In contrast, Jobs' vision, brilliant and perfect as it was, was narrow.
To a degree he has a point. Every "brilliant" person has, or can be attributed to have, a "Big huge unobtainable goal"
Jobs wants to revolutionize how people use computers.
Google wants to revolutionize how people find information.
Gates wants to eradicate malaria. (which kills nearly 1 million people per year - about half as many as aids kills)
Jobs and Google are fixing first world problems - these will improve the lives of a small percentage of the world population, and arguably won't save many lives.
Gates is fixing a second and third world problem, and should it be realized will be saving the lives of nearly a million people each year.
I don't think the two can be compared readily.
But if we were to compare them - Gates already changed the world with Windows. Been there, done that, and he found a new goal. Steve was still trying to change the world once by the time he died. He could be said to have revolutionized, perhaps, music, in some small way with the iPod, but he didn't change the industry, nevermind the lives of all the first-worlders, nevermind the whole world. Windows was the lucky kid in hte brawl of the early OS/abstraction systems, and it won, and not only changed the computing industry, but it could be argued transformed how people live and work in the first world, and how easily they can help the second and third world.
Of course, the terms "first/second/third world" are not terribly useful, but hopefully the point is clear.
Steve did a lot of awesome work. He probably wasn't necessarily chasing Gates, nor could it be said that gates "won" in any sense, but I don't think you can compare the impact the two have left on the world. Maybe the impact on the personal computer industry, but even that's going to be difficult without honestly saying that gates did more, and did better in total. Jobs wasn't after these things though, and wasn't competing for them - so can you say he lost in a game he wasn't really playing?
If Steve had lived to see his vision of a world without "computers" and everyone carrying an apple phone or ipad, beating out android, etc, then one might be able to claim that he compares favorably against gates in terms of changing the first world.
But he still wouldn't have been credited with saving millions of lives by eradicating a major disease - assuming the gates foundation succeeds.
I think, in fact, that he was poised to lose to android. He was so focused on beauty and usability - a lofty and good goal, to be sure - that he couldn't compete on total features. He lost to windows even though windows was ugly and non-usable. Largely because it was cheaper, commoditized, and open.
By comparison, Jobs sought to control everything, and as can be seen by how each and every app is reviewed, is continuing that trend.
Yes, as a result android is uglier, crashes more frequently, etc - just as windows was back in the day.
But guess who won that war?
If apple continues to follow job's playbook, the phone war is theirs to lose.
There is a market for beauty, there will always be a market for usability, but those markets will necessarily be smaller than the quick-to-market, cheap, and usable commoditized equipment others produce.