RED iPod Nano Tomorrow?

[juniormaj]

Red iPod, now up on the Apple front page.
Also has a page of it's own describing the charity, etc., and a link to buy one.
Apple store still doesn't list it, and the link to the store just shows the old ones.
"In progress", I guess.

http://www.apple.com/ipodnano/red/

Edit: Speaking of "In progress", the link to http://joinred.com also leads to a site that's not quite working yet.

[timmillwood]

so we are waiting for the store to go down, they will then put the red ipod and the core 2 duo MBP on!!!

YAH!

[Mac-Addict]

so we are waiting for the store to go down, they will then put the red ipod and the core 2 duo MBP on!!!

YAH!
Again with the Core 2 Duo Macbook Pros. SHUT UP!!!

[ju5tin81]

The links on the store don't work yet, Just go to normal nano page.... No mention of it in the UK, is it a US only thing?

(I'm only saying this to annoy Mac-addict) Bring on Core 2 Duo MacBooks!

;)

[Chundles]

So far it's a US-only thing. Haven't even heard of Product RED down here apart from the "red iPod" rumours on this site. There's certainly been no media coverage of Bono's venture.

U2 are touring here mid-November - probably a good time to launch.

[Mac-Addict]

As long as you dont actually mean it its ok but with the amount of threads that have core 2 duo Macbook pro in the same sentence is just shocking! and considering its only around 10% faster! Moving away from core 2 duo mbps, why isnt it international?! It would get more money for aids fund.

[JimmyB248]

We have got the Product Red here in the UK, I myself have got a RED SLVR, which, although I feel good and charitable, was one of the worst purchases due to how horrible the phone is.

Surprising that there's no sign of the Nano here, maybe they're just taking their time updating.

[ju5tin81]

why isnt it international?! It would get more money for aids fund.

Here Here!

And I don't mean to trivialise the message it's sending out: but it does look really good!

[dcv]

Looks great in red, I'm tempted to buy one... (I guess the UK store will be updated at lunchtime or something)

[mikeh123]

Suddenly, from the front row of the venue a voice broke out in thick Scottish brogue, ending the silence as it echoed across the crowd, the voice cried out to Bono "Well stop ****ing doing it then!!"



Yes that actually is very funny and spontaneous wit. Whether it is morally wrong to laugh or not, it is funny as one persons comment off the cuff to the other.

[gauchogolfer]

The links on the US store are now functional, 24 hours delivery.

http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/7915/picture1xb2.png

[Nuks]

Wow, that looks good!

[timnosenzo]

Looks really nice in red. I'd go for one, if I didn't have a green one already... :o

[artifex]

Why would a charity help women and children victims, but not men? Why not just offer help to "AIDS sufferers"?

No kidding.

[Detlev]

For all those posters who think it is such a friggin' gimmick that Apple, Bono, and Oprah are doing this. Put your frackin' money where your mouth is and donate your next $199 to the program and don't buy one of these. Don't buy any Apple products for that mattter. YOU DON'T NEED IT. Oh, and if it is such a gimmick why do public radio stations have to give away so many products to raise their money?

Can't you see beyond your monitor the good this will do? First of all, people will be talking about AIDS again, if not for just for one day, many more. Gee, how many times does it come up on the MacRumors News Discussions front page? Yeah, right after what Steve Jobs had for breakfast. Second, money is being spent hand over foot for the most popular technology item on the market. Someone was smart enough to tap it. Good for them. Cash flow is king, even for non-profits. This will be a welcome boost to the programs helping people and countries faced with the worst pandemic in history.

If your buying an mp3 player today or during the holiday season, PLEASE BUY RED.

[aafuss1]

http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2006/oct/13red.html

Available around the world.

Also note there is also a RED iTunes Store music card (US$25) out soon.

You don't need other special editions when you've got a:
Black iPods-Michael Jackson, Metallica, Johhny the Homicidal Maniac, U2
Pink-Madonna
Green-Invader Zim, luck of the Irish
Silver-Windows Vista

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

As expected (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/10/20061012131734.shtml), Apple announced today the RED version of the 4 GB iPod Nano (http://www.apple.com/ipodnano/red/). The new nano is identical to other Nanos, but comes in a bright red color (go figure) and $10 of every sale goes to The Global Fund to fight AIDS in Africa.

[MIDI_EVIL]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

As expected (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/10/20061012131734.shtml), Apple announced today the RED version of the 4 GB iPod Nano (http://www.apple.com/ipodnano/red/). The new nano is identical to other Nanos, but comes in a bright red color (go figure) and $10 of every sale goes to The Global Fund to fight AIDS in Africa.

Once again, not on UK store.

Rich.

[ehayut]

It's in the Canadian store

[RodThePlod]

We have got the Product Red here in the UK, I myself have got a RED SLVR, which, although I feel good and charitable, was one of the worst purchases due to how horrible the phone is.


What don't you like about your phone? I've had a (RED) SLVR since June and think it's probably the best phone I've ever had!

(Then again, my previous phones were crappy old-style Nokias - so maybe that's to be expected) :D

[aricher]

Looks like a Target branded iPod. Not my fave so far. Oh well - at least it's for a good cause.

[thefunkymunky]

Its available in the UK now.:D

[dcv]

Its available in the UK now.:D

Well it's on the front page but when you click 'Buy Now' it takes you to the iPod Store, which still hasn't been updated...

[sesame6bean]

i reckon the red version looks horrible, even the pink one looks better that that...

[Chundles]

No sign of it here but we don't have any other Product Red things anyway.

[kirk26]

Please CAN IT!

CAN IT!

My god we cant talk about anything on this board without the core 2 duo macbook/pro crew coming to mess up a thread THAT HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH LAPTOP UPDATES

CAN IT!
:mad:


I want a dual core iPod! Now that would rock!

[Chundles]

I want a dual core iPod! Now that would rock!

Not sure about the 5G but the 3G and 4G had dual 80MHz processors.

[ptogel]

OK, I want a RED MacBook Pro with Core Duo 2 ....

:)

[velocipede]

there is no such thing as charity in america, it always comes through commerce. why not just donate the $200 bux? does a lot more than the 10 bux you are donating now, so you can justify getting a new ipod. hell i would buy a red ipod just cos of the color i don't see why the cos has to be associated with it, if they're gonna do this they might as well just donate 10% of all ipod sales. at least it does something more than haveing a "show off" recipet for your so called act of charity.

"Hi i'm bono, there's a huge aids problem in africa and people don't pay attention, heres a new ipod"

wtf.

It was probably a huge feat to convince Apple to do this much. Apple is a company, and, as such, even charitable acts have to be justifiable as being good for shareholders (financially).

Until we change our laws regarding the roles of corporations in society, we will have to be thankful for even small steps.

I would happily buy a red Mac Book or iMac if it meant that 5% goes to a worthy charity, even though I prefer white, black and aluminum.

[prady16]

Those who held off buying the new nano are god damn lucky to have the option of the red nano.....Looks even better than the blue and green and makes a bold statement!
I love it!

[jameshopkins]

Its on the UK site - http://www.apple.com/uk/ipodnano/red/ :D

But it's not on the UK Store :confused: :eek: :mad: :(

[someguy]

It's in the US store, if no one's pointed that out yet.

What's with all the (PRODUCT) stuff?

[jameshopkins]

It's in the US store, if no one's pointed that out yet.

What's with all the (PRODUCT) stuff?


(PRODUCT)red is the charity

[andiwm2003]

(PRODUCT)red is the charity

a macbook red for charity would be great. 10% of that would be ~$150 and it would certainly be a eye catcher. i'm in the market anyway.

[p0intblank]

Very nice! It's finally a reality!

[twoodcc]

Very nice! It's finally a reality!

wow, it is. i must say that i'm surprized that it really happened. good for apple though

[orangephoto]

but how long will this be available?


i hope for a while.. since ill be needing to save up lol

[SheriffParker]

Oh my god it's gorgeous.

[samh004]

OK, I want a RED MacBook Pro with Core Duo 2 ....

:)

I can get you half way (http://www.colorwarepc.com/_inventoryImages/images/Macbook/photo_gallery/ferrari_top.jpg) there...

[samh004]

It's yet to arrive in Australia or Hong Kong where I would like to buy it. It actually looks worth it, never wanted an iPod before. I hope they release it here.

[bretm]

It was probably a huge feat to convince Apple to do this much. Apple is a company, and, as such, even charitable acts have to be justifiable as being good for shareholders (financially).

Until we change our laws regarding the roles of corporations in society, we will have to be thankful for even small steps.

I would happily buy a red Mac Book or iMac if it meant that 5% goes to a worthy charity, even though I prefer white, black and aluminum.

Here's an idea... just send your money to a worthly charity on your own! Why does SOMEONE else have to donate THEIR money before you'll buy their products? Perhaps they should offer a 5% discount to anyone that shows they've donated $5 to the fund.

Sometimes I really wonder what logic people are using...

[MattDell]

Awesome! I've always wondered why there wasn't ever a red iPod.


It's pretty much my favorite color. :cool:

[iJoe]

Here's an idea... just send your money to a worthly charity on your own! Why does SOMEONE else have to donate THEIR money before you'll buy their products? Perhaps they should offer a 5% discount to anyone that shows they've donated $5 to the fund.

Sometimes I really wonder what logic people are using...

Because we want an iPod. Like the (RED) website says, it's not a charity, it's a business model.

[jameshopkins]

Here's an idea... just send your money to a worthly charity on your own! Why does SOMEONE else have to donate THEIR money before you'll buy their products? Perhaps they should offer a 5% discount to anyone that shows they've donated $5 to the fund.

Sometimes I really wonder what logic people are using...


Well your logic doesnt make much sense either, i'm sure it would be more hassle be able to prove you have donated, and it is the same amount in the end.

Not all people are of the same mentality, I regularly donate money to charity, and raise money through running sponshorship.

Do you do anything for charity?

[rtdunham]

what's with the apple site callig it "iPod Nano (Product) Red tm" ?

is that a typo? WHAT is trademarked? Why (Product)?

[jameshopkins]

what's with the apple site callig it "iPod Nano (Product) Red tm" ?

is that a typo? WHAT is trademarked? Why (Product)?


(PRODUCT)red is the charity, http://www.joinred.com/

[Chundles]

what's with the apple site callig it "iPod Nano (Product) Red tm" ?

is that a typo? WHAT is trademarked? Why (Product)?

That's the name of the charity foundation.

It's the "(Product) Red iPod nano", if they were donating to the Make a Wish Foundation it would be the "Make a Wish iPod nano."

Have you not read this thread or any of the others or any of the information about the foundation?

[rtdunham]

there is no way apple would make a product release on a pre recorded program with an audiance. Thanks to the internet the release would no longer be a surprise!

well, they did and it wasn't, so presumably they believe the publicity generated by this release method exceeds the alternatives.

[Lancetx]

Does anyone know if any of the Apple Store locations (outside of Michigan Ave.) have these in stock yet?

[AidenShaw]

Originally Posted by eenu
there is no way apple would make a product release on a pre recorded program with an audiance. Thanks to the internet the release would no longer be a surprise!

well, they did and it wasn't, so presumably they believe the publicity generated by this release method exceeds the alternatives.
They've simply added a new color, not a new product....

[rtdunham]

That's the name of the charity foundation.

It's the "(Product) Red iPod nano", if they were donating to the Make a Wish Foundation it would be the "Make a Wish iPod nano."

Have you not read this thread or any of the others or any of the information about the foundation?

Thanks, Chundles. I'm generally critical of people who pose a question that could have been answered if they'd read a thread; in this instance with 273 posts (which in hindsight apparently would have answered my question) I elected to just blurt it out. So guilty as found: Lazy on my part. I'll do better. btw, there's not a way to search these forums, is there? Crikey. :(

[fitinferno]

Does anyone know if any of the Apple Store locations (outside of Michigan Ave.) have these in stock yet?

The one here in London does. I held that sexy lttl thing in my hand today! But I couldn't bring myself to buying it just yet--still debating the merits of my old 30gig ipod and stepping down to 4gig.

And I'd def be buying it based solely off the colour--no charity aspect--I love red and white! I can and do donate time/money to other charities. I don't need Apple picking the charity for me.

[fitinferno]

Thanks, Chundles. I'm generally critical of people who pose a question that could have been answered if they'd read a thread; in this instance with 273 posts (which in hindsight apparently would have answered my question) I elected to just blurt it out. So guilty as found: Lazy on my part. I'll do better. btw, there's not a way to search these forums, is there? Crikey. :(

There's def a way to search (it's up in the menu bar on the forums) BUT it has the miserable feature of sometimes not finding threads that have ALL of the words you look for but rather just a few of them :(

[Essefgy]

Anybody else having problems trying to buy, with Safari? The Select button was missing for me. It shows up in Firefox though.

