Negotiating With Steve Jobs

[charlesmartel]

Most charities are scams. Just look at some of the salaries the head guys make.

BTW, "giving back" implies that you've taken something without compensation or permission. There is no need for companies to "give back." They pay for everything they use, e.g., labor, raw materials, etc.

Governments need to "give back." They need to give back all the money they've stolen in the form of taxes. Calling an act of thievery "taxation" doesn't change the nature of the act. It's still THEFT no matter how many thousands or millions of people support it.

 

[Gambit]

What?! The most impactful people in the world are human?

I thought they were perfect gods and there was no way I could ever dream of reaching their level. <-- I like having that belief more because then I can go back to being lazy.

 

[Moxie]

Steve Jobs' Family Has Secretly Been Giving Away Money For 20 Years - Business Insider

U2 singer Bono praises philanthropy of Apple's Steve Jobs

 

[groneg]

TL;DR - OP should actually read an entire article before drawing and sharing pointless conclusion.

no thanks.

 

[Fraggler]

Steve Jobs also didn't invent the smartphone, BUT he did make it more appealing to more users and started a huge wave of technological leaps in phone capabilities which was stagnate with Blackberry till then.

What smartphones have allowed us to do is to get to the internet fast, like me being able to see this socialist laden post while laying in bed, which gave me a motivation to get up and reply.

Nothing to do with the scientists around the world drastically improving mobile telecomms capabilities to make internet access on a phone usable and affordable or processor technology now allowing for small yet powerful computers (phones)?

As for tablets.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBEtPQDQNcI

They were great at making ideas cool and accessible.

 

[cassius]

Why does a corporation HAVE to give money to charity? Is this something new that came along with Obamacare? Steve Jobs was a dick, but that's what helped hin create Apple to what it is today. If you compare most people that make it at that level, they are pretty brutal to work for.

Steve Jobs also didn't invent the smartphone, BUT he did make it more appealing to more users and started a huge wave of technological leaps in phone capabilities which was stagnate with Blackberry till then. Him and his Company have done A LOT for technology like get the GUI interface from Xerox, which Microsoft later stole and got to market first, there is no obligatory need to give money to charity - that's a socialist agenda.

There is no NEED or mandatory requirement to give back. If you get to that level and WANT to give back then do so. If you don't whatever, people are going to talk shit no matter what anyways. If he gave 10%, socialist are going to come in and say 'Why didn't he give 20%, or 40%, or all of his money away.' There is a tax benefit Apple didn't use, but I doubt they needed it, since they were already paying one of the lowest taxes in corporate history (How to make $30 billion and pay no corporate income tax, the Apple way).

What smartphones have allowed us to do is to get to the internet fast, like me being able to see this socialist laden post while laying in bed, which gave me a motivation to get up and reply.

Imagine if you created a company then someone comes along and says you HAVE to spend your money like this, everyone else is doing it... shit sounds ridiculous. If you WANT you can, but you are NOT obligated to.​

Everything in that image is about judging his character. "Mandatory requirement" and obligations != good character. These aren't accusations that he broke the law. They are pointing out that he was not some wonderful, kind man, but a super successful and brilliant douche.

It's funny how everyone is jumping on the statement about him not giving to charity, but ignoring the parking in handicap spots, telling people they are fired for fun, claiming infertility only to have children later, and generally being a total douche.

 

[CCarter]

Nothing to do with the scientists around the world drastically improving mobile telecomms capabilities to make internet access on a phone usable and affordable or processor technology now allowing for small yet powerful computers (phones)?

As for tablets.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBEtPQDQNcI

They were great at making ideas cool and accessible.

He brought it to the masses. Microsoft tried and failed (tablet like in early 2000 or something), and whatever is going on with that youtube video from 1994, obviously that didn't work out. Steve Jobs and Apple brought it to the masses.​

It's funny how everyone is jumping on the statement about him not giving to charity, but ignoring the parking in handicap spots, telling people they are fired for fun, claiming infertility only to have children later, and generally being a total douche.

I jumped on that one cause the other stuff was already old news to me. The charity part was brand new info. He drove his Benz for over a year without even a license plate if I recall correctly. He was a dick and walked around like he owned the place, oh well... he kind of could do that...

The problem is the "charity" cause that's what society tells us people need to do, "give back". That bothers me, versus it actually being about Steve Jobs not giving back. Which he in fact did, but kept it quiet. I just don't like that mandatory charity, if you give then give, if you don't, then don't.​

 

[infoslob]

One of the main reasons I read Isaacson's Steve Jobs biography was because how little I knew about the man.

