Maybe you could consider that developing cancer and dying early might have something to do with that. Apple delivered on the promise.
Not meeting your personal expectations isn't the same thing as a lie. And, of course, ignores (PRODUCT) RED.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple's Town Hall Meeting Emphasized Corporate Philanthropy
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Maybe you could consider that developing cancer and dying early might have something to do with that. Apple delivered on the promise.
Not meeting your personal expectations isn't the same thing as a lie. And, of course, ignores (PRODUCT) RED.
I see it as it took SJ dieing for Apple to change which is very sad. It is pretty clear as SJ had less and less control over the company things started changing. SJ takes medical leave and chances are Tim Cook and others new for months before hand Jobs was going to completely step down so the first part was set in motion by Tim Cook.
SJ dies and it starts kicking into High gear.
Steve Jobs made a promise he never intended on keeping. He broke his promise and it took pretty much his death for Apple to keep it. That speaks volumes about the man.
Hey, look! You made up a completely fictitious scenario to fit your storyline. Somehow you think this supports your argument. It doesn't even fit the facts that we know.
There you go again.
Do you realize how ignorant this comment sounds?
"Be careful not to do your 'acts of righteousness' before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven." ~Matthew 6:1
I just figured Jobs was aware of religious directive.
I just figured Jobs was aware of religious directive.
1)I agree that Jobs, even after 10+ years at the helm while the company was extremely profitable, would never do any other kind of charity work other than the RED project.
2)Regardless if Apple is bowing to any kind of public pressure, I'm sure it is bowing to its own employees who work for a company with almost half a trillion dollars in market cap but doesn't have a Charitable Gift and/or other programs. I don't really think Apple is truly bowing...I think Apple/Cook has just realized it's ridiculous to be such a world-known, consumer-facing company that gives, um, 0$ a year to charity.
3)Apple has like $70 billion in the bank...regardless of folks' opinions on whether Apple (or any company) SHOULD have such charitable causes, $25 mill a year out of $70 billion is nothing.
You are right. Yet here we are discussing it. I did not say it was though, I mearly stated that I hoped it was not a stunt. But what does it matter? Charity is charity and it is one of the best things a human can do. So i guess it is just nice to see the company that means so much to us all, making charitable donations.
According to LTD's logic though - even that is too much. That is money from stockholders and shouldn't be used for anything except to build great products!
She smiled on self-interest. Being nice to people because you want to is different than the morality of living for others. Let's make sure we make informed comparisons.
Even if Apple gave all their 70 billion to charity, that amount of money wouldn't change anything in the developing world. To fix the big issues, you need trillions of dollars right now, not millions or billions. Not even the government can do that.
So in the end, any philanthropy is nothing more than a public relations act and may give some comfort to the companies/persons doing the act, but doesn't change much.
So in the end, any philanthropy is nothing more than a public relations act and may give some comfort to the companies/persons doing the act, but doesn't change much.
Total narcissism is alive and well.
We all share your concern for yourself and your needs.
Voluntarily giving money to charity is different than an altruist world view in which individuals are viewed as sacrificial animals for the collective "good" (of course, what is "good" is decided by whatever mob happens to have the most guns at the time). If you want to privately and voluntarily give money to charity, fine, but do not dare take the moral high ground when you would use a gun to force others to do the same.
So that is the excuse to never do anything for the good of your fellow man? A soup kitchen and some comfort can do a world of good, you don't need 'trillions' for that. But hey, I'm from Europe so practically a communist.
It's hard to concretely say how MUCH a company should give. But in every business class I've seen/taken as well as the general consensus in American business is to give something back to the community (outside the normal taxes, hiring people, etc) in charitable gifts if the business is doing well. Similarly, American citizens give less during recessions (times are bad) vs. when times are good. You have to take care of yourself first and tend to give after that. Afterall, if you're not taken care of, you can't earn money to give to others in need.
I firmly believe that a company doing very well in profits should give to charity in a proportional way that feels "right" to the business. Is that 1% of profits? 5%? .01%? I don't know. I don't think Apple, for example, should give away 1% of $70billion (which would be $700million) per year. $700 million bucks given to charity, every year, is extremely high in my opinion as a raw dollar amount. Would I reject it if I were the receiver (say a Cancer research hospital)? Of course not.
I am extremely happy that the Mr. Steve "Grinch" Jobs days are over in regards to Charity. $25million (that is of course a high percentage coming from the employees) is a fantastic first start for 2 months of activation. My guess is that is higher than the RED program's total Apple contributions.
I agree the being forced to accept someone's world view is deplorable (my complaint about religious zealots), I was not suggesting putting a (metaphorical) gun to anyone's head.
Perhaps I was not clear - I was expressing one person's opinion that a world view centered solely around one's own needs, without any concern for others, is sad.
True, to a point...you can't just throw money to fix a problem...there is the people aspect, of course.
But a Mr. Bill Gates has been doing EXTREMELY well in philanthropy over the past 18 years and has not donated $70bill...or even $35billion. Go read what his organization has accomplished.
Most companies around the globe are not giving money to solve global issues...most are for very worthy causes such as new hospital wings, education for a segment of society, disease-research centers, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_&_Melinda_Gates_Foundation
You should go back and read the OP. Apple, under Jobs gave $50 million to Stamford. Cook's matching employee donations has raised $2.6 million. Product RED has raised over $180 million from all its partners. They do not break out individual companies.
According to the OP, Cook said that Apple has contributed over $50 million to (PRODUCT) RED.
So, $100 million with Jobs as CEO. But that doesn't count. For some reason.
I did read it...could have sworn it said $25million in 2 months of activation...my bad.
Product RED is full of partners, yes...that's why I said Apple's contributions. As far as I am aware, Apple only gives if you buy the red iPod. I've never even seen the red iPod...anywhere...in all my travels. That makes me suggest very, very few people bought it. Heck, maybe they just didn't like the color and weren't aware of the foundation.
We'll agree to disagree about our disparate interpretations of her work.
But this is a discussion for PRSI.
BTW: I can only speak for myself, as I do not know your background re: her (so called) philosophy. I had the misfortune of doing some careful study of her work. Let's say I was "informed" at one point, many years ago. But maybe you are right - I don't claim to be "informed" now - if anything has changed.
Ok then lets look at the facts.
Fact one Steve Jobs promised to bring back Corporate Philanthropy when Apple was doing better. A promise he failed to deliver on. Apple has been doing great since before 2005. Not just better but great.
fact 2. This only started to change after SJ was no longer CEO at all and had been taking medical leave for some time.
Steve Jobs never delivered on his promise. That is fact. He was not there when things were finally kept and based on the fact Apple be doing great for some time and only change after he was gone is a pretty strong indicator that it would never of changed if he was still alive.
Yet it was Apple, under Jobs, that initiated Product RED and the Stamford gift.