A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon it adds up to real money.
-- Senator Everett Dirksen
Last week, I took heat from some readers for having the audacity to suggest that Apple do something positive for society with all its billions. Today, I come not to criticize, but to praise one William Henry (Bill) Gates III, a man who aims to give away all his money to make the world a better place before he dies.
Let me say up front that I haven't always been a huge fan of Bill Gates, and he's certainly no saint. Like many billionaires, he made his money in sometimes less-than-scrupulous ways. Read up on the Microsoft antitrust suit and some of his company's market practices if you doubt me.
Even though he is is the richest man on the Forbes billionaires list, by all accounts Gates is surprisingly unpretentious and solidly grounded -- and he clearly understands that with great wealth comes great responsibility.
Now Gates puts all that intelligence he put into building his company into helping the least fortunate people on the planet. In his latest letter from his foundation, he discussed the link between innovation and ending abject poverty:
The private market does a great job of innovating in many areas, particularly for people who have money. The focus of Melinda’s and my foundation is to encourage innovation in the areas where there is less profit opportunity but where the impact for those in need is very high.
An article last week in The Telegraph described Gates as a man of simple tastes, including DVDs and takeout burgers. In the article, he comes off as a humble and positive force for change in the world. He would love if all the rich people in the world joined him, but he understands that he isn't going to change minds by scolding or shaming people.
Instead, he just keeps on delivering his positive message -- and walking the walk by giving away millions at a time, while traveling the world to ensure the money he provides gets put to good use on the ground where it's needed.
Contrast this, if you will, with Apple and its $100 billion (and growing quickly) stash. Tim Cook, like Steve Jobs before him, has tried to say that Apple wants to be a force for good in the world. But I don't see an Apple charitable foundation. And I looked for one -- I'm sure you will correct me if I'm wrong.
Now, I can hear you arguing already that Apple is a publicly traded company, Bill and Melinda Gates are individuals, and it's a different dynamic with different legal and moral requirements.
This is true to an extent, but it doesn't mean that Apple, or other rich companies, for that matter (because I truly don't mean to single out Apple), couldn't set up an Educational Foundation or an Employee Rights Foundation or find a pet project and seed it with a million dollars. That's chump change for any of these companies, great PR, and a tax writeoff, to boot.
To its credit, Apple announced last fall that it would match employee charitable contributions, but this isn't really what I have in mind. I mean setting up and funding a charitable arm like Google.org, which on its face appears to be a good model for all tech companies.
Gates says in the Telegraph article that his goal is to give all his money away before he and his wife die, and to let their kids make their own way, their own money, and their own mark.
It's a worthy goal to want to leave the world a better place. Too bad every tech billionaire and the companies they founded haven’t tried the same.
Instead of billionaire individuals and companies giving away millions, maybe there's something wrong about the ability to accumulate that much money.
While there's undoubtedly some advantage to having a huge nestegg (bank account) for doing good things, invention, investments, and such, maybe the real results are less than one would think.
Could Apple have developed and grown without the "overcharging" for it's technology toys? Could Microsoft have ended up the same if it had charge less for it's software and systems?
Of course, it's easy to speculate in theory, but it may be growth may not be so much due to lots of cash creativity, and brains, but more to luck and circumstances.
When I wrote this post I did think it was going to be controversial. Here you have a guy doing amazing work and I'm just calling attention to it, but apparently nothing is simple and no good deed goes unpunished or criticized or called into question.
I left this discussion at ~40 posts and I am also surprised that there is still so much interest (79 posts and counting)!! I think you did a great job :) and I guess an open discussion is what IE is all about, right (well, it got away at some points, but still) ? Talking about the world's #2 was bound to stir controversy!
it is debatable I'm afraid. . . well good I am glad you have an open mind. I've been around my share of millionaires in my time. Up and close and personal and it all boils down to they want love, acceptance, and acknowledgement for their achievements too. You can't buy love though I'm afraid. Of course a few figure it's better to be feared than loved, and you have to ask them, is this any way to live?
Friedman has discussed charitable giving in detail throughout his career, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCNuF4_wey4 . I guess the point I'm trying to make it that billionaires may or may not be greedy depending on their own personalities & proclivities, but government's appetitte for $ and high taxes for their criminal, wasteful activities, is MUCH more likely to create a greedy Billionaire than not.
Yes, Dream Chaser, it is debatable I'm afraid. Some people seem to think that all billionaires sit around and count their money and hoard it, but fail to realize all of the good that these people have done by creating markets, companies, jobs etc. Take that all away, strip it all away....and what do you have? Pre Capitalist societies where "poor" really meant poor.
RE: "Uncle Milty is old school anyway", yes, from the old school of a brilliant free thinker & Nobel Prize winning economist. "His purpose was served and things are now what they are and we got to deal with it" - I'm afraid his purpose hasn't been served, governments are still ruining economies all over the world.
The ThinkerNet does not reflect the views of TechWeb. The ThinkerNet is an informal means of communication to members and visitors of the Internet Evolution site. Individual authors are chosen by Internet Evolution to blog. Neither Internet Evolution nor TechWeb assume responsibility for comments, claims, or opinions made by authors and ThinkerNet bloggers. They are no substitute for your own research and should not be relied upon for trading or any other purpose.
