Malcolm Gladwell asserts that Gates, not Jobs, will be remembered in 50 years | Hacker News Reader

Malcolm Gladwell asserts that Gates, not Jobs, will be remembered in 50 years

news.cnet.com

30 pointsmschen58 comments

Is this considered a controversial point?

I would have thought that most people would have thought the same thing.

it's really been amazing to see how Bill Gates reputation has rebounded in tech forums in the past 5 years.

5 years ago it would be the rule rather than the exception for Bill to be bad mouthed in tech forums. Now I've noticed that it's mostly the opposite.

My guess is that in 50 years Bill Gates will be more remembered because his achievements will seem alot more amazing that Steve Job's.

Bill will be remembered as the guy who put a computer in every house and then went on to save billions of people.

In 50 years Apple may no longer even exist, it will be much harder for people to remember Jobs as the guy who saved apple and help make computer animated films popular.

It's just like how Carnegie wasn't spoken of very well until later in his life, after he became a philanthropist. On the other hand, Fred Harvey (a very Jobs-like entrepreneur and a hero of mine) is remembered by very few.

I'm sure you could find dozens of other examples throughout recent history, but the thing I've noticed is that the true heroes don't care if they're remembered; they're content in knowing they made a meaningful contribution to humanity.

Eradiacting a disease that has killed millions...that is a meaningful contribution to society. Helping fund massive innovation in the education system...that is a meaningful contribution to society. Selling electronics gadgets for a lot of money is not a meaningful contribution to society.

Education system reform in any sense that an HN'er would generally conceive of is first going to be built upon a foundation of selling lots of cheap electronic gadgets for what still comes to a lot of money.

Are you sure it's not a meaningful contribution to society? If electronic gadgets are extensions of our minds, are you sure it's not a meaningful contribution to work out how to make them do more, more cheaply, for more people, until the utility of the devices is so great that it overcomes nearly everyone's reluctance to part with their money?

The picture is not so clear cut as that. Every leaf node on the tree of human accomplishment nowadays is built upon an awful lot of other less glamorous nodes, but take them away and the glamorous stuff doesn't happen. You may not understand how the sewer worker contributes to the cancer cure, until the sewer worker stops showing up for work on the cancer research facility's beat, at which point your nose may explain it to you.

It's easily conceivable that Apple products will have a significantly larger positive impact on education and healthcare than anything the Gates Foundation does.

And I think it is pathetic to insinuate that Apple products are not a "meaningful contribution to society".

Not only is it controversial but it's probably wrong. Bill Gates hardly comes up in conversation anymore and Microsoft's relevance is way less than a company of its revenues, product usage and stature should be. I couldn't even name a single thing the Gates Foundation is doing, much less has accomplished. No one will remember desktop computers in 50 years when computing will be all around us (moved ever so far forward by Apple products). Your last sentence is drastically understating the impact Jobs had on multiple massive industries.

You can't name a single thing the Gates Foundation is doing simply because you aren't benefiting from it. You're not one of the million people dying each year from malaria, or part of the population likely to be infected. Beating it, which seems like a possibility, could be a pretty big deal all things considered.

I don't think either will be a household name in 50 years, but if I had to bet then I'd give Gates the edge.

You can't name a single thing the Gates Foundation has done because you're uninformed and, unfortunately, don't seem to see anything wrong with that.

Well, I would consider myself pretty well-informed. But, no, I did not have the Gates Foundation's education and malaria funding top-of-mind. And after some brief research am still not quite sure what the money is going towards and if it is accomplishing much.

The Gates Foundation has arguably had more impact on human welfare than any other private organization in history, and yet is still in its early stages. So when you say you know nothing of this work, it suggests a lack of awareness of, and lack of curiosity in, global matters.

And after some brief research am still not quite sure what the money is going towards and if it is accomplishing much.

When you follow up with this, it suggests that either your "brief research" was too brief or your research skills are poor.

Now perhaps you've said all this to make a point, but that's not how it comes across.

> "You know, we don’t grow most of the food we eat. We wear clothes other people make. We speak a language that other people developed. We use a mathematics that other people evolved… I mean, we’re constantly taking things. It’s a wonderful, ecstatic feeling to create something that puts it back in the pool of human experience and knowledge" - Steve Jobs

Ones contribution to the world need not necessarily be in the form of money; but very well in the form of experience or knowledge.

It's controversial among tech geeks (but that shouldn't be surprising considering the PC vs Mac fanboyism) but really this article is just linkbait.

I agree that Gates and not Jobs will be remembered in 50 years, but for a different reason.

Gates vision of "a computer in every home" made computers a common item in most household in developed countries. People are using computers in their home and offices, where would we be without them.

