Steve Jobs' Ultimate Philanthropic Legacy?

The loss of Steve Jobs so early in his life is not unfortunate just in his ability to bring such wonderful products and services to market, but the opportunities that exist where his approach to philanthropy could have revolutionized that "industry". While not as wealthy as Bill Gates or Warren Buffet, his impact could probably have been at a similarly high level when considering the impact of transformational approaches and paradigms.

Alas, it will be up to Apple and his family to see his philanthropic legacy develop. I present here one present-day opportunity that could be enhanced as the company upgrades their offerings, creating a "endowment fund" of a tech sort.

While I was watching a TEDxAustin video about big data on healthcare issues, which the presenter focused primarily on collecting and inputting the data, a thought occurred to me that would be quite extraordinarily philanthropic for Apple: open source the manufacturing capabilities of the iPad 2 (and even the iPhone 4s) to the manufacturers who are currently building them (and potentially to other manufacturers who would like to) in order to sell at low cost to NGOs, educational institutions and non-profits in developing areas.

I know there are a lot of details to be worked out with this idea, but since both are currently in production but are “obsolete” technology based on the newest offerings, there would be virtually no need to change production or supply chains and potentially little technology that would compete with updated models. And then take the parallel step of open sourcing previous versions of the iOS with the newest versions and proprietary technology “dumbed down” or removed so it would be useful but not compete with current versions.

Why would Apple do such an extraordinarily philanthropic action? Since they’ve already made billions of dollars in profit and have shifted the paying of taxes, this is the least they could do. This would potentially increase their future customer base, provide options to countries for manufacturing small but powerful technology for their citizens and export purposes, increase the life of the investment in machinery and facilities already made by manufacturers, increase access to technology to those without it at an affordable rate, and add an option for the $100 laptop initiative already under way.

How could this work? For the hardware, the design and technology would still be owned by Apple and it wouldn’t change from the current process. The components could be made under an open-source manufacturing model with no changes to their physical production but there would be no limits on quantity made or cost charged by the manufacturer. Anyone who wanted to buy or build the equipment to produce the components could do so, and use the open-source instructions to produce whatever components they wanted. Quality control and branding would be issues to be worked out since I doubt Apple would want to continue overseeing production quality or have their name associated with a product that they’re not overseeing or making any money from (but then again, maybe that’s a contribution of their foundation, if there is one).

As far as software goes, the latest version of the iOS operable for iPad 2 and iPhone could be configured so that proprietary portions that are currently of the OS would be removed or "locked" while still providing instructions to interface and interact with it at it's highest level. The resulting operating system could be dubbed iOS2: iOS Open Source. I have come to understand and see how many of the open source code and software seems to be leaner, more robust, easier to use and able to run older or legacy hardware for their specific function. While I am not a programmer or able to verify this with facts, this is what I have observed over the last 20 years and would think it merits attention.
So what does this open source version mean for continuing to use the iPad2? Many of the needs of developing and lower socio-economic regions and citizens do not need the power of abilities of the newest, fastest, most expensive devices out there. Even being able to collect data in a way that enhances the quality and accuracy of it as well as ability to minimally process and upload to a larger database, would do wonders for countries dealing with basic challenges such as health issues and basic commerce and exchange. The ability to get weather reports, news reports and communicate beyond ones walking, biking or driving range would be a tremendous opportunity.

Basic flip-style cell phones using SMS text technology has already allowed the ability to transfer funds in a way that has revolutionized the lives of subsistence producers. While much of our use in the developed/first world of new technology is based on entertainment, the other side would use it for education, learning, personal and economic development. Imagine the kids who would begin to learn to read and do basic math would turn into the programmers supplying the older citizens in their community with the apps and programs that they need to meet their goals and needs.

Could there be a model for business/technology transfer here that would elevate all parties involved to create a product that maintained the quality of the original, reduced costs and/or increased compensation to workers ("fair trade" iPad?), and expanded production to areas that can’t compete in the open market for current technology? And manufacturers could still make a modest profit.

Why would there be continued or new interest in creating a product already generations behind the newest technology? In the case of the iPad, there is potentially a huge life still left out of the device as much of the hardware is powerful enough to run many of the apps that the target users would need. And with a huge base of apps already available, this would increase the user population of what has already been created, and potentially adapted to local language easily by the same people. Also, why would Apple continue to build and offer the iPad 2 along with the iPad Air if there was no market? Even in developing countries, many apps have been developed that don’t need the capabilities of the latest hardware or iOS version. Many students would be perfectly served with an older model, as would many operations of organizations that don’t need the capacity of the newest tech, and many functions like home automation and monitoring that require much less computing capability than it possesses.

The legacy of this gift would go beyond what could be done by giving billions to thousands of aid organizations or focusing on problems as we see them from a developed world perspective. This is the "teach them how to fish and giving them a fishing pole" version of social impact. In my mind, it would be simply tremendous: the gift that keeps on giving.

The "endowment" however is the continuous feeding of older generation technology to the foundation that operates and oversees this project. For instance, when the iPad Air gets replaced with a newer generation as it did to the prior versions (1-4), this technology would be shifted from for-profit to not-for-Apple's-profit production. Since Apple and other companies will continue to produce viable and useful products that will be seen as obsolete with their newer technology, there would be no shortage of "endowment fund" available.