back to article Mark Zuckerberg and the $3bn cash fling: He's not your father's tech kingpin

Lou Gerstner, Ray Noorda, Lew Platt. Remember them? Ever even heard of them? Anybody with a memory or knowledge of the tech industry will know them as former, if anonymous, leaders of IBM, Novell and Hewlett-Packard. Newbies and the average person outside tech won’t without a quick Google. I recently visited the London …

  1. James 51

    It takes hundreds of millions of dollars to develop a new drug and bring it to market. Lots of drugs that look promising don't pan out when larger trails kick in. This initiative would be lucky to bring two drugs to market to help people. Unless he's setting something like the long reach foundation up and is expecting it to operate not for profit and invest in promising start ups, with no direction it will have very little impact.

    1. Andy Nugent

      @James 51

      They probably shouldn't bother then.

      1. James 51

        Re: @James 51

        I am not saying they shouldn't bother, it's the undirected nature of the call to action that makes me skeptical. It is diluting the effort to the point were it is reaching homeopathic standards. If they had said that they were going to invest in new tools to bring down the cost of developing new drug treatments or AIs to analysis big data to improve health care in some way (while of course respecting people's privacy (stop sniggering in the back)), in short if they had a specific goal rather than some ridiculous mission statement I'd optimistic but this is plainly ridiculous. How are they going to stop outbreaks of e-coli? How are they going to cure strains of diseases that don't exist yet?

    2. Filippo Silver badge

      Unless new tools appear that drastically cut the cost of developing new drugs. There are things like nanotech and computational biology that are barely more than lab toys right now, but might end up in fully automated disease cure discovery in 50, 70 years from now. Granted, they might end up like cold fusion too, but the nature of research is that you don't know until you spend a crapload of money.

      1. Tony Haines

        "Unless new tools appear that drastically cut the cost of developing new drugs."

        That's only part of it. The testing of the candidates and associated legalities is the expensive part.

    3. 's water music
      Windows

      It takes hundreds of millions of dollars to develop a new drug and bring it to market

      You may be confusing the pharmaceutical industry with improving healthcare outcomes.

      Someone who might benefit from some simple, cheap primary healthcare interventions-->

      1. James 51

        That would mean putting the money into lobbying and funding studies and I agree that there is a lot of low hanging fruit out there that companies won't collect as they won't make mega bucks out of it but two billion isn't going to cure all disease and illnesses that way. It would be a very good use for it though.

      2. JEDIDIAH
        Mushroom

        Been there, done that.

        I am here to contradict your dimwitted nonsense because of one of those drugs you're trying to scoff at.

        Cancer is a tough nut to crack. It's our own bodies betraying us. It's not something that will be sorted with some quackery you found in a chain letter. It's something that we've put a lot of effort into for a long time now (probably since before you were born).

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Key phrase is "by 2100"

      They'd have a much higher chance of success if the $3 billion was invested until 2085, and then deployed towards the goal. The sum would be a lot larger, even accounting for inflation, and technology and human knowledge would have advanced a long way.

      Spending any of that money towards the goal now would be a waste, I agree, given that only a couple decades ago we spent a hell of a lot more than that targeting a single disease, HIV/AIDS, and the best we could manage was to keep it in check, not cure it.

  2. Andy Nugent

    Check the figures?

    "assets of $36bn and income of $53bn" - impressive returns of 147%.

    "Gates, the richest person in tech with a net worth of $81m" - Million?

    "Salesforce chief executive Marc Benioff and wife Lynne, meanwhile, have put $128bn" - eigth of a trillion dollars?

    1. Filippo Silver badge

      Re: Check the figures?

      I noticed that too. The figures make this extremely confusing.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Check the figures?

      It looks like they've fixed all those, but now I'm confused by assets of $36 billion and income of $53 million. That's a return of 0.147%. They must have the worst investment adviser there is. I get a better rate on my checking account!

      1. Prst. V.Jeltz Silver badge

        Re: Check the figures?

        I get a better rate on my checking account!

        Me too but i can only put 20k in . I'd need 1.8 million such accounts to hold the 36b :)

        re zuck . good on im!

  3. Wolfclaw

    The only thing I can think to say about Zuck, is that he is a tool !

    1. Mark 65

      Say what you like about Gates the corporate man but at least his philanthropy is large scale and its commitments somewhat more realistic and less hipster. Beating malaria vs "curing everything everywhere PS hey look at me".

      If he really has $30+bn why not give more away? Once you get into the billions surely all you do is piss it on yachts and ski lodges.

      1. Naselus

        Honestly, I felt that this announcement mostly made Zuck look like an idiot. I get the whole 'it's the right thing to do' shizzle, and yeah, who doesn't like philanthropy... but 3 billion dollars is essentially nothing in this endeavor.

        Let's take the NHS, for example. The NHS has to look after keeping approximately 70 million people alive, the vast majority of whom are not even ill. It isn't even trying to wipe out illnesses - just manage them. It is struggling to do so due to being chronically underfunded for the last ten years or so.

        It has a yearly budget in excess of 110 billion pounds - about 140 billion dollars. 3 billion would be swallowed up in about ten days. So really, this is like someone raising £150 at a bake sale and announcing that they're going to wipe out cancer with it and then pour the leftover money into driving malaria out of Africa.

        1. Prst. V.Jeltz Silver badge

          @naselus

          damn that puts it in perspective!

          3b gets you nowhere these days!

  4. Roland6 Silver badge

    PR spin

    Would agree that Zuckerberg is 'benefitting' from the current PR culture, where being seen is more important than the substance of the communication.

