A deeply silly argument that says absolutely nothing about the relative historical importance or lack thereof of the two individuals and the companies they built. And this is without even considering the premature death of Jobs, who would likely have retired and done a lot of charity at some point himself had he lived. He just had more to contribute, for a longer time, to Apple than Gates did to Microsoft.

Scholarly and intellectual traditions tend to remember things that matter, and do so generally with increasing accuracy and dispassion over time.

Popular traditions remember those who pay to be remembered.

A good comparison to think about is Carnegie vs. Rockefeller.

Outside of New York City, Rockefeller is not much remembered. Carnegie is more widely remembered. Both did an exceptional amount of nonprofit work in part to clean up their tarnished images from their Robber Baron days. Both built companies that are now dismantled and absorbed and mangled in unrecognizable ways. Both are remembered by historians and technologists for their role in oil and steel respectively.

So why the difference?

Carnegie chose very public initiatives to work in, especially education, and to name some of his most public works after himself: Carnegie Mellon University, Carnegie Foundation etc.

Rockefeller chose to mostly stay in the background: University of Chicago, a vast amount of hidden funding of public health stuff in the South etc. There IS a Rockefeller foundation, but it is more iceberg like than Carnegie, with more of its history and activity hidden below the surface; also its area of focus, public health and medicine/biomedical research, is by nature less visible than education, which Carnegie focused on. Except for New York City, where a few things are named after Rockefeller (mainly due to his family/descendants being less self-effacing), the name is not as well known as Carnegie.

So you are remembered by the public if you pay money to be remembered and spend your wealth in public ways.