Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Feb 2, 2012, 03:53 PM   #51
BaldiMac
macrumors 604
 
BaldiMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodimus Prime View Post
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.
Not a fact. PRODUCT (RED) was implemented with Jobs as CEO. The donation to Stanford Hospitals was with Jobs as CEO. Both are examples of corporate philanthropy. Both happened when Apple was doing better.

Just because you think that they should have happened sooner or involved more money doesn't make the original statement a lie.

Quote:
fact 2. This only started to change after SJ was no longer CEO at all and had been taking medical leave for some time.
Again, not true. See above.

The only thing that has changed since Cook became CEO is a corporate matching program totaling $2.6 million to date. And they started to talk about corporate philanthropy more. (Compared to the $100 million with Jobs as CEO.)
BaldiMac is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 2, 2012, 03:58 PM   #52
Rodimus Prime
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaldiMac View Post
The only thing that has changed since Cook became CEO is a corporate matching program totaling $2.6 million to date. And they started to talk about corporate philanthropy more. (Compared to the $100 million with Jobs as CEO.)
It is kind of sad that is all Apple gave away during their time as SJ tenure. It is a joke. That is less than what MS donated in 2007.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/compan...-graphic_N.htm

Sorry but Apple should be rimmed for how little they donate. Big time for the amount of profit they make.
Rodimus Prime is offline   -3 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 2, 2012, 04:03 PM   #53
rdowns
macrumors Penryn
 
rdowns's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodimus Prime View Post
Sorry but Apple should be rimmed for how little they donate. Big time for the amount of profit they make.
You can rim them, mkay.

That's fine but stop posting with BS 'facts'.
__________________
If your religion is worth killing for, please start with yourself.
rdowns is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 2, 2012, 04:03 PM   #54
BaldiMac
macrumors 604
 
BaldiMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodimus Prime View Post
It is kind of sad that is all Apple gave away during their time as SJ tenure. It is a joke. That is less than what MS donated in 2007.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/compan...-graphic_N.htm

Sorry but Apple should be rimmed for how little they donate. Big time for the amount of profit they make.
That's your opinion. Lots of validity to it. Too bad you had to resort to lies and misinformation to support it.
BaldiMac is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 2, 2012, 04:15 PM   #55
vvswarup
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Apple is not a charity. They're a for-profit corporation. As I see it, they are under no obligation whatsoever to give money to charity.
vvswarup is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 2, 2012, 04:56 PM   #56
chrimu
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodimus Prime View Post
Yeah that is because Jobs was a greedy person and not someone to look up to as a person. Great marketer and visionary but a ... blabla
sorry. It is not a company's task to be charitable. They have to create great products, care for their customers and their workers (no, not even the workers of their contractors). If you want to give your money to charity, it is up to you. But you have no right to demand that of other people. Charity means, you give something you own without expecting anything in return. Not even respect.
chrimu is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 2, 2012, 05:03 PM   #57
Ugg
macrumors 68000
 
Ugg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Penryn
Send a message via AIM to Ugg
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Q View Post
Keep in mind that the state of California, where Apple resides, is using legislation to promote benefit corporations, which need not prioritize shareholder financial interests over the interests of workers, communities, and the environment. A number of states have enacted such laws.
Thanks for posting this. I didn't know about it at all and it sounds like a great idea. Hopefully more states will join this movement.
__________________
Check out <Peter's family tree!
Ugg is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 2, 2012, 05:04 PM   #58
the8thark
macrumors 68040
 
the8thark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaibelf View Post
Liar. Project red was in place LONG before Steve even got sick. Unlike Meg Whitman and other such trash, Steve didn't feel the need to have his name on buildings and plaques to say "Look at how great I am to the serfs!". Therefore, you know absolutly NOTHING about what he gave and where.
Quoted for truth.

Anonymous donations are just that. No one knows what you donate apart from yourself. I'm sure Jobs donated enough but all anonymously.
the8thark is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 2, 2012, 05:20 PM   #59
GoodWatch
macrumors 6502a
 
GoodWatch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrimu View Post
sorry. It is not a company's task to be charitable. They have to create great products, care for their customers and their workers (no, not even the workers of their contractors). If you want to give your money to charity, it is up to you. But you have no right to demand that of other people. Charity means, you give something you own without expecting anything in return. Not even respect.
I see. If I understand it correctly, your stance is that this goes for ANY company. Your not talking about Apple. So if say, Microsoft was accused of being greedy and selfish on the charity front you would defend them with equal vigour? That is laudable!
__________________
Too late, my time has come
Sends shivers down my spine
Body's aching all the time
Goodbye everybody - I've got to go
GoodWatch is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 2, 2012, 05:50 PM   #60
Bubba Satori
macrumors 68040
 
Bubba Satori's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: B'ham
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecartoonguy View Post
Now open the gates to allow the flood of those who will say this is not enough
Hair trigger preemptive gunslinger is blazing fast.
Leg strap or no leg strap?