Permit me to write my book review: I spent the first half of the book wondering when someone was going to punch him in the face. I spent the second half of the book with a growing awe of his achievements. He was one of a kind.

 

[kryaa]

No fucking way! Jobs is now pegged somewhere between Stalin and Jeffrey Dahmer.

The thing is, LSD can lead to a grandiose ego in some cases, perhaps because it is so analytical, ego-explanatory and electrical ? Perhaps he should have taken some mushrooms instead.

Anyways, as to seeing charity as an obligation. Well, there is just a moral obligation...or at least there can be, depending on your own values. I'd probably try to support people, institutions and ideas i deem interesting, or which have helped me in the past. Basic reciprocity. If LSD helped me to earn billions, i'd gladly spend a percentage of my money on LSD studies...why the hell not?

I'd stay a thousand miles away from all that hypocritical "celebrity type" charity stuff though. You won't necessarly change the world by throwing money at problems. For instance, there is a reason big parts of africa is malnourished and poor....China needs cheap labour too, you know.

 

[emp]

Yep sorry you're right. There was also a tablet market before the iPad.

Love it when people mix those two..

Tablets I agree have been revolutionized by apple in so far as to really be the first to market with a viable product.

But smartphones has been a billion$ market before the iPhone even arrived.

Windows Phone, Blackberry (remember where the term "Crackberry" comes from?) had been around and sitting pretty before Apple arrived.

As to CCarter:

Nope, I don't EXPECT anyone to give to charity.
I just find it amusing that Steve Jobs was a fucking asshole. Charity or not.

::emp::

 

[onkelmicha]

He brought it to the masses. Microsoft tried and failed (tablet like in early 2000 or something), and whatever is going on with that youtube video from 1994, obviously that didn't work out. Steve Jobs and Apple brought it to the masses.​

I jumped on that one cause the other stuff was already old news to me. The charity part was brand new info. He drove his Benz for over a year without even a license plate if I recall correctly. He was a dick and walked around like he owned the place, oh well... he kind of could do that...

The problem is the "charity" cause that's what society tells us people need to do, "give back". That bothers me, versus it actually being about Steve Jobs not giving back. Which he in fact did, but kept it quiet. I just don't like that mandatory charity, if you give then give, if you don't, then don't.​

99% of people give just so people can know or see how fucking nice they are. I just vomit over people giving on KIWA then share that shit on FB.


Funnier not though Dreamboys have no problem gicing for charity

The Dreamboys Do Cock In A Sock For Charity

 

[dmnEPC]

If you give only because others are watching, you're doing it wrong.

Maybe he was charitable in his private life, maybe he wasn't. This entitlement mindset has a lot to do with the worlds problems.

 

[CCarter]

Anyways, as to seeing charity as an x. Well, there is just a moral obligation...or at least there can be, depending on your own values.

An obligation is something you are bound to - if not socially forced to do. If you want to help people do it, if not don't. But saying everyone is morally obligated... that's just saying everyone is forced to do it, let's cut through the bullshit. People thinking a corporation is obligated to give to charity - that's ridiculous. A corporation has only one purpose to create profits. It's not a person no matter what tax laws have schemed to create. It doesn't have morals, it doesn't have a corporate afterlife. If individuals want to be tied to their society's imposed obligations, that's on them. But a corporation doesn't have to do anything, maybe for Public Relations, but let's really be serious again, it's all for show. These corporations and individuals don't give a shit what charity they spend their money on, they only give a shit about the photo opportunity, what's moral about that? Jobs at least gave in secret, according to the above posted sources.

This charity thing really pisses me off cause as soon as you make it, someone comes knocking on your door about moral obligations with their hand out. And good luck if you give them your email or phone number, you'll be inundated with guilt every time they come around. What's moral about imposing guilt onto someone for not giving money away? Fuck that guilt, they are socially trying to impose on you. You wouldn't ask a homeless person to donate cause 'they don't have enough money'. But a millionaire/billionaire, "well they got enough money, they can afford it, let's keep throwing guilt their way..." So at some level there is a number you pass where you can start inundating someone with guilt. Is that really the end road of 'making it' in this society? It's only moral if you ask a homeless man AND the millionaire/billionaire to BOTH give what they can. Otherwise it's just socialism...​

But smartphones has been a billion$ market before the iPhone even arrived.

Windows Phone, Blackberry (remember where the term "Crackberry" comes from?) had been around and sitting pretty before Apple arrived.

