Exam Tips, Certification Exam Guides, Microsoft Exam Tips, CISCO Exam Tips: Steve Jobs's family has been giving money away anonymously for more than 2 decades

Steve Jobs's family has been giving money away anonymously for more than 2 decadesGet the lowest prices anywhere on Macs and iPads with exclusive coupons: Apple Price Guide updated May 25th. (Get the lowest prices anywhere)

HomeReviewsBackpagePrice GuidesNew MacsMacs with AppleCarePrevious MacsiPadsApple Wireless DevicesBid on New & Used Apple ProductsFollow UsTwitterFacebookGoogle+RSS Feeds & QriusiPhone AppTip UsSend us a tiptip us anonymouslyContact us by e-mailForumsAAPL: 445.15 ( +3.01 )Never miss an update Follow AppleInsiderFollow @AppleInsider –A+
Friday, May 24, 2013, 08:38 am

Steve Jobs's family has been giving money away anonymously for more than 2 decadesBy Sam Oliver

While late Apple co-founder Steve Jobs never brought public attention to his philanthropic efforts, he and his family have been giving money away anonymously for more than 20 years.

The rise of anonymous giving in Silicon Valley was detailed on Friday by The New York Times, with a particular focus on Laurene Powell Jobs, the widow of Apple's former CEO. She also participated in a rare interview for a profile that was published last week, discussing her agendas in education, global conservation, nutrition, and immigration policy.

Laurene Powell Jobs at the 2012 State of the Union address.
"We're really careful about amplifying the great work of others in every way that we can, and we don't like attaching our names to things," Powell Jobs said.

Her organization, Emerson Collective, is structured like a small business and is set up as an LLC rather than a tax-exempt 501©(3). That gives her the ability to make grants, investments and political donations without publicly reporting them.

Powell Jobs told the Times that she and her organization value the ability to remain anonymous, as well as "nimble and flexible and responsive" in giving.

It was the same newspaper that caused a controversy in 2011, when reporter Andrew Ross Sorkin wrote a piece entitled "The Mystery of Steve Jobs's Public Giving." That piece questioned why there was "no public record" of Jobs donating his money to charity.

That prompted U2 lead singer Bono, who is a friend of Jobs, to pen an op-ed noting that Jobs's contributions to fight AIDS in Africa were "invaluable." Bono is the founder of (Product)RED, a charity aimed at battling AIDS that Apple has supported with various products since 2006.

Bono revealed that Apple had been the largest contributor to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, and noted that the company has given tens of millions of dollars toward H.I.V. testing, treatment and counseling.

Last year, current Apple CEO Tim Cook also noted a number of private philanthropic efforts undertaken by Jobs during his life. Among those was a $50 million donation for Stanford hospitals, half of which paid for a new main building, while the rest was used to build a new children's hospital.

But despite his philanthropic efforts, Jobs remained intensely private, and even refused to discuss his giving with biographer Walter Isaacson before his death. Jobs also refused to participate in "The Giving Pledge," a campaign started by billionaires Bill Gates and Warren Buffett that asks rich people in American to donate most of their money to philanthropic causes.

Since the death of her husband, Powell Jobs has taken a more public role in support of her causes. In January, she launched a website advocating the "Dream Act" for immigration reform, and in April she participated in an interview with NBC's Rock Center for the same cause. Last year she also joined the governing board at Stanford University, she serves on the White House Council for Community Solutions, and she also serves as president of the after-school program College Track, which she founded in 1997.Tags:Steve JobsLaurene Powell JobsJump to comments (143)Categories:General(function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1"; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));Tweet!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,"script","twitter-wjs"); Pin It

On Topic: GeneralFoxconn may sell own branded accessories after Apple profits dipReview: Scosche enters car radio fray with iOS connected controlFREQWorking Apple I fetches $671,400 in German auctionGoogle's Motorola issues second appeal of dismissed ITC case against AppleSouth Australia's first Apple Store draws line hours ahead of opening [update: photos and video]Today's' HeadlinesFoxconn may sell own branded accessories after Apple profits dipApple's iPhone sales tactics in Europe under antitrust investigationRelated ArticlesU2 singer Bono praises philanthropy of Apple's Steve JobsSteve Jobs refused to talk philanthropy with biographerLaurene Powell Jobs joining Stanford governing boardSteve Jobs's widow attending tonight's US State of the Union address Laurene Powell Jobs promoting US immigration reform with new websitePrevious Comments View Allsolipsismx2013/05/24 08:52am

I'm actually against this anonymous donating. I understand their position on it, and respect that, but I think the greater good is for those with celebrity status in society to set an example. I believe the greater good would be to donate openly and encourage others follow suit either in money and/or time. Just by their actions celebrities can get others to react but when you're silent the totality of the effort will be muted. Just because you are donating openly or setting up charities it doesn't mean you are looking for accolades. The better move is to not care what others will ultimately think for against your motives and actions.