[Beligerent]

I really hate to say this... maybe I'm a cynic or a conspiracy theorist but do you ever notice of all the "charity" money in the world never seems to stop the plague or disease its meant to stamp out? I once heard that the second a lab finds a cure for a major disease a patent is placed on it and then it is SOLD BACK to society with the money lining the pockets of the drug companies. You really think if a cure for aids is found the drug companies and going to immediately run it right down to africa and cure all those poor people? theres no oil there, half the country is currupt and ... ok ill stop now.

[Tehy]

mmm... Red iPod Nano looks awesome! I hope that video iPod will also get more colors.

[Some_Big_Spoon]

ok, now that this is out of the way, maybe we can get to some real hardware announcements.

[bdj21ya]

So I followed the joinred link from Apple's web site. The manifesto specifically says that the money will be used for anti-retroviral medicine for those suffering in Africa (though I know they're just picking one of the things the money is used for).

Still, to me this seems like an incredible misuse of the money. As I stated before, giving AIDS medicine to Africans is a wonderful charity, as long as there isn't something better to spend it on. In this case, it would be so much more effective to spend the money on education and economic development. Anti-retroviral drugs don't do ANYTHING to stop the spread of the disease, and in some cases increase the spread of the disease by increasing the amount of time it may be transmitted to another person (though I'm sure most people who know they're diagnosed with HIV try to be really careful, on balance, retroviral drugs can only increase the spread on the disease).

I'm all for helping people suffering, but wouldn't it help so many more future innocents avoid suffering if we focused on something to actually stop the disease?

If you think about it perversely, donating this money actually increases suffering, because every dollar you donate to antiretroviral medicine is a dollar you didn't spend on education or economic development.

[steve_hill4]

I would be tempted to buy one, but it doesn't fit in with my colour scheme of black, silver and white for electronics. I have a silver 4GB reserved at work and the nike+ kit on its way, switching to red would mean a longer wait too.

I already do a fair bit for charity, (still hoping to be in shape for London Marathon 2007, hence the nike+, however unlikely it is looking), and have given to Aids charities in the past. I also originally thought "people voting negative for this, why?", but then it dawned on me that a lot of them probably thought the 5% was too little, which I agree with, it's next to nothing. That's why rather than switching to red, I think the better option would be to donate my 12% saving, (buying from work remember), to Aids. It's still not much, but a lot closer to what this red iPod should be giving.

[hob]

I realise the charity is called (PRODUCT) Red, but is anyone else thinking it should be (iPod Nano) Red, just like the (SLVR) Red?

I know i know, but I can't get over the fact that the (PRODUCT) bit looks like a template...!

[guzhogi]

So I followed the joinred link from Apple's web site. The manifesto specifically says that the money will be used for anti-retroviral medicine for those suffering in Africa (though I know they're just picking one of the things the money is used for).

Still, to me this seems like an incredible misuse of the money. As I stated before, giving AIDS medicine to Africans is a wonderful charity, as long as there isn't something better to spend it on. In this case, it would be so much more effective to spend the money on education and economic development. Anti-retroviral drugs don't do ANYTHING to stop the spread of the disease, and in some cases increase the spread of the disease by increasing the amount of time it may be transmitted to another person (though I'm sure most people who know they're diagnosed with HIV try to be really careful, on balance, retroviral drugs can only increase the spread on the disease).

I'm all for helping people suffering, but wouldn't it help so many more future innocents avoid suffering if we focused on something to actually stop the disease?

If you think about it perversely, donating this money actually increases suffering, because every dollar you donate to antiretroviral medicine is a dollar you didn't spend on education or economic development.
I totally agree with you that we should give money to education so we can prevent AIDS from spreading, but we should also spend some money on a cure for those who are infected.

This is off topic, but I feel the same way about terrorism in that stopping all known terrorists won't do much when the US and other countries keep doing their stuff that makes people become terrorists. What's to stop people from becoming terrorists?

[mmmcheese]

So I followed the joinred link from Apple's web site. The manifesto specifically says that the money will be used for anti-retroviral medicine for those suffering in Africa (though I know they're just picking one of the things the money is used for).

Still, to me this seems like an incredible misuse of the money. As I stated before, giving AIDS medicine to Africans is a wonderful charity, as long as there isn't something better to spend it on. In this case, it would be so much more effective to spend the money on education and economic development. Anti-retroviral drugs don't do ANYTHING to stop the spread of the disease, and in some cases increase the spread of the disease by increasing the amount of time it may be transmitted to another person (though I'm sure most people who know they're diagnosed with HIV try to be really careful, on balance, retroviral drugs can only increase the spread on the disease).

I'm all for helping people suffering, but wouldn't it help so many more future innocents avoid suffering if we focused on something to actually stop the disease?

If you think about it perversely, donating this money actually increases suffering, because every dollar you donate to antiretroviral medicine is a dollar you didn't spend on education or economic development.

If you were dying of AIDS, and barely had enough money for food...would you rather a) receive the medicine to make you feel well enough to work and put food on your plate...or b) have someone come over every few days and tell you how to avoid getting AIDS?

This is just one of many charities and organizations that attempt to help this situations....others deal with education....if you don't like it, send your money towards one of the other charities instead....that is, if you planned on donating at all.

[nospleen]

Why is everyone trying to make this into some bigger issue... It is an iPod, it is red, and a portion of the money goes to charity. Enough of the, "It should be used for this instead..." If you do not like the charity, give your own money or time. :rolleyes:

[rtdunham]

... the Black Plague was the same idea. Too many people, living in too close quarters, with too little regard for health or wellbeing. Millions died, but many survived, and the ones that did were smarter and wiser for it.

I'm almost convinced your comments are innocent. But i think you've made the mistake of linking survival, on the one hand, and virtue of some sort (smarter, wiser) on the other; not all plagues, by whatever name, are understood by their victims at the time. And some--as ignorant as those who died beside them--survive. Survivors may harbor some sort of biological resistence. But other virtues? Not necessarily.

It's a cultural thing: who's the wiser, smarter person in an african culture that reveres the word of the tribal sorcerer: the one who follows those practices, or the one who rejects them? It's the same as someone in our (euro-american) culture rejecting what science tells us about AIDs, in favor of some religion-based "solution": some people of each type will survive, but are the ones who pray for survival, and survive, smarter or wiser?

i started to say this is off-topic, but i think this kind of dialogue is exactly what Bono would want to prompt.

td

[bdj21ya]

Why is everyone trying to make this into some bigger issue... It is an iPod, it is red, and a portion of the money goes to charity. Enough of the, "It should be used for this instead..." If you do not like the charity, give your own money or time. :rolleyes:

Right, but I thought it might be useful to point out why others should do the same.

[kurtsayin]

I really hate to say this... maybe I'm a cynic or a conspiracy theorist but do you ever notice of all the "charity" money in the world never seems to stop the plague or disease its meant to stamp out? I once heard that the second a lab finds a cure for a major disease a patent is placed on it and then it is SOLD BACK to society with the money lining the pockets of the drug companies. You really think if a cure for aids is found the drug companies and going to immediately run it right down to africa and cure all those poor people? theres no oil there, half the country is currupt and ... ok ill stop now.

Yeah! The drug companies should just invest billions in the research to find the cure and when it happens, reap no profit from it! And not just AIDS cures either. They should invest billions in finding cures for everything, and then give it all away for free so their corporation simply loses and loses and then there will be no more drug companies... thank God!

[hob]

...so it could look like this:

http://static.flickr.com/108/268583627_ad71543e92_o.jpg

[bdj21ya]

If you were dying of AIDS, and barely had enough money for food...would you rather a) receive the medicine to make you feel well enough to work and put food on your plate...or b) have someone come over every few days and tell you how to avoid getting AIDS?

This is just one of many charities and organizations that attempt to help this situations....others deal with education....if you don't like it, send your money towards one of the other charities instead....that is, if you planned on donating at all.

Obviously the individual with AIDS would prefer the retroviral medicine. However, those of us over here giving to charity might be interested in preventing the most suffering possible with our dollars. I care equally about the suffering of the person currently infected with AIDS or HIV AND the suffering of some future person who will be infected with HIV. Since education and economic development will prevent a LOT more suffering overall, that's where I will choose to put my money.

It's as I said before, giving retroviral medicine to those who are suffering is a great cause, but it's sad if there isn't already enough money being spent on reducing future infections. And there ISN'T enough money being spent on education and economic development.

[rtdunham]

Hmmm.... a matching program would be cool--it could all be done electronically, like when Apple has had disaster charity giving built right into iTMS.

So when you buy a Red iPod, you pick the price :) If you pay more than normal, Apple will match your donation, and will pay a minimum of 10% regardless.

better yet, why not set up a link on the iTunes music store where owners or new buyers of non-red iPods could click and donate $10 (or a diff amt) of their ITMS balance to Bono's charity? Moved by the moment, i'd do that in a second for my two iPods. It would help the charity and reflect favorably (and accurately) on apple and the iPod community. So where do we petition for this idea?

[mdntcallr]

Well i would like to applaud Apple for doing this. Not only is it a good cause. but Apple is doing it without raising the list price.

So the money is really coming from apple's profit margin.

A company that cares about charity and the community will do better than a selfish corporation with no human compassion.

Apple is doing a great job.

[mdntcallr]

I also just checked online. the charity nano isn't subject to student discounting. i don't believe any of them are.

a good move as the models are doing well.

[rtdunham]

Ha ha, You are nuts. Let me tell you how it works.

Nobody gets rich by curing a disease. That is why diabetes, AIDS, HIV etc are all treated with "Keep you alive but not cure you drugs" that you have to buy for the rest of your life. The government and drug companies are in it together and are pure evil. Ain't nobody going to cure anything unless they can keep making money doing it. Get it? Good.

hey! who's that? over there, behind the grassy knoll?

[mmmcheese]

Obviously the individual with AIDS would prefer the retroviral medicine. However, those of us over here giving to charity might be interested in preventing the most suffering possible with our dollars. I care equally about the suffering of the person currently infected with AIDS or HIV AND the suffering of some future person who will be infected with HIV. Since education and economic development will prevent a LOT more suffering overall, that's where I will choose to put my money.

It's as I said before, giving retroviral medicine to those who are suffering is a great cause, but it's sad if there isn't already enough money being spent on reducing future infections. And there ISN'T enough money being spent on education and economic development.

So get out your cheque book and donate money to one of the organizations that does!

As well, this is more than just donating money to a cause...it's an awareness campaign...

[Flowbee]

It's as I said before, giving retroviral medicine to those who are suffering is a great cause, but it's sad if there isn't already enough money being spent on reducing future infections. And there ISN'T enough money being spent on education and economic development.

And what are you doing to correct that situation?

[monke]

...so it could look like this:

http://static.flickr.com/108/268583627_ad71543e92_o.jpg

That would look a whole lot better than the current: iPod Nano (Product) Red.

[blueflame]

That would look a whole lot better than the current: iPod Nano (Product) Red.
Maybe the word "Product" is in there so they can release many lines. like nano product blue, or nano product purple for various orgonizations and still diffirentiate between their standard colors

[rtdunham]

i cant possibly phantom why ANYBODY would possible rate this negative.

there are lots of things we can't phantom. but you mean "fathom", as in, understand. :)

I agree wholeheartedly with your comments about supporting the charity.

[shadowx]

I would love to pick up one of these... RED actually looks nice. BUT, I don't know about the white wheel... reminds me of Target and Christmas - UGLY! Oh well...

[whatever]

im so tired about apple having partnerships with groups i dont like. to each his own but why does U2 have to keep pushing their own ipod, i thought the last one sucked. give me a band i actually like
Some people just don't get it!

It's not about the band (in fact U2 has nothing to do with this), it's about the project and Bono happens to be the spokes person.

And a very good spokes person at that. Like him or hate him, but how many people get to promote their cause to Oprah, President Bush and the Pope.

Love him or hate him he's following his heart and conscience. My hats off to him and hope that one day I'll be able to do the same!

[mmmcheese]

there are lots of things we can't phantom. but you mean "fathom", as in, understad. :)

I agree wholeheartedly with your comments about supporting the charity.

Or the people who think that the money is going to the wrong place...of course they seem to forget that they are allowed to donate to more than one charity...it's not like it is an exclusive club or something where you can only belong to one.

[rtdunham]

This morning I was wearing a solid red t-shirt, kind of like the red that the nano is, and my mom told me to change my shirt. There's nothing wrong with the shirt, there's no profane graphics on it (actually, no graphics at all) and it wasn't wrinkled, she just told me that red "isn't my color" (even though she's the one that bought me the shirt)!

the real question is, DID you then take the shirt off? if so--and I'm a parent--my sympathies go out to you. you mom is no doubt well-meaning, but i encourage you to think for yourself, do what you think is right. peace out.

[gugy]

Some people just don't get it!

It's not about the band (in fact U2 has nothing to do with this), it's about the project and Bono happens to be the spokes person.

And a very good spokes person at that. Like him or hate him, but how many people get to promote their cause to Oprah, President Bush and the Pope.