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by vvswarup View Post
Apple is not a charity. They're a for-profit corporation. As I see it, they are under no obligation whatsoever to give money to charity.
A legal obligation and a moral obligation are two very different things.
Most people know that.
Bubba Satori is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 2, 2012, 07:06 PM   #61
realist101
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Red ain't quite so green

It looks like Apple doesn't allow any of it's resellers (Best Buy, Amazon, etc) to carry the RED products, so it seems that the money they've donated to RED is in a way coming out its resellers pockets rather than Apple's pockets. Some customer's accuse the resellers of being un-generous because they don't sell RED products, but nearly all would carry them if they could. So the resellers lose the sale AND lose the customer's goodwill.
realist101 is offline   -1 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 2, 2012, 07:17 PM   #62
Ugg
macrumors 68000
 
Ugg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Penryn
Send a message via AIM to Ugg
Quote:
Originally Posted by vvswarup View Post
Apple is not a charity. They're a for-profit corporation. As I see it, they are under no obligation whatsoever to give money to charity.
Can you tell me how many USA based companies do not give to charity? I'm sure that it would be a hard number to find because they don't want to come off as Scrooges.

The stock market is little more than legalized gambling and it has been made worse by Credit Default Swaps and other derivatives. I'm not sure why gamblers, oops, I meant 'investors' feel they are entitled to everything a company earns.
__________________
Check out <Peter's family tree!
Ugg is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 2, 2012, 07:34 PM   #63
linuxcooldude
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodimus Prime View Post
It is kind of sad that is all Apple gave away during their time as SJ tenure. It is a joke. That is less than what MS donated in 2007.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/compan...-graphic_N.htm

Sorry but Apple should be rimmed for how little they donate. Big time for the amount of profit they make.
You could not win on the Steve Jobs didn't donate scheme, so now your changing your plan of attack with he did not donate enough. Really getting tired of this drivel.
__________________
Techshow:http://www.justin.tv/linuxcooldude
linuxcooldude is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 2, 2012, 08:13 PM   #64
DisMyMac
macrumors 65816
 
DisMyMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
It's like managers asking if you want to buy their daughter's girl scout cookies. It's wrong, lame, inappropriate, should be a crime.
DisMyMac is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 2, 2012, 08:19 PM   #65
kalsta
macrumors 65816
 
kalsta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Australia
Quote:
Originally Posted by *LTD* View Post
For some reason I get bad vibes about this.
The 'reason' seems to be clear from your other comments. You appear to have a greater personal interest (and emotional investment) in the corporate success of Apple than in their potential to greatly enhance (even save) the lives of severely disadvantaged people.

Quote:
I doubt this sort of thing would have happened under Jobs, but it's not Jobs' Apple anymore, and this might be good for the company going forward now that their massive cash stash is such a matter of public discussion.

Is there media/consumer pressure for Apple to *be* more charitable? If so, is Apple wise to bow to it?
See, you're only looking at this from a marketing perspective! What about being charitable because you actually care?

Quote:
Originally Posted by *LTD* View Post
THAT is the concern here. Focus. Priorities.
It's quite ridiculous to suggest that a huge corporate entity like Apple can't continue to focus on creating great products and still be charitable with some of its profits. Any entity, from large corporations down to the individual, that derives an income has to determine what to do with the money. A company can pay shareholders dividends; it can increase executive salaries; it can buy up smaller companies; it can amass a huge stockpile of cash; and it can give to charity. Apple is not short on resources, and has the power to make a positive contribution to the world, in addition to the difference it already makes through consumer technology.

Quote:
Originally Posted by *LTD* View Post
So? A lovely disposition and warm generosity didn't create the iPad. Nor did it create billions in cash on hand. Nor did it bring Apple out from the shadows and into the position of the driving force in consumer tech today.

Frankly, I don't give a sweet **** what sort of person Jobs was. He had a JOB to do: great products.
Steve Wozniak seems to believe that Jobs could have achieved the same success he did, without hurting so many people in the process. Is this true? Who of us can really know. But let's not live in the past… Steve has been and gone. He made some missteps along the way (that can't be denied), but he has left Apple now in a position of great power and influence, and with that, many of us believe, comes great responsibility.