I'm being very specific here, I stated brought it to the masses. Your 11 year old kid weren't asking for a Blackberry at the level iphone was when it was introduced. I had Windows Phones, several, still do, those were difficult to use, no apps, Blackberry was just email. When iphone came around they changed HOW people used the phone, from going mostly from conversations to internet usage. Do you remember the Mobile web Browsers before the iphone? Like seriously? It was all bullshit, you know this... Even afterwards It took years for blackberry to even catch up to the mobile web browsing experience that iphone brought. Apple didn't create the industry, but they changed, revolutionized, and showed people a better way of doing it.​

 

[kryaa]

Well, i get you CCarter, and i don't really believe in "morals". They are completely arbitrary and culture dependent. Still i believe that reciprocity is a nice concept..personally...not that you can enforce it, but you can try to build a culture which encourages reciprocity, sharing and partnership. If...that fits your worldview...

 

[emp]

I'm being very specific here, I stated brought it to the masses. Your 11 year old kid weren't asking for a Blackberry at the level iphone was when it was introduced. I had Windows Phones, several, still do, those were difficult to use, no apps, Blackberry was just email. When iphone came around they changed HOW people used the phone, from going mostly from conversations to internet usage. Do you remember the Mobile web Browsers before the iphone? Like seriously? It was all bullshit, you know this... Even afterwards It took years for blackberry to even catch up to the mobile web browsing experience that iphone brought. Apple didn't create the industry, but they changed, revolutionized, and showed people a better way of doing it.

Dude...

I am so like... not even denying ANY of this.

What I took offense to was the "singlehandedly created the smartphone market"

Which is bullshit.
There were Millions of devices out before Apple even entered the smartphone market.

And Apple .. well, I don't know.

http://static.squarespace.com/stati...099/Screen Shot 2013-05-23 at 10.12.59 PM.png

::emp::

 

[emp]

I'm being very specific here, I stated brought it to the masses. Your 11 year old kid weren't asking for a Blackberry at the level iphone was when it was introduced. I had Windows Phones, several, still do, those were difficult to use, no apps, Blackberry was just email. When iphone came around they changed HOW people used the phone, from going mostly from conversations to internet usage. Do you remember the Mobile web Browsers before the iphone? Like seriously? It was all bullshit, you know this... Even afterwards It took years for blackberry to even catch up to the mobile web browsing experience that iphone brought. Apple didn't create the industry, but they changed, revolutionized, and showed people a better way of doing it.

Dude...

I am so like... not even denying ANY of this.

What I took offense to was the "singlehandedly created the smartphone market"

Which is bullshit.
There were Millions of devices out before Apple even entered the smartphone market.

And Apple .. well, I don't know.

http://static.squarespace.com/stati...099/Screen Shot 2013-05-23 at 10.12.59 PM.png

::emp::

 

[CCarter]

Well, i get you CCarter, and i don't really believe in "morals". They are completely arbitrary and culture dependent. Still i believe that reciprocity is a nice concept..personally...not that you can enforce it, but you can try to build a culture which encourages reciprocity, sharing and partnership. If...that fits your worldview...

My worldview is there is no utopia coming, where everyone is going to be holding hands, caring and sharing. People are going to die no matter what, people are going to live and give, and others will not give, maybe they felt that this world has already emotionally scarred them enough and now it's time for them to take. Everyone has their reasons, but no one should be forced to do anything.

My problem again is imposing your morals upon others by encouraging them. When digging deep, some will eventually cite religion as their reason. What about Atheists, Buddhists, Muslims? What if their moral views are different from yours. Who should be encouraging who? More blood has been spilled cause of moral/religious views than anything else in history. (Also this is not to say Atheists don't have morals - even though that's what the masses ignorantly believe, just because someone doesn't believe in a religion doesn't mean they are automatically without good morals).

If that encouragement comes from a view that at the core is a religious believe, well, you are soon going to find yourself imposing views upon others, since your view is "right" and their view is "wrong".​

 

[kryaa]

Well, we all encourage others to adopt our worldviews by the action we take. Encouragement includes free choice, enforcement does not. Sure, the line is blurry, but with every step we take, with every decision we make, we are aligning ourselves with the values we have adopted. It does not matter if they are consciously articulated or not, they are still driving us. And is that a bad thing? It makes this world a diverse place, with a lot to discover. It can be anything, from completly dull, to exciting. You can live a life in bliss or pain depending on your choices and the choices of people around you.

Moreover, people love to cite religion as the root of all evil, while it should be an argument against fundamentalism instead. I have no quarrels with religious types but i do dislike self-righeousness. That's just me though, a ton of people love complete pricks.