Love him or hate him he's following his heart and conscience. My hats off to him and hope that one day I'll be able to do the same!


Very true. His doing something great and his star power is raising awareness to a huge problem in Africa.
If every person who criticizes him did 1% of what he does to help Africa, we all would live in a much better world.

[whatever]

I totally agree with you that we should give money to education so we can prevent AIDS from spreading, but we should also spend some money on a cure for those who are infected.

This is off topic, but I feel the same way about terrorism in that stopping all known terrorists won't do much when the US and other countries keep doing their stuff that makes people become terrorists. What's to stop people from becoming terrorists?
Okay there are other charities and groups who currently provide the "education" and cannot provide the drugs. Basically the drugs are out of reach to these charities, either it's against their mandate or they just can't afford to. Which is why Product Red is focussing on drugs.

Not to complicated. Do the people in this forum ever leave this page, there is a lot of information out there beyond Mac Rumors.

[rtdunham]

Hooray to those that, the next time they will be confronted with some reporting on Aids in Africa, will be able to caress that small, hard bulge in their pocket (red iPod!), touching it and whispering "I did my share to solve the problem".

Ayn Rand addresses the virtues of selfishness in a book cleverly titled, "The Virtues of Selfishness." She argues there's no such thing as altruism, and that all charity is the result of selfishness--but what's wrong about our feeling good about ourselves for doing good? Especially if, having cultivated that self-image, we do DO good for others? We're not the characters in "The Holy Grail" chanting and rapping ourselves in the foreheads with boards, right?

Plus the red iPods serve as a visual reminder of charity to others, just as charities affix little stickers to our lapels (do any of us still have lapels?) when we donate, or when our office drive meets its goal, or when we vote or give blood. They're visual stimuli suggesting the same acts to others. So flaunt that red iPod!

[®îçhå®?]

Its on the UK site - http://www.apple.com/uk/ipodnano/red/ :D

But it's not on the UK Store :confused: :eek: :mad: :(
Yeah i'm quite annoyed about that too as i want one.

[rtdunham]

There's def a way to search (it's up in the menu bar on the forums) BUT it has the miserable feature of sometimes not finding threads that have ALL of the words you look for but rather just a few of them :(
yeah, but if i'm seeing it right, it merely takes me to the thread--which would have gain posed that 273-post hurdle to my patience. As someone else posted inthis thread, id like to see a search feature on this forum that found specific posts, not just the thread. I believe the apple support forums and others work that way.

[mmmcheese]

So I followed the joinred link from Apple's web site. The manifesto specifically says that the money will be used for anti-retroviral medicine for those suffering in Africa (though I know they're just picking one of the things the money is used for).

Still, to me this seems like an incredible misuse of the money. As I stated before, giving AIDS medicine to Africans is a wonderful charity, as long as there isn't something better to spend it on. In this case, it would be so much more effective to spend the money on education and economic development. Anti-retroviral drugs don't do ANYTHING to stop the spread of the disease, and in some cases increase the spread of the disease by increasing the amount of time it may be transmitted to another person (though I'm sure most people who know they're diagnosed with HIV try to be really careful, on balance, retroviral drugs can only increase the spread on the disease).

I'm all for helping people suffering, but wouldn't it help so many more future innocents avoid suffering if we focused on something to actually stop the disease?

If you think about it perversely, donating this money actually increases suffering, because every dollar you donate to antiretroviral medicine is a dollar you didn't spend on education or economic development.

I was just thinking...does this mean that you think that money received by Hurricane Katrina charities should have been used to educate people on how to build and maintain dykes, and not to build below sea level and on flood plains, rather than be used to help the short term suffering?

[jholzner]

So I followed the joinred link from Apple's web site. The manifesto specifically says that the money will be used for anti-retroviral medicine for those suffering in Africa (though I know they're just picking one of the things the money is used for).

Still, to me this seems like an incredible misuse of the money. As I stated before, giving AIDS medicine to Africans is a wonderful charity, as long as there isn't something better to spend it on. In this case, it would be so much more effective to spend the money on education and economic development. Anti-retroviral drugs don't do ANYTHING to stop the spread of the disease, and in some cases increase the spread of the disease by increasing the amount of time it may be transmitted to another person (though I'm sure most people who know they're diagnosed with HIV try to be really careful, on balance, retroviral drugs can only increase the spread on the disease).

I'm all for helping people suffering, but wouldn't it help so many more future innocents avoid suffering if we focused on something to actually stop the disease?

If you think about it perversely, donating this money actually increases suffering, because every dollar you donate to antiretroviral medicine is a dollar you didn't spend on education or economic development.

So, basically we should let people die faster so the problem won't be so big?

[lmalave]

I really hate to say this... maybe I'm a cynic or a conspiracy theorist but do you ever notice of all the "charity" money in the world never seems to stop the plague or disease its meant to stamp out? I once heard that the second a lab finds a cure for a major disease a patent is placed on it and then it is SOLD BACK to society with the money lining the pockets of the drug companies. You really think if a cure for aids is found the drug companies and going to immediately run it right down to africa and cure all those poor people? theres no oil there, half the country is currupt and ... ok ill stop now.

You're not cynical just ignorant. PLENTY of diseases have been wiped out or severely reduced (polio, smallpox, etc.). As for the "biggies" like cancer, AIDS, etc., well they are very hard problems to solve. Diseases like cancer, MS, MD, etc. are not communicable and we don't even yet fully understand what causes them. And most communicable diseases we can cure or control, but AIDS is like a super-virus that not only attacks the immune system directly, but also mutates rapidly.

As for the charity/pharma connection: you raise a good point. I would hope that charities are donating money to universities or non-profit research centers, instead of pharmas. And I do believe this is the case. I *don't* think charities are turning around and giving money to for-profit corporations.

And please don't demonize pharmas for making a profit. They never claimed to be charity, and they deserve all the profits they're getting. It costs something like $2 billion dollars to bring a drug to market because of all the regulations and testing that is required, and Pharmas need to recoup those huge costs.

And yes, pharmas milk their drugs for maximum profit, but that's their right. Again, they're a corporation whose purpose is to make money. If they were a non-profit charity, then they would have been established as such. The business that pharmas are in is to discover a new drug, get a patent on the drug, and then milk that drug for maximum profits for the 17 years that they have a patent on it. If you have a problem with that, then you have a problem with the whole patent system. The purpose of patents is to spur innovation by promising companies a 17-year monopoly during which they can potentially make huge profits. The patent system has been spectacularly successfuly in promoting a mind-boggling rate of innovation across all industries, not just the pharma/biomedical field.

[bdj21ya]

I was just thinking...does this mean that you think that money received by Hurricane Katrina charities should have been used to educate people on how to build and maintain dykes, and not to build below sea level and on flood plains, rather than be used to help the short term suffering?

No. But your analogy isn't similar enough to be relevant.

[bdj21ya]

So, basically we should let people die faster so the problem won't be so big?

No, but it disturbs me that somehow that's what my comment boiled down to for you.

[CEAbiscuit]

better yet, why not set up a link on the iTunes music store where owners or new buyers of non-red iPods could click and donate $10 (or a diff amt) of their ITMS balance to Bono's charity? Moved by the moment, i'd do that in a second for my two iPods. It would help the charity and reflect favorably (and accurately) on apple and the iPod community. So where do we petition for this idea?

Brilliant. I'm in. I surely do not need to buy a product to give to charity. Putting it on iTunes would make the donation as easy as pressing a button. I'm asking the same question... how do we get this going?

[clintob]

And please don't demonize pharmas for making a profit. They never claimed to be charity, and they deserve all the profits they're getting. It costs something like $2 billion dollars to bring a drug to market because of all the regulations and testing that is required, and Pharmas need to recoup those huge costs.

And yes, pharmas milk their drugs for maximum profit, but that's their right. Again, they're a corporation whose purpose is to make money. If they were a non-profit charity, then they would have been established as such. The business that pharmas are in is to discover a new drug, get a patent on the drug, and then milk that drug for maximum profits for the 17 years that they have a patent on it.

This is one of the more misguided comments I've seen in a long time. Yes, of course America is a capitalist society, and any company is entitled to earn all the profits they can. That's the American way.

But to say that the Pharmaceutical companies deserve all their profits, or that they are honest companies merely trying to recouperate their losses is bordering on asinine. Here are some empirical facts for you - you can look them up, it's public information:

1) The top 10 pharma companies had 2006 FIRST HALF (6 month) profits that totaled over $39 Billion dollars.

2) Pfizer alone had first half profits in '06 that totaled over $6.5 billion.

Those are PROFIT numbers... profit only, as in money in their pocket after all expenses, patent costs, drug production and distribution costs, payroll, etc are paid. Period.

That's a disgusting amount of profit for corporations that are supposed to be in business of research, development, and the public good. If you genuinely believe these companies don't lie, cover up, and manpulate medical facts for their own benifit, or hike up the prices of drugs unnecessarily for their own gains (at the expense of the health of people around the world) then you are sorely naive and misguided.

[CEAbiscuit]

Maybe the word "Product" is in there so they can release many lines. like nano product blue, or nano product purple for various orgonizations and still diffirentiate between their standard colors

The "product" tag revolves around the charity, not the iPod or apple. If you go to http://www.joinred.com you'll note the various "products." (motorola)red, (converse)red, etc. Pretty clever. There are limitless companies and organzations that can get involved.

[minnesotamacman]

This Will Get Lost In The Posts But What The Heck...


I like what Bono is doing, and I like it when people look out for other people. Which brings me to Madonna. This is true selfishness. Madonna, is doing something wonderful for a child, has decided to adopt a boy from Malawi, who is in an orphanage because his father doesn't have the money to care for him. His mother has died, so the boy is 14 months old, and will be the new son of Madonna.

What is so bad about this you ask?

Why not adopt a child who has no parents alive, rather than slip apart a father and son for life. Perhaps give the father money so he can be united with his son again and they can live together, albeit in a smaller house than Madonna would give the boy. Or better yet, keep giving to charities that help the peple of Malawi, rather than spending thousands to take one out and "save" him. I don't normally pick at what celebs do, or others do, but this is selfish on Madonna's part.

Maybe she should get an iPod line, and have money donated to her favorite cause too, which appears to be separating families for life, while satisfying her selfish desire. What color would you make that iPod?

[fitinferno]

yeah, but if i'm seeing it right, it merely takes me to the thread--which would have gain posed that 273-post hurdle to my patience. As someone else posted inthis thread, id like to see a search feature on this forum that found specific posts, not just the thread. I believe the apple support forums and others work that way.

Ahhh, yeah, that would be nice (esp seeing as I've read the entire thread and missed the post you reference, lol).

[Bear-Max]

It's already been pointed out, but i just want to reiterate: (Product)RED is a separate charity. It has nothing to do with Apple as a company.

Moving on, I'm kind of disappointed. When I bought my Nano, it would have made me feel better to know that at least some of my money was going to a good cause. I also would have much preferred red over blue.

[JGowan]

I would be tempted to buy one, but it doesn't fit in with my colour scheme of black, silver and white for electronicsGo to JOINRED.com (http://www.joinred.com) and perhaps buy another (Product)red™ item. Converse, Armani, American Express, Motorola and GAP all have stuff to sale with some proceeds going to help the very same cause.

I also originally thought "people voting negative for this, why?", but then it dawned on me that a lot of them probably thought the 5% was too little, which I agree with, it's next to nothing. That's why rather than switching to red, I think the better option would be to donate my 12% saving, (buying from work remember), to Aids. It's still not much, but a lot closer to what this red iPod should be giving.With iPods flying off the shelves these days, Apple's holding its own. According to our very own Macrumors.com (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/07/20060719164004.shtml), Apple sold 8,111,000 iPods in their last Quarter. It's quite possible that over the next year, Apple will sell 10,000,000 of these little red players: that's $100,000,000 and I think this is probably being fairly conservative.

Could they give more? Sure. But they have their own costs to consider, their stockholders to consider. If I give 5% to a cause, I make no impact. If Apple gives 5%, $100M+! It's very possible that this will become a permanent part of the iPod lineup. Apple's impact will huge.

I believe that Apple will contribute far more to the cause than Armani, Converse and anyone else involved in the project.

