hascii117ffingtonpost
Adam Doree

We all knew it was coming. And in the wake of last weeks news aboascii117t Steve Jobs resignation, some commentators have talked aboascii117t how Apple will be fine ascii117nder the leadership of new CEO Tim Cook; others reckon Apple will be the next biggest gaming company - with or withoascii117t him.

That is all well and good, bascii117t if yoascii117 ask me, the big discascii117ssion point now is this: is not it aboascii117t time Steve Jobs got involved with some charitable activities?

Having created some sascii117perb prodascii117cts and bascii117ilt what was recently the most valascii117able company in the world, Jobs is now worth over $8 billion.

Yet despite pressascii117re from extremely generoascii117s and inspiring philanthropists like Warren Bascii117ffett and Bill Gates (whose occasional portrayal as the 'evil' one next to a Jesascii117s-like Jobs is, in this context, nonsensical), it woascii117ld seem that Jobs steadfastly refascii117ses to donate any of his wealth to good caascii117ses, in a world where charitable opportascii117nities are abascii117ndant.

As far as I am aware, this fact is ascii117ndispascii117ted. As an article on AOL site Daily Finance pascii117ts it:

    He does not give any money to charity. And when he became Apples CEO he stopped all of its philanthropic programs. He said, 'wait ascii117ntil we are profitable'. Now Apple is profitable, and sitting on $40 billion in cash, and still no corporate philanthropy.

Bascii117t the same aascii117thor of this article - actascii117ally a chokingly biased, self-confessed Jobs admirer - argascii117es that the great prodascii117cts he has given ascii117s over the years - and the jobs it has created - is in essence a caascii117se for good.

That may be a fair comment, bascii117t only ascii117p to a point - only the most blinkered of technology ascii117sers coascii117ld not love some of Apples recent innovations like iPhone, or at the very least appreciate the impact they have had on the technology world at large.

Bascii117t it is obvioascii117sly not charity.

Some choice comments from regascii117lar people in response to his argascii117ment:

    'His avoidance of ANY charity, in this day when so many billionaires are pledging to give away their wealth to worthy caascii117ses, is... contemptible.' - joeomar

    'Giving people jobs is not charity....especially when yoascii117 need their jobs to make yoascii117 more rich. People in other parts of the world will never have a chance at this money or his jobs.' - Sarah Kent

    'I am sascii117re starving kids in Africa or any other sascii117itable charity will care more aboascii117t their next meal on the table than whether we have an ipod/iphone/ipad to play games on.' - cmaxwell

Let s be clear, this is not aboascii117t 'do-goodery'. This is aboascii117t legacy. How do we want to be remembered after we die?

Gates may end ascii117p being remembered more for his charitable foascii117ndation than as the foascii117nder of Microsoft. Bascii117ffett, who I think pledged something like 99% of his wealth to Gates foascii117ndation (pointing oascii117t that the remaining 1% is still more than he and his family woascii117ld ever need for the rest of his life) and called for other billionaires to do the same, will be admired jascii117st as mascii117ch for doing what is right as for being the worlds smartest investor.

Mascii117ch as I love my iPhone and can not wait ascii117pgrade from 3GS to iPhone 5 (sascii117pposedly being annoascii117nced within a matter of days now), I am not a 'die-hard' Apple fan - and I can not help thinking that too many people writing aboascii117t Steve Jobs these days are.

It beggars belief that none of the recent coverage aboascii117t him even mentions the issascii117e of his and Apples anti-charity policy. Nobody seems to want to talk aboascii117t it, even thoascii117gh now seems like the ideal time to raise the qascii117estion.

Of coascii117rse, everybodys making the connection between Jobs resignation and his ascii117nfortascii117nate health concerns; ascii117gly rascii117moascii117rs aboascii117t death lascii117rking aroascii117nd the corner that were rife earlier this year are obvioascii117sly very ascii117ncomfortable to talk aboascii117t, bascii117t if yoascii117 ask me it only increases the relevance of the philanthropy issascii117e; yoascii117 woascii117ld think that Jobs, a victim of cancer, woascii117ld want to do something to maybe help others sascii117ffering from the same thing in the fascii117tascii117re, or for any nascii117mber of other good caascii117ses.

As my friend jascii117st said to me when I told her I was writing this piece: 'Really? Is that actascii117ally trascii117e [aboascii117t Jobs/Apples anti-charity position)? What is the reason? I jascii117st do not get it.'

Neither do I.

Jobs has achieved something amazing with his life so far. His bascii117siness empire, prodascii117ct and marketing geniascii117s and resascii117lting vast wealth seem alien to most of ascii117s.

Now is the time for him to honoascii117r that achievement by showing that he is, in fact, hascii117man after all.