In the process of death, it is often that those surrounding the dying or recently deceased will romanticize or flat-out whitewash that person--especially if it is a person that they already admire for things that have nothing to do with their personality--such as in the case of Steve Jobs.
During an argument with my parents, I discounted Steve Jobs as an inspiration because while he was good at making shiny gadgets that don't do very much (I am talking about the fairly totalitarian third-party app policies, such as the removal of Google's VoIP service a few years ago, and, more relevant, the lack of a donation system in apps for charities), his record for using his money for public good is rather "thin"1.
His defenders claim that he may have donated to social causes privately, but I don't find this convincing because he was a man beloved by millions, and really the first person (this is why I should like him) to make those damned hipsters look like the hypocrites they are. Think about it: Steve Jobs, beloved by the public, could have used his fame and fortune to do enormous good. Pick a cause--any cause--and his fans and followers would have solved it instantly. But curiously, he didn't do that, despite having ample opportunity2.
Bono claimed that he donated anonymously to Project RED, and in the 80s, Jobs set up a philanthropic organization, but that quickly shut down because "[he] didn't have time"3.
But look at what I said before, about how charities don't have donation systems in their apps. If Steve Jobs really cared about philanthropy, about social responsibility, wouldn't he at least have opened the doors to non-profit organizations on the most popular platform in the industrialized world? From this view, despite claims to the contrary--that in his death his estate may donate his fortune--there is no indication that he cared about anything but shiny objects and money.
The amount of attention and praise Steve Jobs is receiving is inversely proportionate to the amount of good he did as a person. Sure, he founded Apple, but Apple isn't dead; Steve Jobs, the person, is.
What matters to me when considering what he has to say is how much he did. During the last years of his tenure at Apple and his life, he traveled a dangerous road by cordoning off his technology, strictly regulating what could and could not interact with his devices.
In studying for the CompTIA A+ Certification exams, I learned that the computing industry took off and became what it is today precisely because those myriad technology companies had the foresight to share their technology for the betterment of everyone involved, which led to industry-wide standards and more freedom for consumers to mix and match computer peripherals and components. This is why I can build computers from scratch.
But none of this is true for Steve Jobs or Apple today, and it is ironic to me that a man so responsible for restricting technology is idolized--dare I say, worshiped--by people who claim to value freedom.
No, I don't feel compelled to join in worshiping Steve Jobs for two reasons: 1) The long-term impact of his isolated technology will have a detrimental effect on the greater industry precisely because of its restrictions, which may or may not result in the rest of the computing industry following suit, which means an Internet that is less free, less versatile, and more expensive. Imagine using a Windows OS and only being able to install pre-approved software! How many games and Open-Source applications like Firefox would be lost!? 2) Steve Jobs' lack of a record of social responsibility and philanthropy immediately discredits him as an inspirational figure.
1) http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/record-thin-on-steve-jobss-philanthropy/2011/10/06/gIQA3YKKRL_story.html
2) http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/08/29/the-mystery-of-steve-jobss-public-giving/
3) http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2011/08/yes-you-can-think-less-steve-jobs-not-being-philanthropist/41885/
No comments:
Post a Comment