[peas]

But to say that the Pharmaceutical companies deserve all their profits, or that they are honest companies merely trying to recouperate their losses is bordering on asinine.

calling someone asinine based on your opinions of what is a fair amount, and what is lavish, is what's asinine. profits are just that, profits. how it's accomplished is regulated by the likes of the irs and ftc, just to name 2.
2 little brothers of big brother, regulating public and private commodities. strange, isnt it?

and the rest of my rant

here's my point..
if the board was told that the promo and the 5% donation was not claimable, it would not have moved off the table. simple as that.
counter solution:
or, if they felt so strongly about the cause, have the bean counters project sales for a fiscal year, and donate that amount. tieing in the sale of your product to charity is whore-ish. absolutely whore-ish.

as much as you want to convince yourself that red is cool, charity is good, steve is a genius...you will never realize that you are the eskimo, steve is the saleman, and his 10 different flavors of crap on a stick is his ice, that you just bought

there really is no genuine concern from apple or oprah for the african aids epidemic. to conceal sales figures and market shares behind donations is one thing. but to attatch such a grave issue to a novelty like the ipod is just fu#kin rediculous.

you want concern? you want involvement? you want results? then model yourself after jane goodall. there were no photo ops, no lavish incomes, no pop cult press, just a life-long journey of wanting to know, wanting to help, wanting to document, wanting to understand the primates. selling a ginormous amount of ipods and donating 99% of the sales wouldnt accomplish 1% of JG did. and that's the god's honest truth.

what is horribly sad about all of this, minus steve, minus oprah, minus bono?
what's sad is that your consumeristic endorphins need to be stoked more than a baby needs his bottle. enjoy your creature comforts, fools.

what's funny?
if it's not simple, it's not worth doing.
i'm all for simplifying a process, but to say "i'd help if i could just click on it in itunes" is just down right lazy.

[nagromme]

Charity's great, but the fact is, metallic red is the color I've wanted ever since the first colored iPod appeared :)

But add video (which I'd output to TV at friend's houses) and sell it with 8GB.

[JGowan]

...I'm kind of disappointed. When I bought my Nano, it would have made me feel better to know that at least some of my money was going to a good cause. I also would have much preferred red over blue.Go buy a Red one and give your blue one to someone else. Certainly someone in your family merits one of these sweet Apple players. I've bought one for a friend, father, sister and wife.

If you're like most people, you keep the box and packing materials and you keep your iPod very protected. You could just wipe the player, fill it with the relative's favorite tunes and tell them you had to open the box to load all the music on it. Of course, give this to someone who hasn't seen you with it.

The holiday's are a-coming. Treat others. Treat yourself.

[PerfectlyFlawed]

Why does Bono have to be the one to introduce it or even have his own U2 edition of ipod?

they should have a Black Sabbath edition or a band people actually know of!
I can't name a single song from U2 they really aren't that popular!!
I remember some music video about 4 or 5 years ago where the guy had a black and red ipod,
it looked awesome but you couldn't get one like it, then 2 years later U2 comes out with a version like that.
now I'll never get one just U2 has their name on it.

the cause is good, but ******* I hate Bono!!!!!

[Chundles]

Why does Bono have to be the one to introduce it or even have his own U2 edition of ipod?

they should have a Black Sabbath edition or a band people actually know of!

the cause is good, but ******* I hate Bono!!!!!

Pretty sure people know of U2...

As for "why Bono"? Because it's his charity. He started it, it's his idea so why shouldn't it be Bono.

This also has nothing to do with U2, nothing at all, it's purely Bono's baby.

[peas]

Charity's great, but the fact is, metallic red is the color I've wanted ever since the first colored iPod appeared :)

But add video (which I'd output to TV at friend's houses) and sell it with 8GB.


see, this is what is needed. skip the feel-good bs, tell it like it is.
we're all grown-ups here. thank you for that moment of truth, nagromme

[JGowan]

i'm all for simplifying a process, but to say "i'd help if i could just click on it in itunes" is just down right lazy.A Certain adage comes to mind: "There's strength in numbers". One person can't make a difference. 10 million just might. At least some people are trying. A lot of people know that tragedy is all over the world. It's overwhelming. But it's hard to know exactly what to do because the world is in such need. Knowing that I can go to joinred.com and decide how to spend my holiday money, helps me feel good -- somehow I can contribute. What if thousands decide that this Christmas, every gift they give will come from the companies that are making (PRODUCT)RED™ products? You seem to think it will do no good, but I think you're wrong.

While I didn't quote your entire rant (as you, yourself, called it), I can definitely say that it was one of the more pessimistic posts I've seen on here.

Ask yourself: "What am I doing?"

[MacUser4_20]

GREAT post!!
A Certain adage comes to mind: "There's strength in numbers". One person can't make a difference. 10 million just might. At least some people are trying. A lot of people know that tragedy is all over the world. It's overwhelming. But it's hard to know exactly what to do because the world is such need. Knowing that I can go to joinred.com and decide how to spend my holiday money, helps me feel good -- somehow I can contribute. What if thousands decide that this Christmas, every gift they give will come from the companies that are making (PRODUCT)RED™ products? You seem to think it will do no good, but I think you're wrong.

While I didn't quote your entire rant (as you, yourself, called it), I can definitely say that it was one of the more pessimistic posts I've seen on here.

Ask yourself: "What am I doing?"

[clintob]

profits are just that, profits. how it's accomplished is regulated by the likes of the irs and ftc, just to name 2

Pleae tell me you didn't just attempt with a striaght face to assert that the IRS and FTC actually regulate the business of Pharmaceutical profits (or any big business for that matter)? I'm not even going to validate that with a response.

As for what is and isn't asinine, I think you're going to have a hard time finding anyone who'll agree that these profit margins aren't just that. If you exclude the four most highly developed countries on that continent South Africa, Egypt, Algeria, and Morocco (none of which are not inclusive in the discussion of the AIDS epidemic), the 4 major US oil company's profits in 2005 totaled more than the GNP of all the remaining African countries combined! Look it up. And if that's not bad enough, these same companies, with these same profits, RAISED oil prices more than 30% over the course of 6 months, nearly doubling their profit margin.

If you took 2% of that money, it would be enough to fund a global AIDS foundation that could provide education and treatment to millions of infected African people. 2%. So what you're saying is that Pfizer's CEO's third yacht is just as important as that initiative.

You still want to say none of this profit is extravagant? Do you REALLY want to make that argument?

[JasonElise1983]

so this is turning into some sort of economic argument? Well, i've wasted enough time reading these posts, i might as well comment.

Pharmaceudical companies make lots of money. There is no one saying they don't, but to some degree they EARN it. We live in a democracy, where it is your right to EARN money. On the same token, you COULD go donate all your earnings (accept of course what you need to live so $5.15 an hour in the US) and just live modestly. Oh, wait...let me guess, your time is worth more than that...cause i sure as hell think mine is. I work hard everyday and feel i deserve the money i make.

Also, does anyone have a clue what it takes to test, re-test, start over, test, re-test a new drug. It's a lot of work. My wife is a pharmacist and I am friends with two pharmaceudical sales reps, and a few chemists. It isn't easy to get it done. So these people should go un rewarded for all their hard work? They should do all this out of the goodness of their hearts? If medicine was free, do you really think new medicines would come out that often? Same with technology, if computers were free, what would be the drive to innovate?

-JR

[morespce54]

...Just have sex only within a lifetime committed relationship and AIDS is all but gone in one generation!...

You're kidding, right?

[clintob]

so this is turning into some sort of economic argument? Well, i've wasted enough time reading these posts, i might as well comment.

Pharmaceudical companies make lots of money. There is no one saying they don't, but to some degree they EARN it. We live in a democracy, where it is your right to EARN money. On the same token, you COULD go donate all your earnings (accept of course what you need to live so $5.15 an hour in the US) and just live modestly. Oh, wait...let me guess, your time is worth more than that...cause i sure as hell think mine is. I work hard everyday and feel i deserve the money i make.

Also, does anyone have a clue what it takes to test, re-test, start over, test, re-test a new drug. It's a lot of work. My wife is a pharmacist and I am friends with two pharmaceudical sales reps, and a few chemists. It isn't easy to get it done. So these people should go un rewarded for all their hard work? They should do all this out of the goodness of their hearts? If medicine was free, do you really think new medicines would come out that often? Same with technology, if computers were free, what would be the drive to innovate?

-JR

Nobody is suggesting that Pharmaceutical companies don't have a right to earn a profit. This is a capitalist society, that is absolutely their right. But there is a moral issue involved when your profit margins are surpassing that of entire countries' GNPs! Of course they should be rewarded fairly for their efforts - it's a wonderful field in many respects. But please, let's not be so naive as to think that the higher-ups in this large business do not make exorbitant salaries and bonuses that are far beyond what would be considered even "extremely wealthy". It's very hard to sit by and watch foundations struggle to raise capital while corporations raise prices for drugs that already have profit margins well in excess of 50-70%. It's greed, pure and simple.

Yes, we are all entitled to life's comforts if we work for them. That's what America is all about. But there comes a time when you have to have a conscience and a certain level of human decencty to realize that if you're company is profiting in excess of $10 billion per year, it would also function just fine on profits of $8 billion as well, and that 20% would go a LONG way towards curtailing a lot of the poverty and disease in the world.

That's tough to argue.

[morespce54]

Alright, what is a "bux", "cos", "haveing", and "recipet".
Perhaps you need to enroll in the ""The Derek Zoolander Center For Children Who Can't Read Good And Wanna Learn To Do Other Stuff Good Too"


LOL :D :D :D

- "mer-mad"

[gugy]

the cause is good, but ******* I hate Bono!!!!!


Why do you hate him?
You even said you are not familiar with U2 music.
What's your problem dude?

[epicwelshman]

I'm sorry if this was pointed out before, I looked through the thread but didn't see it.
Apple's only giving $10 from a $200 iPod to AIDS research. Is that enough? I know that Gap is giving 50% of their profit to "RED", roughly 25% of the retail cost. I find it hard to believe that Apple is only making $20 profit on every Nano. What's the story with this?

[drdan]

Obviously the individual with AIDS would prefer the retroviral medicine. However, those of us over here giving to charity might be interested in preventing the most suffering possible with our dollars. I care equally about the suffering of the person currently infected with AIDS or HIV AND the suffering of some future person who will be infected with HIV. Since education and economic development will prevent a LOT more suffering overall, that's where I will choose to put my money.

It's as I said before, giving retroviral medicine to those who are suffering is a great cause, but it's sad if there isn't already enough money being spent on reducing future infections. And there ISN'T enough money being spent on education and economic development.

Ok, not to be the smartass, but there's a very good reason to focus on retrovirals.

Bono is pushing retrovirals because it gives people hope for life after AIDS. Most Africans never get tested because its entirely pointless - even counterproductive for them because of the stigma.

The moment that they have ways to live with AIDS (and oh by the way provide for their families who get the worst of the deal), is the moment that testing becomes helpful. Hopefully education and responsibility follow.

I'm going to my Apple Store after work today.

[pyramid6]

You're kidding, right?

I guess no one told him you can get AIDS from something other than sex. Not to mention, I babies and kids who have AIDS.

$10 still seems like small change, but I don't think the $10 is really what they are after. It's more likely the publicity.

Anthony

[zac4mac]

I gotta say something to PerfectlyFlawed - #1 Hate is bad, #2 How in the "F" do you hate someone you don't even know? Or do you know Bono closely, and he's personally screwed you really really bad.... I don't get it.

Back on topic -
Just got back from Boulder's latest Apple Store Grand Opening (29th Street) and got a RedPod. I'm impressed with the 2nd generation nano, very sweet, gorgeous color. I liked FINALLY not having to type in a serial number that the computer can see when I registered... gotta say tho, the new pakaging is almost as hard to get open as an iPod.

Go out and buy a RedPod or two.

Z

[danvdr]

Go out and buy a RedPod or two.

Z

Or, buy another color and then give $10 to a worthy cause.

[gloss]

they should have a Black Sabbath edition or a band people actually know of!
I can't name a single song from U2 they really aren't that popular!!


Am I the only one who finds this obscenely funny? U2 has sold 170 million albums worldwide. People know of them.

(comparison - Black Sabbath has sold 15 million albums in the US. U2: 50 million.)

Cannibal Corpse Special Edition iPod!

[lmalave]

This is one of the more misguided comments I've seen in a long time. Yes, of course America is a capitalist society, and any company is entitled to earn all the profits they can. That's the American way.

But to say that the Pharmaceutical companies deserve all their profits, or that they are honest companies merely trying to recouperate their losses is bordering on asinine. Here are some empirical facts for you - you can look them up, it's public information:

1) The top 10 pharma companies had 2006 FIRST HALF (6 month) profits that totaled over $39 Billion dollars.

2) Pfizer alone had first half profits in '06 that totaled over $6.5 billion.

Those are PROFIT numbers... profit only, as in money in their pocket after all expenses, patent costs, drug production and distribution costs, payroll, etc are paid. Period.

That's a disgusting amount of profit for corporations that are supposed to be in business of research, development, and the public good. If you genuinely believe these companies don't lie, cover up, and manpulate medical facts for their own benifit, or hike up the prices of drugs unnecessarily for their own gains (at the expense of the health of people around the world) then you are sorely naive and misguided.

I think the statement "That's a disgusting amount of profit for corporations that are supposed to be in business of research, development, and the public good" is exactly where you're misguided. Who on earth decreed that Pfizer, etc. are *supposed* to be for "research, development, and the public good."? Again, they're a for-profit corporation! A public research university like UCLA is supposed to be for "research, development, and the public good." Their stakeholders are the tax-paying public. A private, for-profit corporation can do whatever they want, as long as it's lawful.