Recently, the Obama administration has been of two minds where privacy rights are concerned. On one hand, you have an administration that vowed to veto CISPA and mandated open data for government websites. On the other hand, you have an increasingly out-of-control Department of Justice on a fishing expedition at AP and demanding legislation to let the FBI wiretap private, encrypted communications and levy fines if a company fails to comply.
These days, even some usually techno-friendly people have their hackles up about the potential of Google Glass to surreptitiously record video or take pictures. I've heard more than one tech savvy friend bring up "the creep factor," the ability of a weird guy to secretly record you.
Last year as you may recall, the Internet community rallied and prevented the passage of SOPA/PIPA legislation. CISPA, another piece of legislation that targeted Internet freedom, also died. However, one proposed law that failed in 2012 has been revived this year. And it appears forces are not now lining up against CISPA with the same enthusiasm as last time.
You might be surprised to learn that the FBI has generated hundreds of thousands of secret information requests since 2000, many of which go to Internet companies seeking information about individual users. You may be even more surprised to discover that in all those years, only one Internet company has challenged these secret requests.
Late Friday I learned I had been chosen to participate in the Google Glass Explorer's program, a group selected to take the first-generation of Google Glass out in the world and report back on how they're using the devices.
The decision could discourage innovators looking to the past, and require companies to build from the ground up, leading to a new generation of stagnation in the IT world.
Apple is falling further behind in the smartphone space but it looks as if Google is falling behind in the tablet world, and that may be the most important device in the mobile market. But there's still time for Google to catch up.
Nicole and Kim have heard the news that Google's new mobile OS, "Jelly Bean," has a voice assistant that's poised to defeat their precious Siri. It's time for another test!
Verizon's one-data-plan-for-all-devices could revolutionize mobile data by making it practical to have multiple devices share a plan, and thus encourage users to cellular-equip all their portable appliances.
To date, smartphone apps have only been able to work with 50Meg chunks of information. Well, recent technical advances have been able to boost that number to 4Gbytes. Consequently, developers will be able to work with more complex data types. But will wireless networks be able to handle the additional traffic?
As smartphones and tablets forge into the mainstream, vendors can begin work on the next big wave: wearable devices. Apple and Google are two of the heavyweights reportedly investing time, effort, and money here. This broad category spans the range from devices that can be worn like watches to computers integrated with people's clothing.
If RIM has fallen behind, and Microsoft was never there, smartphone-wise, who's keeping them in the game? The mobile operators! Why? Because mobile operators don't want a few giant handsets controlling their destiny.
New York's Metropolitan Transit Authority is conducting a pilot test of digital kiosks to guide subway users to where they want to go more efficiently and at lower cost.
The whole Amazon.reader debate is a double-stupid. It's stupid to think that there's any e-book buyer who doesn't know Amazon's URL, and it was stupider to let ICANN launch the whole free-form TLD initiative to start with.
While NFC's original goal was to enhance mobile commerce applications, it is finding its way into a number of other uses, which is creating both opportunity as well as challenges for IT departments.
Enterprises would like to move to cloud computing but are hesitant because they are concerned about providers’ ability to secure company data. Here are some tips that help to ensure that if breaches occur, the business is not left holding the bag.
Edmunds separates customers into segments based on the info it collects on its site and from partners, and uses that to push out custom content, said Brian Baron, director of business analytics for Edmunds.com, at Predictive Analytics Innovation Summit.
The automotive website uses propensity modeling to target ads and customer registration forms, said Brian Baron, director of business analytics for Edmunds.com, at Predictive Analytics Innovation Summit.
Expert Integrated Systems: Changing the Experience & Economics of IT In this e-book, we take an in-depth look at these expert integrated systems -- what they are, how they work, and how they have the potential to help CIOs achieve dramatic savings while restoring IT's role as business innovator. READ THIS eBOOK
your weekly update of news, analysis, and
opinion from Internet Evolution - FREE! REGISTER HERE
Wanted! Site Moderators Internet Evolution is looking for a handful of readers to help moderate the message boards on our site – as well as engaging in high-IQ conversation with the industry mavens on our thinkerNet blogosphere. The job comes with various perks, bags of kudos, and GIANT bragging rights. Interested?
To save this item to your list of favorite Internet Evolution content so you can find it later in your Profile page, click the "Save It" button next to the item.
M2M: Rise of the Machines? Not Yet David Weldon In the 1970 science fiction thriller Colossus: The Forbin Project, two giant supercomputers from the United States and Soviet Union secretly join forces to take control of the collective nuclear might of the two countries. In the film, the two machines discover each other's existence, communicate back-and-forth, share their collective data, and cut their human creators out of the process. It is the ultimate example of machine-to-machine communications, or M2M. CLICK FOR MORE
M2M: Rise of the Machines? Not Yet David Weldon In the 1970 science fiction thriller Colossus: The Forbin Project, two giant supercomputers from the United States and Soviet Union secretly join forces to take control of the collective nuclear might of the two countries. In the film, the two machines discover each other's existence, communicate back-and-forth, share their collective data, and cut their human creators out of the process. It is the ultimate example of machine-to-machine communications, or M2M. CLICK FOR MORE
Email This
