped as one of the people that put the personal computer and GUI on the map.

    Bill Gates is doing great things with his fortune, but he's still a geek with products while commercially successful - are incredibly un-sexy and uninspiring.

    In summary, Steve is cool - Bill is not.
    • musters, on 10/11/2007, -8/+8wow, people like you actually do exist.. bet you're buying an iPhone
      you can talk on it while you're taking an iCrap
      then when you're done doing that I can iBitchSlap you.
    • MacParrot, on 10/11/2007, -7/+10How do you plan on bitch slapping people from your Mother's basement?
  • geraldoC, on 10/11/2007, -14/+2The Bill Gates foundation brings Vaccine to undeveloped nations. Not clean water, NOT infrastructure or technology to help them develop to to the point of self-sufficiency. Just Vaccine. Hmmm. View this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpY88OVDT3M

    Let me add the disclaimer that I don't trust Microsoft or Bill Gates. Never did.
    • MacParrot, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7Have you ever been to a third world country? Do you know what it takes (and how many govt officials you have to pay off) to get a big project like that accomplished? Typically no sooner is it completed when bits and pieces start "disappearing" and showing up on the black market.

      While I'm no fan of Microsoft, bully for Bill for doing what he can. Those vaccinations probably will save more lives than some inefficient public works project.
  • Rupan, on 10/11/2007, -3/+9Well duh we all know that Gates is one of the greatest givers of our times. And should be a role-model to anyone worth a billion or more. And really, its not his fault Windows sucks. Sure MS offers DRM but its up to individual content providers if they wish to use it or not. The only thing I can think of that MS is guilty of is not admitting that the Windows Kernel needs to be thrown out the window (hahah a pun) all together and rebuilt from the ground up just as Apple has done what 3 times now with their Mac OS Kernel. But besides the OS, I am a big fan of MS. The 360? Yes! The Zune? Yes! And their peripherals IE Keyboards and Mouse are always great to use.
  • Infowarmachine, on 10/11/2007, -12/+3this article was retarded, 1st, they are both money grubbing billionaires who will cheat lie and distort facts to portray themselves in a better light, or to profit (or usually both) both are sleazy!!

    gates gives more money to causes which is something, but what causes is he giving to? the article point out he is for higher taxes.. ya theres a cause i can get behind (NOT) also he gives to alot of UN aide programs. UN aide is slang for '***** africa over', also UNESCO is slang for new world order brainwashing propaganda

    im sure there are SOME causes he gives to that are actually charities and not ways of ***** 1 group or another over, but i havent seen one yet
    • atbnet, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Bill Gates gave quite a bit to Bio Cassava Plus which is headed by a professor at my university Dr. Sayre http://biocassavaplus.org
    • consonance, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3Are you brianwashed? Seriously, I'm asking that. Gates has donated hundreds of millions of dollars towards charities devoted to solving AIDS and poverty. He advocates a higher estate tax, which means that your wealth is only taxes after your death if your have more than two million dollars. Stop drinking the Kool-Aid.
  • atbnet, on 10/11/2007, -6/+4What the... first the praise of the Microsoft Surface now a pro Bill Gates article. Is this bizarro Digg?

    But seriously I could care less if Steve Jobs gives away money or not. There isn't a law that forces people with a lot of money to give it away. Bill Gates though did give quite a bit of money to a professor at my university for his Bio Cassava project.
  • origclubsoda, on 10/11/2007, -6/+2all capitalists are villains!? This person should be hung for treason.
  • zmigliozzi, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5They both are still nerds. :P
  • Jenovaside, on 10/11/2007, -4/+3I think the whole gates and/or jobs = antichrist argument is stupid. Bill gates ran a successful business, and though his tactics might of been cutthroat, that’s how you amass a fortune like his (better then literally cutting throats for money I think :P), and the fact that he is giving it back proves he is not evil. On jobs behalf you must be considered is that gates is mostly satisfied with his fortune, and now is the time to give it back. Jobs is still investing much of his cash, and I'd stake money that he will give at least some of his to charity later in his life. Criticizing him for not giving 100 million today when 10 years from now he may have 200million for charity though his investments is dumb. I have no idea of his finical intentions, but what else would he do with 3.3 billion? That’s $542,465 a day at 6% interests. It’s hard as hell to spend that much money on your self, not to mention he is probably getting more then 6%, and $500,000+/day compounds to be quite a bit.
  • kdkirsch, on 10/11/2007, -10/+3THIS STORY IS OLD.
    It is dated 1/25/06, more than 16 months old! I can appreciate that someone may want to bring it to our attention, but please have the respect to mention in either the title or description that this is an old story. Either msaleem (1) did not notice the date of the story, or (2) he is a guilty of defrauding the digg community. I've read countless numbers of comments dugg on digg about the Bush administration manipulating facts, withholding information, and pushing an agenda. So why are we going to allow similarly deceptive behavior to persist here?

    For those of you who did read the article, I'd point you out to the comment about the Forbes 400 rankings being shuffled on Tuesday by Disney's acquisition of Pixar. Knowing that the aforementioned acquisition did nor occur recently, I was compelled to investigate the date.

    I'd urge fellow digg users to hold story submitters accountable for deceptively posting stories. Digg this down for being a duplicate, innacurate, or lame.
  • moghua, on 10/11/2007, -5/+2I don't really care for either of them, but the problem I have with Bill Gates in particular is that his company has been convicted of breaking the law (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=business&contentId=A2883-2000Apr3¬Found=true). To praise him unquestioningly for giving away wealth that he earned at least in part by breaking the law seems a bit sleazy to me. How many small businesses, each of which could have spawned all sorts of good charitable works, were crushed by Microsoft's illegal actions in the marketplace?

    Don't get me wrong, it's great that he is using it for good things NOW, but we should not overlook how he earned his wealth.
  • funtownarcade, on 10/11/2007, -9/+3burried as innacurate
  • ricksite, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6Why do we expect all rich people to give their money away? If they are like Scrooge McDuck, literally swimming in it, they should be ashamed. Otherwise, their money is doing something somewhere. It is providing money for a home loan, giving people jobs, etc... Why not focus on the millions of capable but lazy people that don't contribute anything to this world? I think Milton Friedman would agree.
  • Error601, on 10/11/2007, -6/+8Dug down for retarded capitalism is evil thing. How much of a brain does it take to figure out that Gates couldn't do any charity stuff it wasn't for that evil capitalism. People with jobs created by evil capitalist don't need charity anyway.

    • DaveV, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2The article does not say capitalism is evil or that all capitalists are evil. Rather, it rightly states that there are evil capitalists.
  • melek, on 10/11/2007, -8/+7The Bill & Melinda Gates foundation is one of the few I trust with my money.

    Thank you OP for giving Bill some credit :)
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 185 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.