So yes, if pharmas are perpretrating fraud through fraudulent research data, then by all means they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. That I have no problem with. Pharmas are, properly, held to a very high standard when it comes to consumer safety protection, since the safety of medicines is by its very nature a life-or-death issue.

But you are not just stopping there. You are somehow saying that Pharmas should charge a lower price than customers are willing to pay. Why? They're a private company. The price they are charging is usually whatever price they estimate maximizes their profits. The price *would* eventually get to a point where their sales would drop off because people are unwilling to pay that high a price. However, the prices for medicines tend to be high because: 1) pharmas usually have a monopoly on the drug they're selling, because of patents as I've mentioned, and 2) customers are willing to pay a high price for medicines, because health is a top priority for most people.

And if you're referring to the fact that Pharmas *market* themselves as being for the public good, then that's a totally different issue, but that's their right as well (provided they don't cross the line and say something fraudulent like implying that they're a non-profit). If customers fall for that kind of marketing than they're stupid. It's really no different than insurance companies or financial companies marketing themselves like they're a "friend" and "always there for you" when in reality they're just trying to get your money like anyone else. Anyone who falls for that kind of marketing is a schmuck.

[macfevorite]

Look at the intent to ease suffering. Just search your soul...we are all connected. Search within....then give according....bjut most of all do something that helps ease another's pain.

[lmalave]

I'm sorry if this was pointed out before, I looked through the thread but didn't see it.
Apple's only giving $10 from a $200 iPod to AIDS research. Is that enough? I know that Gap is giving 50% of their profit to "RED", roughly 25% of the retail cost. I find it hard to believe that Apple is only making $20 profit on every Nano. What's the story with this?

I think your numbers are way off. Last time I checked Gap didn't have 50% profit margins, so I don't see how 50% of profits could be 25% of retail cost. Even though Gap is vertically integrated so they have higher profits than, say, Wal-Mart, I think their profits are *much* lower than 50%. I'll lookup their financial reports to verify...

EDIT: just looked at their income statement. Last year their operating income was $1.1 billion on $16 billion in reenue. So their operating margins are well under 10%. So if they're donating 25% of the retail price, then that's awesome!!! They would definitely be losing a lot of money on each sale. For any company that does this, though (for example if Apple decided to donate $50 per iPod), it would definitely have to be a *limited* release product, since there must be some cap on how much the company is willing to lose.

[whatever]

Why does Bono have to be the one to introduce it or even have his own U2 edition of ipod?

they should have a Black Sabbath edition or a band people actually know of!
I can't name a single song from U2 they really aren't that popular!!
I remember some music video about 4 or 5 years ago where the guy had a black and red ipod,
it looked awesome but you couldn't get one like it, then 2 years later U2 comes out with a version like that.
now I'll never get one just U2 has their name on it.

the cause is good, but ******* I hate Bono!!!!!
Unless you've lived under a rock since 1976, you've heard of U2 and should know at least one song.

Now I like Sabbath and all, but come one, you can't compare the two. There have been so many members in Sabbath, that comparing them to U2 is like comparing Menudo to the Beatles. Come on can you even name all of the lead singers that Sabbath has have. Here's a quick list.

Ozzy Osbourne - vocals
Ronnie James Dio - vocals
Ian Gillan - vocals
David Donato - vocals
Glenn Hughes - vocals
Ray Gillen - vocals
Tony Martin - vocals

But anyways. Bono is only the spokes person for this charitiy. This is not a U2 or Bono iPod. I wonder if people who don't like Bob Dylan complain about the iTunes Music Store because he appears in an Apple commercial for the store.

[KingYaba]

Why not save yourself the 200 bucks and just donate 20 dollars (twice as much) to the AIDS thing.

[powerbuddy]

I'm sorry if this was pointed out before, I looked through the thread but didn't see it.
Apple's only giving $10 from a $200 iPod to AIDS research. Is that enough? I know that Gap is giving 50% of their profit to "RED", roughly 25% of the retail cost. I find it hard to believe that Apple is only making $20 profit on every Nano. What's the story with this?

The whole point is Apple is not asking you to buy its product , just because of charity,and if it did ; it would forward all of its proceeds to charity in that case. Apple is obviously selling it as a profit , like any other of its products. The choice is upto the consumer if they like the color red , or buying it as gifts for others , as a goodwill. By buying the Nano just for charity sake , is foolish , and dont complaint about the bang for the buck that only 5% is going to charity , because one could very well donate much more to the Red Cross or other NGO's helping people around the world. 10$ may be a small amount for people living in developed countries, but it could mean a whole one months meal for a starving child living in poor parts of Africa.

[mizzoucat]

Why don't they focus on a real disease that is taking the lives of our own nation every day........like cancer? AIDS is not a serious epidemic in the United States. I don't know a single person who has died of AIDS nor anyone who has even been HIV positive. Yet, I know several people who have died of cancer. :mad:

[LaMerVipere]

Wow, this thread has turned into a sad nasty little cesspool.

Who knew a RED iPod nano could have turned the hate up a notch? :eek:

[mmmcheese]

Why don't they focus on a real disease that is taking the lives of our own nation every day........like cancer? AIDS is not a serious epidemic in the United States. I don't know a single person who has died of AIDS nor anyone who has even been HIV positive. Yet, I know several people who have died of cancer. :mad:

:rolleyes:

[cannonball]

Alright.

[Gasu E.]

I would love to have a red iPod, but I don't know why we would ever give money to help fight AIDS on a continent where the people take NO precautions to prevent themselves from getting AIDS... I mean, sure many children are born with it in Africa, but for soooo many adults, they could prevent the spread if they would just be monogamous.

So there, I solved AIDS for free, no Oprah, no Bono, no Ipods. Just have sex only within a lifetime committed relationship and AIDS is all but gone in one generation!
...

That's nothing. I can solve AIDS, stop global warming, eliminate poverty and end war for free. Ready? Humans: stop breeding.

[lmalave]

Why don't they focus on a real disease that is taking the lives of our own nation every day........like cancer? AIDS is not a serious epidemic in the United States. I don't know a single person who has died of AIDS nor anyone who has even been HIV positive. Yet, I know several people who have died of cancer. :mad:

This campaign is to provide AIDS sufferers with a treatment that is KNOWN to be quite effective in extending their lives, in some cases indefinitely. So it's more akin to providing polio or smallpox vaccines in years past - it's something that's KNOWN to work, it just needs to be distributed worldwide to people that wouldn't otherwise be able to afford it.

Not only does cancer already get a LOT of money from both non-profits and for-profits, but it's not a given that more money would necessarilty make much impact in finding either a cure or more treatments for cancer....

[Chundles]

That's nothing. I can solve AIDS, stop global warming, eliminate poverty and end war for free. Ready? Humans: stop breeding.

And sharing needles.

[calculus]

Why don't they focus on a real disease that is taking the lives of our own nation every day........like cancer? AIDS is not a serious epidemic in the United States. I don't know a single person who has died of AIDS nor anyone who has even been HIV positive. Yet, I know several people who have died of cancer. :mad:
Well there is nothing stopping you from doing this.

[lmalave]

Wow, this thread has turned into a sad nasty little cesspool.

Who knew a RED iPod nano could have turned the hate up a notch? :eek:

No kidding! This is something that Apple *didn't* have to do. And no one is forcing anyone to buy these iPods. I don't see how people could think this is a net negative....

[mizzoucat]

This campaign is to provide AIDS sufferers with a treatment that is KNOWN to be quite effective in extending their lives, in some cases indefinitely. So it's more akin to providing polio or smallpox vaccines in years past - it's something that's KNOWN to work, it just needs to be distributed worldwide to people that wouldn't otherwise be able to afford it.

Not only does cancer already get a LOT of money from both non-profits and for-profits, but it's not a given that more money would necessarilty make much impact in finding either a cure or more treatments for cancer....


Fair enough. It's just that 700,000 Americans die from cancer each year compared to 15,000 who die from AIDS. I see your point though.

[clintob]

Why don't they focus on a real disease that is taking the lives of our own nation every day........like cancer? AIDS is not a serious epidemic in the United States. I don't know a single person who has died of AIDS nor anyone who has even been HIV positive. Yet, I know several people who have died of cancer. :mad:

Um, I'm going to restrain myself on this one. But I'll settle for this: please read a book, a newspaper, or anything mildly intelligent written on a subject that includes FACTS and RESEARCH before writing something so utterly ignorant it is mind boggling.

There are currently almost 500,000 HIV/AIDS infections in the United States, and there are somewhere between 40,000 and 50,000 new cases every year. And those are just the ones that are reported. There are likely many more. Of those, nearly half as many (17,000 - 20,000) die every year. That's the World Trade Center, almost TEN times every year.

Not an epidemic? Please find your brain, attempt to turn it on, find facts, then post.

[mizzoucat]

Um, I'm going to restrain myself on this one. But I'll settle for this: please read a book, a newspaper, or anything mildly intelligent written on a subject that includes FACTS and RESEARCH before writing something so utterly ignorant it is mind boggling.

There are currently almost 500,000 HIV/AIDS infections in the United States, and there are somewhere between 40,000 and 50,000 new cases every year. And those are just the ones that are reported. There are likely many more. Of those, nearly half as many (17,000 - 20,000) die every year. That's the World Trade Center, almost TEN times every year.

Not an epidemic? Please find your brain, attempt to turn it on, find facts, then post.

Forgive me for my ignorance.

[clintob]

You are somehow saying that Pharmas should charge a lower price than customers are willing to pay. Why? They're a private company. The price they are charging is usually whatever price they estimate maximizes their profits. The price *would* eventually get to a point where their sales would drop off because people are unwilling to pay that high a price. However, the prices for medicines tend to be high because: 1) pharmas usually have a monopoly on the drug they're selling, because of patents as I've mentioned, and 2) customers are willing to pay a high price for medicines, because health is a top priority for most people.

You conveniently glossed over the one major flaw in your argument: pharmaceutical drugs are patented before there is opportunity for competition. There are no alternatives, no competition, and therefore there is no fair market. The market for competition is strangled before it ever has a chance to grow. That's not capitalism... there's no free enterprise there. That's the very reason we have laws against monopolies.

The reason it's allowed to go is because the Federal government has an extremely high financial stake in these companies. The entire system is corrupt in that sense, so to say that these companies charge "fair" prices is lunacy, pure and simple. These companies can charge any price they want, and people will pay it, not because they think it's fair, but because they have no alternative. These companies are NOT the same as any other capitalist enterprise. They have a moral responsibility to make drugs available to people who need them at a reasonable cost. If there were a free market for these drugs (as exists in other countries) the prices would plumit. You know it, and I know it. It happened briefly when there was the ability to purchase similar drugs from outside the US. Same drugs, a fraction of the price.

It's sickening at best.

[Gasu E.]

Why don't they focus on a real disease that is taking the lives of our own nation every day........like cancer? AIDS is not a serious epidemic in the United States. I don't know a single person who has died of AIDS nor anyone who has even been HIV positive. Yet, I know several people who have died of cancer. :mad:

Haha, thank you, foreign person, for your hilarious impersonation of an "ugly American." This is almost as funny as Borat. :p

[suneohair]

It is just an iPod folks. Buy it, or don't buy it.

I personally think it is a sweet and goes to a good cause. Yeah there is cancer, but there is so much money there already.

AIDS could become a serious problem if we don't try to do something about. Sure there are other things that could be an issue, this is just one.

One step at a time people.

[Gasu E.]

calling someone asinine based on your opinions of what is a fair amount, and what is lavish, is what's asinine. profits are just that, profits. how it's accomplished is regulated by the likes of the irs and ftc, just to name 2.
2 little brothers of big brother, regulating public and private commodities. strange, isnt it?

and the rest of my rant

here's my point..
if the board was told that the promo and the 5% donation was not claimable, it would not have moved off the table. simple as that.
counter solution:
or, if they felt so strongly about the cause, have the bean counters project sales for a fiscal year, and donate that amount. tieing in the sale of your product to charity is whore-ish. absolutely whore-ish.

as much as you want to convince yourself that red is cool, charity is good, steve is a genius...you will never realize that you are the eskimo, steve is the saleman, and his 10 different flavors of crap on a stick is his ice, that you just bought

there really is no genuine concern from apple or oprah for the african aids epidemic. to conceal sales figures and market shares behind donations is one thing. but to attatch such a grave issue to a novelty like the ipod is just fu#kin rediculous.

you want concern? you want involvement? you want results? then model yourself after jane goodall. there were no photo ops, no lavish incomes, no pop cult press, just a life-long journey of wanting to know, wanting to help, wanting to document, wanting to understand the primates. selling a ginormous amount of ipods and donating 99% of the sales wouldnt accomplish 1% of JG did. and that's the god's honest truth.

what is horribly sad about all of this, minus steve, minus oprah, minus bono?
what's sad is that your consumeristic endorphins need to be stoked more than a baby needs his bottle. enjoy your creature comforts, fools.

what's funny?
if it's not simple, it's not worth doing.
i'm all for simplifying a process, but to say "i'd help if i could just click on it in itunes" is just down right lazy.