Quote:
From the average consumer's perspective, as long as he didn't cause any harm beyond what usually occurs in corporate cutthroat culture, he can roll around on the ground and do somersaults for all I care. The PRODUCT is what counts. He can save the warm fuzzes for his wife and kids or whatever. And by that point it's none of my business anyway.

No one really cared. Consumers especially didn't. We were too busy being interested in Apple'a main focus: products.
So you're a 'consumer' first, and a human being second? Seriously dude, that's such a screwed way of thinking I don't know where to start. And referring to philanthropy as 'the warm fuzzes' is an insult to all the people who are working their ass off (equally as hard as Steve did) in areas of human need around the world.

Quote:
Frankly, I'd be a little more put at ease is if this what it usually is - a PR move - rather than something that will cut into other priorities.

It's nice to see, but it doesn't get quality product into our hands any faster.
I'll let that comment speak for itself.
kalsta is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 2, 2012, 08:34 PM   #66
strabes
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: May 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shrink View Post
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.
I agree, but my point was that free market capitalism causes entrepreneurs, in seeking a profit for themselves, to benefit others, because they must convince people to voluntarily engage in trade with them.
strabes is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 3, 2012, 01:10 AM   #67
vvswarup
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by kalsta View Post
The 'reason' seems to be clear from your other comments. You appear to have a greater personal interest (and emotional investment) in the corporate success of Apple than in their potential to greatly enhance (even save) the lives of severely disadvantaged people.



See, you're only looking at this from a marketing perspective! What about being charitable because you actually care?



It's quite ridiculous to suggest that a huge corporate entity like Apple can't continue to focus on creating great products and still be charitable with some of its profits. Any entity, from large corporations down to the individual, that derives an income has to determine what to do with the money. A company can pay shareholders dividends; it can increase executive salaries; it can buy up smaller companies; it can amass a huge stockpile of cash; and it can give to charity. Apple is not short on resources, and has the power to make a positive contribution to the world, in addition to the difference it already makes through consumer technology.



Steve Wozniak seems to believe that Jobs could have achieved the same success he did, without hurting so many people in the process. Is this true? Who of us can really know. But let's not live in the past… Steve has been and gone. He made some missteps along the way (that can't be denied), but he has left Apple now in a position of great power and influence, and with that, many of us believe, comes great responsibility.



So you're a 'consumer' first, and a human being second? Seriously dude, that's such a screwed way of thinking I don't know where to start. And referring to philanthropy as 'the warm fuzzes' is an insult to all the people who are working their ass off (equally as hard as Steve did) in areas of human need around the world.



I'll let that comment speak for itself.
You say Apple is in a position of power and influence, which comes with great responsibility. The question is who Apple is responsible TO. Apple is responsible to its shareholders, simple as that. They have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ugg View Post
Can you tell me how many USA based companies do not give to charity? I'm sure that it would be a hard number to find because they don't want to come off as Scrooges.

The stock market is little more than legalized gambling and it has been made worse by Credit Default Swaps and other derivatives. I'm not sure why gamblers, oops, I meant 'investors' feel they are entitled to everything a company earns.
The basic rule of a public corporation, my friend. Every public corporation has a fiduciary duty to its shareholders. The investors are the ones who provide capital to companies, so they're entitled to expect the corporation that they give capital to to make decisions with their benefit in mind.

You call investors entitled, you should listen to yourself. Steve Jobs earned every penny of his money. Apple earned their profits, fair and square. Sure, it's good if companies give money to charity but just because they choose not to doesn't make them greedy.
vvswarup is offline   -1 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 3, 2012, 01:59 AM   #68
Aussieiphone
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Anyone up for a French (style) Revolution? (I'll call and see if the guillotine is available)

Until the rich (who earn off the backs of the poor) are taxed appropriately, this civilized society will continue to crumble and soon enough will resemble a current bribe-ridden, poverty-stricken, filth-ridden, lawless 3rd world country.
Aussieiphone is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 3, 2012, 03:14 AM   #69
sdsvtdriver
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: San Diego
Quote:
Originally Posted by vvswarup View Post
You say Apple is in a position of power and influence, which comes with great responsibility. The question is who Apple is responsible TO. Apple is responsible to its shareholders, simple as that. They have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders.

----------



The basic rule of a public corporation, my friend. Every public corporation has a fiduciary duty to its shareholders. The investors are the ones who provide capital to companies, so they're entitled to expect the corporation that they give capital to to make decisions with their benefit in mind.