In the same way people remember the Wright Brothers for planes, Edison for the light bulb (yes, he wasn't the first to invent it, but that's beside the point). Gates will probably be remembered for the personal computer.

If he succeeds with the malaria vaccine, it be just another feather in his cap

I don't really associate Bill Gates with "a computer in every home" and in fact it was Steve Jobs and Apple's vision well before Microsoft. And in 50 years I think we are going to be much more aware of "a computer in every pocket" and probably computers everywhere. The whole desktop thing will be quite quaint.

Do you have links which says that "a computer in every home" is Jobs' vision? Google search throws up Bill Gates. There is even a plaque for it http://www.flickr.com/photos/mwichary/2184937614/

Though I believe that there are others who should also be remembered, but I am of the opinion that rightly or wrongly history will remember and associate Gates with computers much like Edison is to lightbulbs, Wright is to planes and Bell is to telephones (this is what kids are still being taught)

We will see. Apple made the first widely used home computer and its "computer on every desk" predates Microsoft's "computer on every desk and in every home" (no surprise that Microsoft co-opted Apple's vision here).

I have a hard time believing that someone will be remembered for "computers" when he didn't even make them (same for Gates' involvement for whatever eventually happens with malaria since the one thing for certain is that Gates will not have been the one to eradicate it).

I think it's foolish to say who will be remembered in the future, as it's mostly up to advertising and what random factlets make it into our defunct schoolbooks.

I only hope that more important characters from computer history than Jobs or Gates make it into the history books though.

This depends on whose memory you are talking about. For leader-types, academics and historians looking to study someone with massive charisma and ambition, it's Jobs they are going to remember. Videos of speeches and interviews will be preserved, and where Jobs and Gates are side by side it's clear that Jobs is the one with the presence.

For everyone else including the general public, it'll probably still be Gates, but Jobs certainly won't be forgotten, if for no other reason than his involvement in Pixar. Pixar's original string of hits (Toy Story{, 2}, A Bug's Life, Finding Nemo, etc) are definitely going to survive in public consciousness longer than 50 years. The narrative of Pixar itself will probably survive that long as well.

One of the videos that will be circulating around for quiet some time is http://ed.ted.com/lessons/steve-jobs-at-stanford-university-...

rprasad wrote:

> You can quibble over whether he donated a dollar or two to some bum somewhere, but ultimately, Steve Jobs donated less to charity than either of us.

I don't know how to reply to individual posts, so I'll write in the main thread. Rprasad, you are still assuming many things about Jobs' private attitude in regards to charitable giving. After the New York Times opinion piece that appeared to stir up controversy after Jobs' resignation on Aug. 24, 2011, Bono wrote this as a response:

"Apple has been (RED)’s largest contributor to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria — giving tens of millions of dollars that have transformed the lives of more than two million Africans through H.I.V. testing, treatment and counseling. This is serious and significant...

You don’t have to be a friend of his to know what a private person he is or that he doesn’t do things by halves." [1]

What most people don't know when they compare Bill Gates and Steve Jobs is that Jobs' Buddhist beliefs probably influenced the nature of his charitable giving, which is to do it anonymously.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/02/opinion/bono-praises-steve...

I disagree. Jobs achieved the greatest comeback in business history. He was ousted from his own company, the company almost goes bankrupt, he returns, and with one innovative and wildly successful product after another manages to make it the most valuable company in the world (in terms of market cap).

I don't think this story will be forgotten in 50 years.

I also don't think Gates will be forgotten either in 50 years. Maybe in the much longer term Gates will be remembered more than Jobs.

Clara Barton founded the American Red Cross, which provides disaster relief, first aid training, and large amount of the blood that saves people's lives in the US.

I suspect that she is less well known than many historical figures with no humanitarian impact. PT Barnum, Harry Houdini, or Bonnie and Clyde spring to mind.

Gates humanitarian work is commendable. One could make an argument that he is a more important figure in the history of the business of computing than Steve Jobs.

But I doubt that merit or rational argument will determine who will be remembered in 50 years.

Steve Jobs is a compelling character. His life is a colorful, primal and enthralling story. He said interesting things, in an interesting way. He will be remembered long after the guy who spent a lot of money to eliminate a disease that people will not be dying from.

Fair? No. Likely? Yes.

It's somewhat odd that folks are suddenly measuring greatness along the dimension of philanthropy and forgetting that people who make history come in all shapes and sizes--good, bad, greedy, selfless, originals, remixers, creators of that which has fallen and creators of that which is still with us. To suggest that Jobs won't be with us simply because he didn't donate to charity is to forget a great number of reasons why people are remembered.

I have for the last few years personally thought about this many times over.

I am from India and understand the problems that Bill Gates is trying to help solve, with his money, management skills and time.