Is that foam around your mouth, or shaving cream?

[Gasu E.]

Forgive me for my ignorance.

Not at all, you are hilarious! Thanks!

[vand0576]

Why don't they focus on a real disease that is taking the lives of our own nation every day........like cancer? AIDS is not a serious epidemic in the United States. I don't know a single person who has died of AIDS nor anyone who has even been HIV positive. Yet, I know several people who have died of cancer. :mad:

And other nations call Americans selfish!!!

</sarcasm>

[mizzoucat]

Haha, thank you, foreign person, for your hilarious impersonation of an "ugly American." This is almost as funny as Borat. :p


You mean other countries actually matter other than the United States? I had no clue!

[cannonball]

as much as you want to convince yourself that red is cool, charity is good, steve is a genius...you will never realize that you are the eskimo, steve is the saleman, and his 10 different flavors of crap on a stick is his ice, that you just bought

there really is no genuine concern from apple or oprah for the african aids epidemic. to conceal sales figures and market shares behind donations is one thing. but to attatch such a grave issue to a novelty like the ipod is just fu#kin rediculous.

you want concern? you want involvement? you want results? then model yourself after jane goodall. there were no photo ops, no lavish incomes, no pop cult press, just a life-long journey of wanting to know, wanting to help, wanting to document, wanting to understand the primates. selling a ginormous amount of ipods and donating 99% of the sales wouldnt accomplish 1% of JG did. and that's the god's honest truth.

Okay. Do you have a computer? An iPod? A TV, DVD player, 2 pairs of shoes, a toothbrush?
I am so glad Apple is doing this. We all know we could just give $200 instead. BUT, we all are also all going to buy an iPod. One of the only ways to get the majority of American spenders to help with world issues is to tie the help to commodity sales.

We need to be informed consumers. Informed about the power that our spending has to influence trends in the world. Stop buying clothes manufatured in sweat shops, and start buying products that support the well being of humans ANYWHERE in the world (I can't believe the ignorance in mizzoucat's post). I don't care if it's Cancer, Aids, domestic abuse, whatever. If it's a product you were going to buy anyway... and it's HELPING.... Why are so many people upset?

This product is enough to convince me to get it instead of an 80GB video.


Please, be informed consumers; there is a lot of power in your disposable income.

[MattyMac]

Just watched the Oprah Show and....

The Red Razr is Sick!

...so is the iPod

[lmalave]

You conveniently glossed over the one major flaw in your argument: pharmaceutical drugs are patented before there is opportunity for competition. There are no alternatives, no competition, and therefore there is no fair market. The market for competition is strangled before it ever has a chance to grow. That's not capitalism... there's no free enterprise there. That's the very reason we have laws against monopolies.

The reason it's allowed to go is because the Federal government has an extremely high financial stake in these companies. The entire system is corrupt in that sense, so to say that these companies charge "fair" prices is lunacy, pure and simple. These companies can charge any price they want, and people will pay it, not because they think it's fair, but because they have no alternative. These companies are NOT the same as any other capitalist enterprise. They have a moral responsibility to make drugs available to people who need them at a reasonable cost. If there were a free market for these drugs (as exists in other countries) the prices would plumit. You know it, and I know it. It happened briefly when there was the ability to purchase similar drugs from outside the US. Same drugs, a fraction of the price.

It's sickening at best.

On your first point: did you read my first post?!!!??? Here's what I said:

"The purpose of patents is to spur innovation by promising companies a 17-year monopoly during which they can potentially make huge profits."

Ummm...how is my above statement "glossing things over" again?!? That's how patents are supposed to work work. They're supposed to create incentive to spend massive amounts of money on research and innovation, in the hopes of reaping the profits in the future. What would be the incentive to spend time and money to invent something, and then have someone immediately steal your idea once you make it public? Innovation would wither without patent laws.

On your second point: I guess we fundamentally disagree here. I don't think Pharmaceuticals have a moral obligation to lower their prices. If that's the case, then we should just nationalize all the drug companies so that the government can set the prices.

In terms of other countries having a "free market" on drugs, I believe you are confusing a couple of different issues. Yes, the US has protectionist policies with regard to GENERIC drugs. These are drugs whose patents have *expired*, so anyone can make them and they are much cheaper. And I agree with you, those restrictions are just protectionist policies and should be removed. I believe protectionist policies are generally harmful, and preventing imports of generics isn't even the most harmful, IMHO (I think farm subsidies are the worst since mostly target poor countries at the expense of enriching mostly industrialized, wealthy agribusiness).

Also, keep in mind not all countries have the same respect for patents and intellectual property. NO foreign company is allowed to sell in the U.S. a product that is violating U.S. patents - whether its a medicine or an electronic gadget. What I have heard other countries do is violate U.S. patents on medicines so that they can distribute them in their own country. I'm more ambivalent about that. They are taking the initiative to produce and distribute medicines to people in their own country that would probably never buy the real product anyway, so it's not as if they're cheating the company out of profits. That's different from saying the patent-holding company has an *obligation* to produce and distribute the medicine around the world to whever needs it at their own expense - which is what you're implying.

[mi5moav]

Humans are bread to be argumentative, if everyone had the same point of view none of us would be around right now.

Death is good
Aids is good
Hurricanes are good
Sandstorms are good
Fat is good
Sex is Good
Mold is good
Money sucks
Trickle Down Economics sucks
Olean sucks, actually it blows but that's a another topic

MS sucks, Apple sucks...we are all gonna die in 150 years or less... so, it's time we all quit our jobs and started having sex with our neighbors, giving all our money to the poor and reusing toilet paper to save the trees.

Did that gal actually work for Apple???

[clintob]

On your first point: I already mentioned that patents were a monopoly in the SAME post that you are quoting out of context!!!! Patents give a monopoly for 17 years. It's a deliberate choice by policy makers that the benefit of spurring innovation is worth the cost of granting a temporary monopoly. Everyone with any awareness of both monopoly and patent laws knows that that's what a patent is: a lawful monopoly, granted for 17 years. As I said, if you don't believe in that, then you don't believe in the patent system period.

I understand how patents work. My point here was that that I don't see any benefit to granting patents to something that is designed to be for the common good. Drugs are designed to help ill, sick, or suffering people. That's a scenario that should be monopolized, nor should it be regulated. It should be free market - the more competition exists, the more alternatives exists, the faster prices drop and quality goes up. That's economics 101. People, both in this country and worldwide, could only stand to benefit from a more open Pharmaceutical industry.

We'll have to agree to disagree on the latter point. I'm not suggesting pharms should have to distribute drugs freely to all in need. As you said, they're not charity organizations. I'm suggesting that the prices should be allowed to have a built in profit margin that's reasonable, not outrageous. Reasonable, of course, is a subjective term, but again I go back to the point that pharms profits last year were greater than the entire economies of several countires combined. I don't think it's unfair to say that's a little ostentatious, even for us Americans.

At the end of the day, we could ALL stand to practice a little more restraint, a little more charity, and a little less greed. But that has to start at the top.

[lmalave]

I understand how patents work. My point here was that that I don't see any benefit to granting patents to something that is designed to be for the common good. Drugs are designed to help ill, sick, or suffering people. That's a scenario that should be monopolized, nor should it be regulated. It should be free market - the more competition exists, the more alternatives exists, the faster prices drop and quality goes up. That's economics 101. People, both in this country and worldwide, could only stand to benefit from a more open Pharmaceutical industry.

We'll have to agree to disagree on the latter point. I'm not suggesting pharms should have to distribute drugs freely to all in need. As you said, they're not charity organizations. I'm suggesting that the prices should be allowed to have a built in profit margin that's reasonable, not outrageous. Reasonable, of course, is a subjective term, but again I go back to the point that pharms profits last year were greater than the entire economies of several countires combined. I don't think it's unfair to say that's a little ostentatious, even for us Americans.

At the end of the day, we could ALL stand to practice a little more restraint, a little more charity, and a little less greed. But that has to start at the top.

I completely disagree with your first paragraph. Pharmas need to have an incentive to invest 10 years and $2 billion on developing a drug, which is what it costs to bring a major drug to market nowadays. They need *more* patent protection than almost any other company. What would be the point of investing that much time and money in research, if another company that spent *nothing* developing that drug could just copy it?!!?? Can you answer me that? Because of the nature of the Pharma industry, I would argue they are almost *unique* in their absolute reliance on patent protections. Without those protections, almost the entire industry would wither, along with all the research they are doing.

As to wether they make a "fair" profit with the drugs they have patents on, then I agree, that's subjective. Some companies like retailers make 5% profit, some software companies have made 30% or 40% profit margins. What would a "fair" margin for the Pharma industry be? And how over how many years should they recoup their multi-billion dollar R&D investment? The problem is that any cap you set on profits means you're also capping their incentive to invest. If Pfizer made $6.5 Billion dollars, then they would love to invent *twice* as many drugs so that they could make double that. I mean, what company says "ok, we made enough money - we'll stop here."

[clintob]

I completely disagree with your first paragraph. Pharmas need to have an incentive to invest 10 years and $2 billion on developing a drug, which is what it costs to bring a major drug to market nowadays. They need *more* patent protection than almost any other company. What would be the point of investing that much time and money in research, if another company that spent *nothing* developing that drug could just copy it?!!?? Can you answer me that? Because of the nature of the Pharma industry, I would argue they are almost *unique* in their absolute reliance on patent protections. Without those protections, almost the entire industry would wither, along with all the research they are doing.

As to wether they make a "fair" profit with the drugs they have patents on, then I agree, that's subjective. Some companies like retailers make 5% profit, some software companies have made 30% or 40% profit margins. What would a "fair" margin for the Pharma industry be? And how over how many years should they recoup their multi-billion dollar R&D investment? The problem is that any cap you set on profits means you're also capping their incentive to invest. If Pfizer made $6.5 Billion dollars, then they would love to invent *twice* as many drugs so that they could make double that. I mean, what company says "ok, we made enough money - we'll stop here."

I think part of the problem is that we have to make a distinction between the various sectors of the Pharmaceutical industry. The REAL problem is that most of these billion dollar profit margins that I've spoken about are actually fueled predominantly by non-essential medications. There needs to be a distinction between drugs like Viagra, Propecia, and the medication for "Restless Leg Syndrome", and drugs that are in R&D for Cancer, AIDS, heart disease, and the like.

I'm all for protecting companies who want to make an investment into Cancer and AIDS research, but that's not where the money is and we both know that. There's no advertising market in that so there's no push for it (although there certainly should be). Those R&D projects are mostly privately funded, whereas the R&D for Viagra and Propecia is funded by sponsors and investors who stand to make a buck.

Drawing a line between medication that is designed to cure disease and aid suffering, and medication that is designed for pure and simple profit, would be a perfectly good comprimise here (both to our own discussion and to the problem as a whole). Perhaps allow drug companies the same profit margins they've had all along, but insist than 30 - 40% of that money be re-invested into R&D projects that have no financial backing from ad campaigns. Now THAT is a cause I'd rally for.

[Don't panic]

It should be free market - the more competition exists, the more alternatives exists, the faster prices drop and quality goes up. That's economics 101. People, both in this country and worldwide, could only stand to benefit from a more open Pharmaceutical industry.

I appreciate where you are coming from, but without patent protection there would be much less drug development: the only drugs would come from Academia, and they would take 10x the time to become usable.
patents are essential in any field where progress requires massive investment

[lmalave]

I think part of the problem is that we have to make a distinction between the various sectors of the Pharmaceutical industry. The REAL problem is that most of these billion dollar profit margins that I've spoken about are actually fueled predominantly by non-essential medications. There needs to be a distinction between drugs like Viagra, Propecia, and the medication for "Restless Leg Syndrome", and drugs that are in R&D for Cancer, AIDS, heart disease, and the like.

I'm all for protecting companies who want to make an investment into Cancer and AIDS research, but that's not where the money is and we both know that. There's no advertising market in that so there's no push for it (although there certainly should be). Those R&D projects are mostly privately funded, whereas the R&D for Viagra and Propecia is funded by sponsors and investors who stand to make a buck.

Drawing a line between medication that is designed to cure disease and aid suffering, and medication that is designed for pure and simple profit, would be a perfectly good comprimise here (both to our own discussion and to the problem as a whole). Perhaps allow drug companies the same profit margins they've had all along, but insist than 30 - 40% of that money be re-invested into R&D projects that have no financial backing from ad campaigns. Now THAT is a cause I'd rally for.