    Whilst his 3Bn USD is being made at a much earlier stage in the development of Facebook, namely 12 years after founding and 4 years after IPO. By comparison, Gates set up his foundation in 1997, 22 years after the founding of Microsoft and 14 years after its IPO, with a broadly similar level of funding (after allowing for inflation). However, Gates continued to fund the foundation as his fortune grew, so we can expect further announcements from Zuckerberg in the coming years.

    However, what is significant is the level of project funding at over 4Bn pa that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation can commit to projects that attempt to deliver on it's grand but highly focused vision. Which makes Zuckerberg's commitment look inadequate against his stated vision.

    So I suggest Zuckerberg's 3Bn is potentially the down payment on a much larger project.

    Perhaps Facebook will introduce subscription charges with a percentage going to Zuckerberg's foundation. Enabling Facebook to exert "moral outrage" at those users who refuse to subscribe and at Ad blocking businesses...

    1. JEDIDIAH
      Linux

      Re: PR spin

      Zuckerberg is young. He might directly benefit from any new breakthroughs that happen. He might end up saving his own life. It's not a completely altruistic gesture.

      Everybody gets sick.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Lobbying politicians is easy - science is difficult, very difficult.

    Influencing politicians and laws is easy, just throw enough money at it.

    Science, instead, is terribly difficult, and some problems don't really care how much money you throw at them. What you need, is a bright mind who can find the solution. What you need is giving him or her an opportunity - and you don't know where he or she could come from. And you don't also know from what scientific research the solution could come from. It could be a very different field.

    Instead we see a system which is going the other way - re-establishing a caste system to ensure the "prolet" can't touch the benefits of the ruling class.

    Zuck & C want to defeat diseases by 2100? Pay your taxes, and the lobby for them to really improve the education system. Give a chance to people to attend a university without being forced to sink into debts, so they can follow a career which may not pay immediately enough to pay such debts. Give the bright minds an opportunity to shine.

    Throwing billions at people like Theranos - without actually checking the results - will just make the Holmes happy - and you won't solve anything. And don't be selfish. Money don't buy immortality, even if someone around you told you so. He or she's just trying to suck out your money.

  6. PhilipN Silver badge

    Fooey

    I could make the same pledge because (a) it is not enforceable (b) it is not verifiable (c) my charitable foundation may allow me to retain and /or manage the assets and (d) it is not going to tell anyone. In the mean time I claim the kudos and the tax benefits and do not make any lifestyle changes at all. I could even get the foundation to pay for my 5-star travel if there is a side trip to some medical institute (when the media are watching, natch).

    Yawn.

    1. Mark 85

      Re: Fooey

      That sounds a lot like a certain wannabee politician I can think of...

      On second thought, more than a few politicians and CEO types.

  7. disgruntled yank

    wow

    Just imagine if people like the Fords or Rockefellers had done something like that.

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Worship Me

    I will be holding a press conference to announce that I am going to "pledge" $100 to end war, feed the hungry and populate the other planets in the solar system.

    But then - I am somewhat simple-minded.

  9. A Long Fellow

    Great headline; stupid science

    It is categorically impossible to "cure all disease" within the context of current human biology. It's like suggesting that we're going to make everybody happy, all the time.

    1. Throatwarbler Mangrove Silver badge
      Angel

      Re: Great headline; stupid science

      Both things are potentially possible . . . with the right drugs.

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    This kind of announcement provides major personal advantages, especially socially ( you'll get invited to every "major" social event ), and politically ( your opinions matter more because you're not just some corporate boss looking to make more money ).

  11. zen1

    First of all, three billion won't make a dent. Secondly, he's an idiot with money.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Annoying isn't it, how the World is often filled with rich but nevertheless lucky fuckwits - right place, right time etc. Much like how the commission of the real estate agent selling your home is more than the fee of the more highly trained conveyancing solicitor that enabled the transaction. Luck is far more prevalent in wealth than either hard work or intelligence.

      1. Prst. V.Jeltz Silver badge
        Flame

        Estate agents and lawyers! B-Ark material

        Both of those are parasite jobs that have no place in modern society. I should be able to go online and transfer my house ownership to the next owner for free - as I could do with , say, a Ferrari thats worth twice as much as my house.

        I should be able to advertise it on some big national sales website for next to nothing - NOT a percentage of its value.

        And I dont need some smarmy git in a suit to tell me what its worth.

  12. CDD
    FAIL

    Masters Of the Universe

    This sounds to me like a touch of cognitive bias. There is a psychological fallacy known as 'Masters of the Universe syndrome' which effectively states that people (mostly the CEOs of large corporations) tend to believe that because they are hugely successful in one arena, they will be successful in any area they choose to become involved in. This is rarely true, and can be seen when big companies start to diversify into areas in which they have no experience - and subsequently fail.

    A good (if somewhat smaller) example of this was in the 1980s when the CEO of Boots (the hugely successful pharmaceutical company) bought Halfords and Focus DIY - firmly believing they could turn the companies around despite having no experience in these retail sectors. Of course, they failed miserably having invested millions in the effort. Several people have said that the relative investments Zuckerberg is talking about investing is tiny compared to the total value of current investment (both private and public) in disease research. Couple this with the fact it has been reported as a profit-making organisation, and this whole enterprise smacks of hubris and self-aggrandisement. We may well eliminate all disease by 2100 - but it will not be thanks to Facebook!

  13. Outcast !!!

    Hah

    It's just a PR show + tax avoidance.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Hah

      shouldn't you be over at the Daily Mail?

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like