I am a tech fan-boy and love good gadgets, I work hard to earn and buy a gadget. But people like me are minority. And moreover those gadgets die in 3 years flat.

For countries like ours, it is crucial to solve the socioeconomic problems and head towards a better tomorrow. In that respect what Bill Gates has been doing, has inspired me to think differently. He has made capitalism also look much better (I come from communist backgrounds). You earn and then you give back, the way you want to, where you want to.

Having an impact on actual living conditions of people is far more important than building better OS with a Metro UI or even a better phone with dual cores.

So, a software baron in the same league as Pablo Escobar, who made billions in shady ways and tried to clean his name giving it all away, will be remembered more than a guy who was a living god among artists, creators, marketers and geeks?

Sure you can buy a couple of pages in history, a billion a piece, but your tarnished reputation won't wash away easily, no matter how many vaccines you fund or how many shills to down vote me you pay.

You can spend all your money buying a heaven but that won't make you a saint.

This is moronic. You're suggesting that Gates' work to eradicate malaria is worth less than Steve Jobs being worshipped among creative people? This kind of stupidity is prevalent among those who have never seen poverty in life.

I didn't downvote you because I respect your opinion, but I think you're dead wrong.

Have you seen poverty? Do you know where I live? Do you know how much money I have? Do you know what I had for lunch today? You don't. You won't win this fight so you better put the gloves down.

Back to the original idea of the post, you can't glorify a man who has ruined countless lives amassing a fortune with unethical practices, perhaps not illegal, but morally reprehensive no matter how you look at bribery, strong arming, patent trolling, fudding, and many more vicious ways of making money while keeping your competitors at bay, going bankrupt, and erasing them from their path to world domination.

So now that I have billions to boot and I will be remembered like a ruthless extortionist I decide to clean up my name and contract the greatest PR firm who tells me to give it all away in the most humane way possible, curing people, and paying bold headlines every time my "charitable donations" solve a third world problem.

Look pal, I don't know you and neither Gates nor Jobs put food on my table so fuck them all, but don't tell me I don't know poverty for I have seen the ugly innards of the beast and Saint Gates won't get me out of here, thanks but save your compassion.

Don't talk about stupidity if you can't even grasp the meaning of ignorance.

----

Please accept my apologies if I offended you, this stupid fight won't make us better persons.

Both Bill and Steve are class individuals right in their own accord and have changed the world for ever in their own ways.

They haven't (and shouldn't) base their life's actions on what will be remembered some indefinite time after their death but on what their calling is; on their existential view of the world and their purpose in it.

Since their actions are not optimized on how to be remembered the most, I think it is naive for us to try to predict it and while doing so, judging two highly accomplished individuals in the same scale. There is no absolute scale of who is better. It is all relative. We would all do better trying to focus on our purpose and calling in our existential view of the world and acknowledge others'.

You can watch the video here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyL9H4wJ0VE&feature=share (I recommend it).

This statement is part of a larger Entrepreneurship discussion

some weeks ago i got talked into setting up the internet connection on windows vista machine (of a friend) - a very simple task i though. it was a horrible and unbelievable stupid experience. it took me two hours(!!!)

according to a quick google at least 88 000 000 windows vista copies had been sold. i expect that at least (and on average) every vista user had run into a similar issue at least once (probably more often, but lets calculate with "just once").

this means at least 176000000 hours have been wasted in a similar fashion. that's 7333333.33333333 days or 20091.324200913 years. well, if we calculate with a life expectancy of 70 years, this means that this was the life time of 287 people.

well, i think with this track recoded, yeah, bill gates will be remembered.

And Bill Gate's contribution to Vista was what, exactly? I think you're missing the point of this article, not to mention stretching on your math.

"Gates's last full-time day at Microsoft was June 27, 2008" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Gates

"On January 30, 2007, it [Windows Vista] was released worldwide" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Vista

You have to be kidding me, it took you two hours to plug a cat5 cable into the back of a computer? DHCP would have assigned an ip address to the pc within 5-10 seconds and you'd be on the internet, there are many reasons to hate on Vista(like over aggressive prefecthing for one), no need to make up some nonsense.

if everything works (i.e. DHCP), then there isn't a problem. but if something does not work, there is a problem. then the OS should make it possible to solve the problem. this is were vista (home basic) fails.

if vista would have worked, it would have been awesome (maybe). but as it didn't it was (and is) horrible and stupid - as it prevents easy solutions.

If DHCP doesn't work then either there is a problem with your router/DSL/cable modem or you have a virus.

None of those things are the fault of the OS, since you didn't describe the issue or the resolution I can only assume you are a troll or have no business providing tech support.