Hmm..what you're saying now makes less sense though. Before I understood that you had a moral issue with Pharmaceuticals profiteering from life-saving medicines. But now it seems like you have a problem with them making money from things like Viagra, which you admit is the bulk of their profits. Why on earth shouldn't Pfizer make maximum profit from Viagra?!? They invented something that *every* civilization for *thousands* of years had attempted to invent. An aphrodisiac that's actually guaranteed to work. I say more power to them for that. It sounds like you just have a problem with Pfizer making billions of dollars, because they could also *potentially* also make life-saving drugs. I disagree with making the distinction between "essential" and "non-essential" drugs however. Once you do that, Pharmas would just want to get out of the business of "essential" drugs.

If the only money to be made was through selling things like Viagra, diet pills, or acne-preventing pills, then Pharmas would only make these drugs. If you believe in free market for life-saving drugs, then you should let Pharmas make profits on those too, without any caps or restrictions. Otherwise, may as well just make it a nationalized industry. I wouldn't dismiss that idea totally out of hand. I mean, we spend $500 Billion on defense, including several nationally-run science labs. What if we spent just $100 billion to run national labs that would focus on developing life-saving pharmaceuticals and disease prevention? Can you imagine?

Basic research in science is in a sense one of the "failures" of capitalism (such as monopolies or environmental protection). The problem is capitalism is based on the notion that everyone is acting perfectly rationally at all times, but the problem is that people don't. For example, most people's time horizon for making decisions is only a few years, whereas basic research can take decades to result in something that brings concrete material gain. Really, if everyone was rational then a much, much larger percentage of GDP would go to science research, since it has a large "multiplier" effect that leads to *massive* increases in well being down the road.

[wcalderini]

So....how well do you think WoW will play on this thing?

jk


wrc

[Stitzu]

So....how well do you think WoW will play on this thing?
I think it'll run exceptionally well... 200+ fps at all times on that 1.5" screen at 176x132! :D

[Ha ze]

I like the Red...

[swingerofbirch]

I like some of the Armani red products:

http://www.emporioarmaniproductred.com

Does anyone know of an online site that sells them? There is no Armani anywhere close to me.

[sushi]

Neat idea.

While I understand the unique red color, I wish that all iPods purchases worked this way regardless of which one your purchase.

[CEAbiscuit]

what's funny?
if it's not simple, it's not worth doing.
i'm all for simplifying a process, but to say "i'd help if i could just click on it in itunes" is just down right lazy.

Read the fine print. The suggestion is so that you can use your iTunes balance to make a donation. A lot of people get iTunes gift cards, etc. Instead of buying an extra songs, maybe I would like to pass the gift along. Nothing lazy, just thoughtful. Besides, it may get a few lazy people to contribute when they never would have in the first place.

[tjcampbell]

Bono is awesome. He's got a fortune and he could be golfing and living it up every day and instead he chooses to fight for a better world. Nobody else has so much success yet dedicates so much time to a cause. It makes me laugh whenever I see some idiot "gangsta" on TV rapping about how much money they have. Bono has was more and he aint promoting his bling, he's simply trying to help the world. Like their tunes or not, it's people like this that you want your kids to look up to. Big ups to the Irish fella. :cool:

[Shadow]

It looks excellent. If I was in the market for a new iPod I'd consider buying one. Although I'd (shock!) rather have a white 1G Nano, to go with my MacBook ;) !

[Jetson]

I made my point, but I flamed a bit too much, so I removed it.

:D

[knockknock]

should also this be called the ipod nano special target edition?;)

...soon to come the walmart lightblue special

Personally I think that 5% of the value given as a donation is better than 100% of nothing.
Hopefully it will raise more awareness about this global problem.

[velocipede]

Here's an idea... just send your money to a worthly charity on your own! Why does SOMEONE else have to donate THEIR money before you'll buy their products? Perhaps they should offer a 5% discount to anyone that shows they've donated $5 to the fund.

Sometimes I really wonder what logic people are using...

That's a good idea too. I don't know why you picked out my post to respond too. I was just pointing out the fact that corporations are legally dissuaded from charitable acts that do not ultimately contribute to their bottom lines.

[wakaruka]

how about a bright yellow one for cancer awareness?

[Multimedia]

It was a 2-minute infomercial. :eek: :rolleyes:

Great Christmas Stocking Stuffer Color - Valentines too. ;)

Record "Will You Marry Me?" and make that the only track queued up on the Red iPod Nano you give your prospective wife for Valentines Day.

[Multimedia]

how about a bright yellow one for cancer awareness?Pink is the new breast cancer color this month. They should pull out all the color stops for all sorts of charities.

[generik]

You mean other countries actually matter other than the United States? I had no clue!

What is countries?

[AppleIntelRock]

Nice cause, terrible color :(

[themanfromvlad]

Just got my shipping confirmation from Apple!

Fedex from China as of 8:07 AM Shenzhen, China time!

Woooooohooooooo!!!!!!!!!!


I so shocked that it's going out so fast since I had it engraved! Cool!

[rockthecasbah]

I like the color and i'm glad that it's going to a good cause. It's bright but not a crazy neon explosion, quite nice. If i was in the market for a Nano, i'd be all over that :)

[MacinDoc]

Personally, I think they're a good idea. Sure, Apple will still make money on them (it couldn't really justify to its shareholders selling them if there were no profit), but the fact is, they cost the same as all of the other 4GB Nanos, and $10 goes to a good cause. The more of these products consumers buy, the more companies like Apple will be encouraged to give back to the community in creative ways like this.

This is really a huge boost for the (Product)Red campaign. Apple is selling iPods at a rate of 32 million per year, so if 20% of those were Red Nanos, that would represent 64 million dollars for the campaign. Not the mention the free publicity for the campaign (and yes, for Apple, too).

[AppleIntelRock]

Personally, I think they're a good idea. Sure, Apple will still make money on them (it couldn't really justify to its shareholders selling them if there were no profit), but the fact is, they cost the same as all of the other 4GB Nanos, and $10 goes to a good cause. The more of these products consumers buy, the more companies like Apple will be encouraged to give back to the community in creative ways like this.

This is really a huge boost for the (Product)Red campaign. Apple is selling iPods at a rate of 32 million per year, so if 20% of those were Red Nanos, that would represent 64 million dollars for the campaign. Not the mention the free publicity for the campaign (and yes, for Apple, too).

I'm totally glad they didn't pull a U2 ipod and charge extra

[clintob]

Hmm..what you're saying now makes less sense though. Before I understood that you had a moral issue with Pharmaceuticals profiteering from life-saving medicines. But now it seems like you have a problem with them making money from things like Viagra, which you admit is the bulk of their profits. Why on earth shouldn't Pfizer make maximum profit from Viagra?!? They invented something that *every* civilization for *thousands* of years had attempted to invent. An aphrodisiac that's actually guaranteed to work. I say more power to them for that. It sounds like you just have a problem with Pfizer making billions of dollars, because they could also *potentially* also make life-saving drugs. I disagree with making the distinction between "essential" and "non-essential" drugs however. Once you do that, Pharmas would just want to get out of the business of "essential" drugs.

Nope, I said the opposite. I said that while I do have a problem with profiting from life-saving essential drugs, I DON'T have a problem with capitalizing on non-essential drugs.

More to the point, what I said is that of course drug companies are in it for the money... so if that's the case, since there's SO much money in it for them to develop these non-essential drugs, why not allow them to do so, but insist that a portion of those proceeds be invested into R&D for essential drugs.

While some might argue this happens already, the fact is it doesn't. R&D for life saving medications are funded by charities, fund-raisers, and private investors. Drug companies do not fund these developments themselves because, as you've pointed out, they're not profitable. So allow the companies to profit wildly from their non-essential drugs, but force a portion of those profits be reinvested to cancer, AIDS, or other life-saving research. Best of both worlds.

Or, as you said, do away with the system entirely, join the rest of the world, and universalize health care. Our military budget is bloated beyond recognition and it would take less than a third of that money to get the job done.

[zac4mac]

I work in R&D for a company that used to be owned by Pfizer. We make medical devices, not pharmaceuticals.
This time last year, there were 7 or 8 devices in development. Along the way, they were dropped, one by one for various reasons - too small a market, too hard to build in quantity, materials issues, etc.
Now, There are 2 left that are almost ready for release. Nothing new has been released in two years. No bonus this year, raises are expected to be minimal.

Bottom line is, a good Research & Development department has a huge overhead and has to produce results for the company, AKA profitable products.

A small percentage of "R" actually makes it to the "D" and onto a shelf.

[toughboy]

I was kinda-on-the-market for a new nano, after my 60gb-photo feels a little bulky nowadays. After seeing this, I'm absolutely buying one. Red looks great and 10 bucks for the folks in Africa sounds truely noble.. Its not like taking an homeless and feeding him in Ramazan month, but the same 10 bucks is given away for something even better..

Plus, wearing or using these kinds of stuff is a way of stand for a person. You tell everyone around you, your friends, family, even the guys that see you on the subway that you do care about things happening on the other sides of the earth and so should they do!..

If you were already on the market for a new nano, go buy a red one. Metallic gray or blue or pink is always preety and always will be, but will never show anything other than your color preference..

[zac4mac]

For any RevA nano owners thinking of getting a RevB nano, the old lanyard earbuds don't fit the new nano. The plug spacing is different.

[Dr_Maybe]

Lame. I don't want an AIDS nano.

If you want to give money to a cause, go ahead. It doesn't have any thing to do with iPods. Unless it's more important to you to show off how you are supporting something, than actually doing it.

[zwida]

"Charity Is Selfish: The economic case against philanthropy."

http://www.slate.com/id/2151244/

[iSee]

"Charity Is Selfish: The economic case against philanthropy."

http://www.slate.com/id/2151244/

The article is misnamed. It doesn't present a case against philanthropy. It just points out that when you examine the motives of people who give charitably (of money, time, etc.), they are not 100% selfless.

[Shagrat]

Lame. I don't want an AIDS nano.

If you want to give money to a cause, go ahead. It doesn't have any thing to do with iPods. Unless it's more important to you to show off how you are supporting something, than actually doing it.

Think the lameness is entirely on your part.

[Shagrat]

For any RevA nano owners thinking of getting a RevB nano, the old lanyard earbuds don't fit the new nano. The plug spacing is different.

Rubbish, Just bought a new Red iPod, and tried earbuds with my girlfriend's Rev A nano. Both earbuds work with either iPod.

Have you actually TRIED this????

[bdj21ya]

Rubbish, Just bought a new Red iPod, and tried earbuds with my girlfriend's Rev A nano. Both earbuds work with either iPod.

Have you actually TRIED this????

He was talking about the lanyard (the one that hangs around your neck and is integrated with the ear phones). Are you talking about the lanyard or just the earbuds? (I don't think anyone is stupid enough to think that stereo mini jacks are going to suddenly change sizes after 2 decades--Apple would never do that, it would be very bad for their rep)

[jorgo]

Well, to my opinion, if all this red thing will have 1 buck more given to aids drug developement, then it's more than welcome for me. Maybe they found a way to make some people care... those who otherwise wouldn't. :)

[bdj21ya]

Lame. I don't want an AIDS nano.

If you want to give money to a cause, go ahead. It doesn't have any thing to do with iPods. Unless it's more important to you to show off how you are supporting something, than actually doing it.

Troll.

[dornoforpyros]

Unless it's more important to you to show off how you are supporting something, than actually doing it.


ditto, some one needs to inform the masses that plastic bracelets don't cure diseases and that people can't eat awareness. Also a magnet on your SUV doesn't support the troops.

[Chundles]

ditto, some one needs to inform the masses that plastic bracelets don't cure diseases and that people can't eat awareness. Also a magnet on your SUV doesn't support the troops.

No, but the money I paid to buy the wrist-thingy sure helps.

I don't see why so many people are against this. Would you rather they just did nothing?

[happydude]

Lame. I don't want an AIDS nano.

If you want to give money to a cause, go ahead. It doesn't have any thing to do with iPods. Unless it's more important to you to show off how you are supporting something, than actually doing it.

At least call it an "AIDS Relief" nano. Just the fact you called it the "AIDS" nano shows your lack of compassion or perhaps outright bigotry.


Well, to my opinion, if all this red thing will have 1 buck more given to aids drug developement, then it's more than welcome for me. Maybe they found a way to make some people care... those who otherwise wouldn't. :)


Jorgo has it right and this is the heart of why celebrities have taken up their pet projects. Anything that can draw positive attention to a circumstance that badly needs it should be welcomed. Sure, Apple may profit from these, but at least they didn't release just another U2 ipod with a price jacked up compared to the specs. This is the same price as the other 4GBs and they're donating $10 of their own profit to the cause. And think about who buys these - young hipsters and others that were probably going to get an ipod anyway that may not otherwise consider giving money to AIDS relief. They can now feel bought in, can join a group of others that ID themselves as supporters and begin to feel as though they are a part of something bigger and more important than themselves alone. It's all about awareness, and hey, if Apple were to sell a million of these, that's $10 million more in medication, treatment and preventative education that otherwise wouldn't exist. Dr_Maybe is the lame one.

Also given the current worldly support and compassion from our "president" it's great to see more progressive coporations picking up the humanitarian efforts our country used to be known for.

