This is a false dichotomy. Bill Gates made his fortune and then retired before becoming a philantropist. Steve Jobs was still hard at work on building his company until a few months before he died. Who knows what he would have done if he had been able to live long enough to have a retirement.

In his statement, Jobs indicated that Gates's interest in philanthropy was because he had always been unimaginative.

Forget, for a moment, the hypothetical of what Jobs would have done. Maybe he would have grown into someone who gave a single fuck about the poor, but in this statement, he called out that caring as beneath him.

That's a value we should condemn, just as we should praise Cook for his stated intentions.

> he called out that caring as beneath him.

Sorry - you have made this up out of whole cloth. It's not what he said, and not a reasonable inference.

By calling Gates unimaginative Jobs was referring to the fact that he didn't have any more ideas about how to advance the computing industry which is why he had left to do philanthropy.

He wasn't criticizing Gates for caring, rather he was criticizing him for not having more to contribute to the industry.

Here's what I think Jobs thought:

"I am creative, so I stay in computing."

"Gates isn't, so he left."

"Leaving computing for philanthropy is for those who aren't as good as I am."

Do you really read that statement differently? Do you not see it as honoring creativity over philanthropy?

The first two of those statements do seem to be implied by the quote from Jobs, but the third seems like something you made up. What part of the quote justifies it?

So, in Jobs's view, philanthropy is something that is done by a person who is lesser than Jobs, because he is lesser than jobs, but this isn't dismissive of philanthropy as a goal worthy of Jobs's attention?

I don't know what to say to you then. I guess we just disagree on how to read this sentence. I think 90% of readers would agree with me, and I assume you think 90% of readers would agree with you. We seem to be at an impasse.

Where does jobs say that philanthropy is done by someone who is lesser than jobs?

How bizarre. Is there a point to this comment except to show that Steve Jobs was a dick?

Maybe you're right. I wanted to show the contrast in their values and highlight the fact that this is a noble act, and not one which everyone in Cook's shoes would take, but maybe I was just piling on Jobs.

I'm well aware that people here don't think much of him, so I'm used to it.

I definitely don't see what Gates and Buffet are doing as "legacy building" - if they wanted to build a "legacy", they would create some self sustaining "family foundation" that acted more like a social club than a charity. Instead, they are explicitly stating they want to give most of their money away while they are alive and all of it shortly thereafter.

I don't know what Jobs did with his money. I'm criticising his values, as described in this statement that clearly paints philanthropy as beneath him, to those of Cook. Maybe he gave money away even though he thought it was beneath him, but it's still disgraceful and loathsome to paint philanthropy as a pursuit of the small-minded.

>..clearly paints philanthropy as beneath him..

Wow, I did not get that from the quote.

"Bill is basically unimaginative and has never invented anything, which is why I think he's more comfortable now in philanthropy than technology"

I certainly got from that that Jobs views philanthropy as the land of retirement for the unimaginative.