This is not fair to Steve Jobs. We don't have a full life to judge him by. If this writer had to judge Bill Gates 10 years ago, he would have fallen short of Gates now.
I don't know about that. This year they're both the same age, had both amassed billions, and had become titans of industry. One of them publicly devoted himself to spending his riches on improving humanity; the other continued to enrich himself by developing what are at their core expensive first-world gadgets (though how much he gave to charity is I believe not known).
How much does it take before you have a "full life" that you can be judged by?
Likewise, we don't have a full life to judge Bill Gates by.
As both of them are of the same age (actually Bill is younger in terms of months), it is a perfectly valid comparison as to how far both men had come at this particular stage in their lives (56 years), so why should the writer judge the Bill Gates of 10 years ago (at 46 years) and compare it with the late Steve Jobs (at 56 years)
I disagree. Apple's cultural disdain for philanthropy is well known and comes directly from the top. The most valuable company in the world gives squat to charity when compared with their corporate peers (Microsoft, Google, etc.) and they look even worse when compared with financial equals like Exxon or Walmart.
I think in his biography, it was mentioned that Jobs had a dislike for those doing philanthropy publicly, as in, trying to get recognition for it rather than the cause. Jobs helped and donated to certain causes quietly in areas like education and I think his wife was involved in a number of areas.
I mention the above to state only one thing... Practically everyone here does not know enough about Gates or Jobs on a personal level to make any kind of judgement. Anything you hear is all second hand information and what is displayed by the media. It could well be, relative to a lot of other rich folks, Jobs didn't play a big enough role and certainly Apple was not involved in any charity related stuff, but that doesn't mean he hasn't done his part towards causes he wanted to help out.
Metaphorically speaking, it's a lot like saying someone who has money but doesn't buy much is cheap. That's not necessarily true. They'll spend money, and lots of it, on things they actually care for and want. On other things, its not important. On this front, Jobs also is an example. All that said, it's their life, their money. Let them choose how to live it their way.
As another HN member already commented, don't idolize either but take away lessons from each and mold your own path.
I can understand that impulse, but if your goal is to maximize the impact your money has, once you reach the level of a Jobs or a Gates, your name can carry as much weight as your money.
e.g., think of all the time people spend talking about the Gates Foundation and its work. That's important.
How much does it take before you have a "full life" that you can be judged by?