Profit motivates human

Steve Jobs wasn't great; he wasn't even close.

A very interesting article that I found on the net that has the title of "Steve Jobs wasn't great; he wasn't even close" written by Neeraj Thakur. In this article, he argues that Steve Jobs wasn't really a great person that's worth the tears of millions of people because he did not really do what he did, but in fact he avoid doing lots of things that a billionaire should have done. He points out that Steve Jobs is a person who is "motivated by profits", a billionaire that has no association to any philanthropic action, and has some sort of virtual "property rights" over things such as personal computer and iPhone which were not even invented by his very own hand. He concludes that  motivation by profits among human civilization is not the reason why people should be referred as great.

However, I have a few questions after reading the articles:
1. Everyone is motivated under the self-interest. Talking about Mother Theresa, or the inventor of polio vaccine Dr Salk, just because their profit isn't in the form of money, they can be referred as great?
2. Why must a great company be philanthropic? Is it even wrong for Steve Jobs who is just trying to incentivized his workers in order to produce better phones?
3. Talking about opportunity cost that the whole world has lost, the sunk cost of human resource that the world will never ever get back, the comparative advantages and the absolute advantages that Steve Jobs has in his invention, would it be reasonable to say that he's indeed a great person?

I think that the author's point of view is worth for us to at least to reevaluate on how we decide who's great. However, the author has a very serious profit bias in his argument that I would disagree on most part of what he's written.