> Even if they are beneficial to the affected populations, can we call that philanthropy?

This is just silly zero-sum thinking. Obviously ending world poverty is hugely beneficial to anyone who can sell things to those newly enriched people. But that doesn't make it "not philanthropy".

Even if he's really thinking "let's save 10 million children from dying of malaria so some of them will buy Windows phones" (which is silly), that's still fine by me. What matters are outcomes, not motives.