>I can only assume you are a troll or have no business providing tech support.

you are right, i "have no business providing tech support", that's what i tell my (technical not advanced) friends and elderly family members every time!!!!!

Was Bill Gates even around for vista? I thought he stopped his msft day job years ago?

Bill Gates quit his day job at Microsoft in 2008. Microsoft Vista was released in 2006, they had worked on it since 2001.

So Bill Gates was very much responsible for Vista.

Not everyone is as inexperienced as you are in Windows Vista networking. Just because it took you two hours to figure out something, doesn't mean that it is the same thing for everyone.

yeah, most vista users i know (mostly older family and friends) come to me (i - to 99% - refuse to do any of that stuff) after they wasted days and weeks.

I've put a lot of time into making a home network with both Vista and XP. It's near impossible. I'm not dumb, Windows is dumb.

False dichotomy.

Probably not Ritchie, either.

Everyone remembers Carnegie, Mellon, Rockefeller, and Stanfurd because of their generous acts. Nobody remembers their almost-as-successful, but far less generous competitors.

To date, Bill Gates has donated more money to charity than Steve Jobs was ever worth. Steve Jobs...has donated less money to charity than your average churchgoer.

Malcolm did not assert this statement based on Gates financial contributions to charities. He says Bill Gates will be remembered, because he (almost has) will eliminate Malaria.

Yes, by donating a huge chunk of his wealth to funding malaria research, treatment, and prevention programs.

Everyone remembers Thomas Edison and Henry Ford too. And it doesn't have anything to do with "generous acts"

Good point. Check this list of the top hundred richest people in US history, ranked by their wealth as a portion of GNP:

http://www.getrichslowly.org/blog/2006/07/29/the-wealthy-100...

A. T. Stewart, anybody? Frederick Weyerhaeuser? William Weightman? John I. Blair?

Mind you, you don't have to be a big-name philanthropist to be on that list and remembered. Rockefeller was so goddamn rich that he's famous just for being incredibly rich. Howard Hughes is remembered for his eccentricities. Samuel Colt is remembered because he invented something. And then there's George Washington...

Oh so you have Jobs' personal finance records? That's amazing! And you're breaking the news here on HN of all places!

Okay but seriously, you don't have a clue what Jobs did with his money and neither do I. So there's no point speculating.

According to the NYT "there is no public record of Mr. Jobs giving money to charity" (http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/08/29/the-mystery-of-steve-...).

Giving publicly is important if you want to be remembered for your charitable work.

Or perhaps giving publicly is what you do when you want to rehabilitate a tarnished public image.

Regardless, Gladwell is taking the lazy columnist's approach of irresponsible prediction, intending to provoke indignation. There's plenty of room in history books, and both Gates and Jobs will have significant entries. I'll submit Edison and Telsa as examples of contemporaries in the same general field who both remain widely known decades after they passed on.

Right. Wanting to be remembered is just as selfish of an act as attaching your name to a donation.

Whether Jobs donated anonymously or didn't donate at all, I can respect him so much more for not chasing attention and approval.

So you're completely discounting the value of Gates attempting to inspire others to give- particularly other rich people?

I have talked to directors of Bay Area charities that tell me that Jobs was a generous donator personally. In fact this just happened 2 weeks ago, and the person defended him vehemently.

So there's one anecdotal data point for you.

You can verify donations to public charities when they file their (publicly accessible) information returns for the tax year. If Steve Jobs was a generous donor, he will show up in their returns for 2011 or 2012 (which should become available in the next few months, or next year, respectively). A lot of research has been done by a lot of journalists looking for a Steve Jobs entry in the donor lists of many charities (in prior years, i.e., 2010 or earlier), and they haven't found any yet. (This doesn't mean that he never made any donations, it is however strong evidence that Steve Jobs did not donate much, if anything, until the last few months of his life.)

We do know that Jobs made almost no charitable donations over the course of his life. He used to brag about it quite publicly in interviews, and it was only when he was rediagonised with cancer that he hinted that he might consider eventually changing his mind in the future. There are statements from friends and family supporting his lack of charity. It's not speculation. You can quibble over whether he donated a dollar or two to some bum somewhere, but ultimately, the reality is that Steve Jobs donated less to charity than either of us.

Steve Jobs may have been a genius salesman, but he was definitely not a philanthropist.

Well, all the attention around Jobs was pretty much fanboyism, and it was more of a fad that arose from the iPhone/iPad. In 50 years, there will be another fad with another face on it for fanboys to obsess over, while at the same time, Gates' philanthropic contributions will be remembered as the model billionaire.

It's funny when people who won't be remembered at all try to detract from the legacies of great people.

Okay not funny, just stupid.

Gladwell has joined the ranks of those who make ridiculous statements about things they are ignorant of just to grab headlines.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com