damn_its_hot2013/05/24 08:56am

Why is it that the media assumes that you are not giving because it is not a public spectacle. Kudos to the Jobs family for the work he did both public and especially the private work that he sought no recognition for. Most well to do folks would have wanted their name on the hospital(s). Not Steve. He saw the real purpose - to help people in need, not as a PR stunt.

blastdoor2013/05/24 08:59am

Quote:Originally Posted by SolipsismX? View Post

I'm actually against this anonymous donating. I understand their position on it, and respect that, but I think the greater good is for those with celebrity status in society to set an example. I believe the greater good would be to donate openly and encourage others follow suit either in money and/or time. Just by their actions celebrities can get others to react but when you're silent the totality of the effort will be muted.

I understand your point, but if I were Jobs, I would have done exactly the same thing.?

ascii2013/05/24 08:59am

It's the creation of Apple that makes Steve Jobs a hero, the simple giving away of money is nothing compared to that, no matter how much.

I mean, think how much thought and effort was needed to create Apple: strategic decision making and product instincts, etc vs. just signing a check.

youngexec2013/05/24 09:02am

The greater good is that individual freedom is more important than a collectivism.
?

damn_its_hot2013/05/24 09:05am

Quote:Originally Posted by SolipsismX? View Post

...when you're silent the totality of the effort will be muted.

I dare say that those that rec'd treatment for HIV/AIDS don't feel that way, nor do those that receive treatment in the Stanford hospitals.

I understand what you are saying about using it to garner more support but I completely disagree with your implication that because a donation is silent the effort is muted. Also I doubt there was anything preventing Stanford or others from saying "we got a $50 million anonymous donation".?

jungmark2013/05/24 09:05am

Quote:Originally Posted by SolipsismX?

I'm actually against this anonymous donating. I understand their position on it, and respect that, but I think the greater good is for those with celebrity status in society to set an example. I believe the greater good would be to donate openly and encourage others follow suit either in money and/or time. Just by their actions celebrities can get others to react but when you're silent the totality of the effort will be muted.
I disagree. To be cynical, people should donate in what they believe in and not because some celebrity is doing it. Personally I think some celebs do it for attention. There are so many charities out there and most, if not all, deserve attention.

Also. If steve jobs was alive, these articles wouldn't see the light if day.

solipsismx2013/05/24 09:07am

Quote:Originally Posted by Blastdoor?

I understand your point, but if I were Jobs, I would have done exactly the same thing.?
I might have, too, I can't honestly say, but I hope that I'd donate in a way that made the greatest impact for others without any concern for it affected me or my life.

solipsismx2013/05/24 09:14am

Quote:Originally Posted by Damn_Its_Hot?

I dare say that those that rec'd treatment for HIV/AIDS don't feel that way, nor do those that receive treatment in the Stanford hospitals.

I understand what you are saying about using it to garner more support but I completely disagree with your implication that because a donation is silent the effort is muted. Also I doubt there was anything preventing Stanford or others from saying "we got a $50 million anonymous donation".?
Sure it was muted. If Jobs announced that he was giving $50 million to Stanford hospital and wanted others to donate via iTunes or a special iMessage text I bet there would be many millions more, even though Stanford means nothing to most people that would donate. I use that example because despite unrealistic to ask others for assistance for something that regarding Jobs and his family's smaller community efforts people would have added to it greatly.

I'm sure I've see Apple already donate to disaster relief efforts around the world and have links to also get their customers to add these efforts. This is basically what I stated in my initial comment except the celebrity is the corporation using their mindshare to get others to contribute.

Quote:Originally Posted by jungmark?

I disagree. To be cynical, people should donate in what they believe in and not because some celebrity is doing it. Personally I think some celebs do it for attention. There are so many charities out there and most, if not all, deserve attention.

Also. If steve jobs was alive, these articles wouldn't see the light if day.
I agree with you and I wish more people would contribute because they can, not because someone they want to be or be with is doing it, but that simply isn't the case, and as far as I can see it's never been that way or ever will be.

PS: An interesting example is Celebrity Apprentice. Regardless of how you feel about the show, the celebrities, or Donald Trump it's simply amazing how much money that show has raised for charity. From what I've seen none of the proceeds from the tasks to raise money go to the show, but straight to the charities of the winning project manager's choice.

allenbf2013/05/24 09:16am

Quote:Originally Posted by ascii?

It's the creation of Apple that makes Steve Jobs a hero, the simple giving away of money is nothing compared to that, no matter how much.

I mean, think how much thought and effort was needed to create Apple: strategic decision making and product instincts, etc vs. just signing a check.
Which one is more important?

View all commentsLogin to Comment

Have an opinion? Sign Up to share it.

Latest Apple Headlines article_thumb