[cannonball]

This is not anybody's solution to "How do we support world issues?", it's one opportunity to put a little more money into these efforts, money we were all going to spend anyway.

Let's say you do donate $200 to Aids reief, good for you; but you also still want to buy a Nano. Why the heck not this one? It doesn't cost more, and it helps.

[sockdoggy]

This is not anybody's solution to "How do we support world issues?", it's one opportunity to put a little more money into these efforts, money we were all going to spend anyway.

I agree 100% it's not a solution and I'll say that I am in favor of any product that puts money towards any type of aid. This post is only directed to the dollar amount Apple and other Red supporters are giving, not what charities are getting the money, nor what they are using it for, nor the topic of aids.

I have read a couple pages of posts on this thread and it seems a lot of people are very supportive of the donations, while others aren't impressed.

In my opinion, people against the donation do not either like capitalism, or they just do not understand capitalism. If you don't like it, fair enough, but if you're in the states or Canada (as far as I can speak for), it has brought us a very high quality of life. I realize capitalism has lead to exploitation (which is subjective) of a lot of people and it's not perfect (if there are other reasons you have, fine). But I feel some people do not quite understand how economies are built or sustained.

Many many years ago the United States and Canadian governments chose to implement the fundamental ideas of economic freedom and consumer sovereignty. They chose to use a free market system. The reason we have a high standard of living is because firms make profits and create wealth. New wealth is what makes the economy grow.

Where the problem of inequality could have been solved is when powerful economies were developing. Had their governments implemented policies where a wealth transfer occurred to struggling economies we may not be in a greatly unequal world. But should there had been such a policy, stronger economies would have been made worse off (vis-a-vis transfer seeking), and most likely developing countries wouldn't have been all that much better (since they did not have efficient market systems). It's not relevant at this point. Or perhaps economically strong governments could have "educated" other governments, but look where imposing efficient systems on other countries has gotten the world.

What I'm trying to say is that it's not the fault of profit-seeking corporations that the world has developed the way it has. If anyone is to blame it's Government. Firms work in a market structure their governments create. And since governments are made up of people (who don't forget have their own self-interests at hand), these market structures are by no means perfect. Further, a large dependent on a firm's ability to transfer wealth to charitable organizations is the type of industry it's in (perfectly competitive, monopolistic competition, oligopoly, monopoly, etc) and whether there are incentives (e.g. tax which is dictated by government). It is impossible to be able to predict future events like externalities (e.g. pollution/global warming). In hindsight everything is 20/20 though. Furthermore, once a problem is apparent, it takes a long time to fix it because of the lag policies have. My point here is that change has to come through government, and firms will not seek out more expensive ways to save the environment, or transfer a large majority of their wealth (even to help people) if they are just putting themselves in a more vulnerable position to collapse.

Notwithstanding, there is no doubt the basic fundamentals of fairness and equality on a global scale are lacking. But think about it, how long did it take for women, minorities to get equal rights (I realize this is still a large ongoing issue) in North America alone. I understand the frustrations of people wanting the world to be a better place now, but it takes time.

[Bear-Max]

Go buy a Red one and give your blue one to someone else. Certainly someone in your family merits one of these sweet Apple players. I've bought one for a friend, father, sister and wife.

If you're like most people, you keep the box and packing materials and you keep your iPod very protected. You could just wipe the player, fill it with the relative's favorite tunes and tell them you had to open the box to load all the music on it. Of course, give this to someone who hasn't seen you with it.

The holiday's are a-coming. Treat others. Treat yourself.
I wish. I only just got my first job and I'm saving up to learn to drive next year (not to mention the astronomical price of driving insurance when I pass my test) AND I'm saving to put towards university.

£129 gifts are way out of my price range :(

[dornoforpyros]

No, but the money I paid to buy the wrist-thingy sure helps.

I don't see why so many people are against this. Would you rather they just did nothing?

No, I'd rather people make genuine gestures of charity rather than gestures that are based on image more than genuine concern. It's just too easy to slap on a bracelet, put a sticker on your SUV and show that you care. When really why not skip one night at the pub and give the $40 to the same charity?

I have no problem with people not caring, apathy is a freedom we enjoy in this day and age. I just have a problem with people thinking they can be apathetic with 99.9% off their income, but then advertise the hell out of the .1% they do donate.

But hey, you don't see me donating my pay cheques to charity, but at the same time I don't pretend like I do.

[viccles]

Those red nanos are awesome too bad they aren't available at the Australian Apple shop (yet?) I won't buy one anyway I'm happy with my green

[mac-er]

there really is no genuine concern from apple or oprah for the african aids epidemic. to conceal sales figures and market shares behind donations is one thing. but to attatch such a grave issue to a novelty like the ipod is just fu#kin rediculous.

you want concern? you want involvement? you want results? then model yourself after jane goodall. there were no photo ops, no lavish incomes, no pop cult press, just a life-long journey of wanting to know, wanting to help, wanting to document, wanting to understand the primates. selling a ginormous amount of ipods and donating 99% of the sales wouldnt accomplish 1% of JG did. and that's the god's honest truth.

what is horribly sad about all of this, minus steve, minus oprah, minus bono?
what's sad is that your consumeristic endorphins need to be stoked more than a baby needs his bottle. enjoy your creature comforts, fools.

what's funny?
if it's not simple, it's not worth doing.
i'm all for simplifying a process, but to say "i'd help if i could just click on it in itunes" is just down right lazy.

Get off your high and mighty throne your royal highness, and be happy that something at all is going to charity. And, guess what, selling those red iPods has probably raised more money for charity already than monkey woman has in her whole life.

[Konfabulation]

Get off your high and mighty throne your royal highness, and be happy that something at all is going to charity. And, guess what, selling those red iPods has probably raised more money for charity already than monkey woman has in her whole life.
And guess what: Apple is a COMPUTER COMPANY. What else are they supposed to do?

[Willis]

I saw one today at the Apple store, and it does actually look pretty darn good. If I was to buy a nano, I'd get it.

[suneohair]

No, I'd rather people make genuine gestures of charity rather than gestures that are based on image more than genuine concern. It's just too easy to slap on a bracelet, put a sticker on your SUV and show that you care. When really why not skip one night at the pub and give the $40 to the same charity?

I have no problem with people not caring, apathy is a freedom we enjoy in this day and age. I just have a problem with people thinking they can be apathetic with 99.9% off their income, but then advertise the hell out of the .1% they do donate.

But hey, you don't see me donating my pay cheques to charity, but at the same time I don't pretend like I do.

If they are buying it already why not?

I watched the Oprah show with Bono and this was the point of the whole thing. You are already buying the clothes, the ipods, etc. Why not make the effort to buy the shirt that helps someone?

Not to mention, the GAP clothes are being made in Africa. So not only are those people getting paid to make these clothes but they are also reaping of the sale. On average the GAP clothing gives 50% of the sale to the cause.

I don't go to the Pub so I can't get with you on that one. But there are times when I need to spend $40 on some clothes, since I need the clothes I will go ahead and buy the ones that help someone else.

This may not be as good as giving the $40 straight to charity. But maybe you should watch the show, it doesnt take very much to help someone.

For example, they said that just 10 Red Razr phones gives someone AIDS medicine for a whole year. How many of these phones will be sold? A million maybe?

Thats 100,000 who will get the medicine they need, and more chances to stop the spread of AIDS.

As I said, this isn't the best way to do it of course. But I think it is the most effective. So what are you going to do? Whine about how stupid it is or get off your butt and maybe buy something that helps someone else?

I for one am not going to go out and yell that I helped saved someone, but I will know that I did and I can tell others. Think about how much money we are spending in America, why not do this?

I say Kudos to Bono and all the companies behind this. I will be participating whenever I can, not for brownie points but because the option is there. I hope some of you will do the same. :D

[dornoforpyros]

If they are buying it already why not?



That I can't really argue with, I mean yeah, if we can twist capitalism around and make it help than that's a good thing. I just have a problem with the fashionable gestures of kindness that people are caught up on.

I mean yes, if I spend $200 on an iPod and $10 of that goes to charity, that's great because I was going to spend the $200 regardless. But the fact that my "donation" has to be turned into a fashion statement? That's where my issue comes in. Why not donate 5% of ALL iPod nano sales? Or heck, $1 for every iPod sold to aids research regardless of what colour I buy?

My biggest issue is that none of these efforts are a true donation, it's all "ohh wow, I can get a pretty red iPod/braclete/sticker/magnet AND support a worthy cause" not simply "great, some of my dollars are supporting charity"

At the end of the day we're turning charitable support into a fashion statement and not a concern for our fellow man. People only seem willing to open there wallets when they have something to show off the fact that they did so.

[steebu]

FIVE PERCENT?! That's almost nothing!

I'm not sure if anyone has pointed it out, but in the Canadian store it only say "a portion" – not even a number!

[ckinyc]

Bono, Oprah and Steve Job/Apple are celebrities > Media broadcast what celebrities do > Now, the general public are awared > Awareness = Call for action.

The most possible actions are:
1. Do nothing
2. Talk (or bitch) about it (like in this forum) = generating more awareness
3. Buy a Red iPod = generating more awareness when other people see their new iPod
4. Take a more direct or active role (like donating money to them via this link http://www.theglobalfund.org/en/donate/ )

It's all good !

[iMeowbot]

FIVE PERCENT?! That's almost nothing!
Whatever. Charities tend to blow most of their money on fund raising, and this amounts to much the same thing. One big difference is that the participating businesses, rather than the charity, are paying for the bulk of that marketing cost.
I'm not sure if anyone has pointed it out, but in the Canadian store it only say "a portion" – not even a number!
I'm guessing that it's the same US$10, which would look goofy in another country's ads, especially with daily exchange rate changes.

[Leondunkleyc]

.

[cannonball]

At the end of the day we're turning charitable support into a fashion statement and not a concern for our fellow man. People only seem willing to open there wallets when they have something to show off the fact that they did so.
Not to be argumentative, but I think you have it perfectly backwards, which is the beauty of this whole thing. The iPod ALREADY IS a fashion statement. Now, the fashion statement is being turned into charitable support.

And that's awesome.

[cannonball]

FIVE PERCENT?! That's almost nothing!

Now, I don't think we can fairly argue this without actual knowledge of the numbers Apple makes per iPod. But remember, Microsoft will be out $50 per Zune. I can imagine Apple's profits being pretty slim on the iPod. They don't have to be extravagant when you sell 8 Million per quarter. I work in the Pro Audio business, and sometimes making 5% on a sale is completely normal. It's the nature of high-tech markets right now... extremely competitive.

[ctsport1234]

i like this idea, if i end up buying a new ipod i'll probably purchase this one

[bousozoku]

Lame. I don't want an AIDS nano.

If you want to give money to a cause, go ahead. It doesn't have any thing to do with iPods. Unless it's more important to you to show off how you are supporting something, than actually doing it.

Those who buy it are supporting something, even when they don't mean to support it. Some will buy it because they like red. Others will buy it because they think it's a great way to help and they were going to buy a nano anyway.

The price is the same regardless, but one helps and the other four don't. It's not hurting you so why is it lame?

[Voltes V]

The best idea to come up with a RED nano, that is so genius!!!!!!!
October is related to the color RED. Good Cause so alot of people will be buying this RED nano.

[OdduWon]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr_Maybe
Lame. I don't want an AIDS nano.

If you want to give money to a cause, go ahead. It doesn't have any thing to do with iPods. Unless it's more important to you to show off how you are supporting something, than actually doing it.
the thing lamer than being lame is calling others lame for doing something good. calling this "AIDS nano" lame is like calling anyone who belives in global warming lame. why do we make fun of people who belive in the truth and try to do good? :confused: there is nothing lamer than someone who thinks smart of nerdy people are lame. "Dr"maybe u are the one who is lame! :mad:

[ChrisWB]

Whatever. Charities tend to blow most of their money on fund raising, and this amounts to much the same thing.
Good charities spend less than 1% on administration costs and fundraising.

[iMeowbot]

Good charities spend less than 1% on administration costs and fundraising.
The best spend about five per cent, most spend at least 25%.

[OdduWon]

ipod cinema
http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j248/jonathaniliff/ipodcinema.jpg

[hob]

ipod cinema
http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j248/jonathaniliff/ipodcinema.jpg
Haha, you should enter it into the 3,000,000 post contest!

[OdduWon]

Haha, you should enter it into the 3,000,000 post contest!
what about MACBOO?
http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j248/jonathaniliff/macboo2-1.jpg

[05elstonc]

The (Product) Red iPod Nano is selling amazingly well. It is #4 of the top sellers on the store. #1 iPod Nano #2 iPod #3 iPod Shuffle #4 Red iPod Nano.
The ship time is 1-2 days now. It was 24 hours up untill today. This certainly means Apple did not anticipate the demand as they would have certainly had enough stock built up, it is not as if there is anything special about this nano.
This is fantastic news for Apple and AIDS aid