You call investors entitled, you should listen to yourself. Steve Jobs earned every penny of his money. Apple earned their profits, fair and square. Sure, it's good if companies give money to charity but just because they choose not to doesn't make them greedy.
Interesting how people are down voting you for speaking the truth because it is against their personal opinion.
sdsvtdriver is offline   -2 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 3, 2012, 06:52 AM   #70
iBug2
macrumors 68040
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodWatch View Post
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 not an excuse no. I'm not saying don't do it, I'm saying don't kid yourself that you are making a significant change with it.

I bet that most of the people blaming Apple on this board have not donated their whole lives. Apple has millions of customers, if all of them donated couple hundred bucks to charity, it'd actually be hundred times more than Apple as a company could donate. So people here are as responsible as much as Apple is, and all the blames flying around are nothing more than a projection of their own guilt that they haven't donated.
__________________
MP Hex D700 32GB-1TB, rMBP 2.7 15" 16GB, ATD, iPhone 4S, iPad Air
iBug2 is offline   -1 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 3, 2012, 07:04 AM   #71
kalsta
macrumors 65816
 
kalsta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Australia
Quote:
Originally Posted by vvswarup View Post
You say Apple is in a position of power and influence, which comes with great responsibility. The question is who Apple is responsible TO. Apple is responsible to its shareholders, simple as that. They have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders.
It's that simple huh? Let me ask you this… Who are you responsible to? Just to yourself? No. Each and every one of us lives within a society, and many of our actions affect other people. Unless we're complete anarchists, we have many responsibilities within that society and we are expected to measure our actions by how they might affect the other people around us. In ancient times, our society might not have reached beyond your own family tribe, but today we are a global society in many ways.

How does this relate to Apple? Apple is not a single person, but as a corporate entity run by people, and operating within the same society, it has many responsibilities. What Apple does potentially affects a lot of people, not just shareholders—staff, suppliers, factory workers, consumers, and so on.

Okay, but does Apple have a duty to give charitably? Does anyone have a duty to give charitably? Difficult question. What is duty based on? The law? What is the law based on? Ethics? What is an ethical response to the horrendous imbalance in our world when it comes to such essentials as food, clean water, housing, disease control, and so on?
kalsta is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 3, 2012, 07:23 AM   #72
Abazigal
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Singapore
Quote:
Originally Posted by smali View Post
Maybe if ultra rich had given more funding to fight things like Cancer, Mr Jobs might still be here today.

Of course LTD prefers he be dead than take any attention away from producing consumer toys for people like himself.
Heh, with all the money donated to cancer research, you would think they had found a cure by now. Maybe SJ felt it was just pouring good money down a bottomless pit.

Besides, I thought the whole of point of charity is that it is supposed to be wholly voluntary. In that it is good and praiseworthy if someone donates to a worthy cause, but if he opts not to, there shouldn't be any negative backlash when he doesn't. Since when did moral obligation become a weapon to force/blackmail people into donating, else they risk being vilified by the masses?

I have had my share of rough times growing up, and even though I knew there were people much better off than me, I never for a moment felt like I was owed a living by others or that it was only right that they share some of their wealth with me. I am not rich by any means (currently a teacher drawing a modest salary). I see billionaires being mentioned in the news everyday. However, I am content with my lot. Maybe I am just simple-minded, but I just feel that is really all that matters in the end.
Abazigal is online now   -1 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 3, 2012, 07:44 AM   #73
kalsta
macrumors 65816
 
kalsta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Australia
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abazigal View Post
Besides, I thought the whole of point of charity is that it is supposed to be wholly voluntary. In that it is good and praiseworthy if someone donates to a worthy cause, but if he opts not to, there shouldn't be any negative backlash when he doesn't. Since when did moral obligation become a weapon to force/blackmail people into donating, else they risk being vilified by the masses?
That's a good point. I would like to think that Apple voluntarily opts to support charitable causes because it's the right thing to do, not because they're trying to protect their image.

I don't think I would support a very public campaign to vilify any company that doesn't give to charity. Then again, I would support a boycott of a company which exploited people for commercial gain. But is this distinction always black and white? Is not doing good when you have the power to do it, different to doing evil? It's not as simple a question as it seems. Imagine someone came to your door who was starving to death and asked for food, but you, even though you had more than enough to spare, said no. Have you simply withheld charity that was within your power to give voluntarily, or have you done evil?
kalsta is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 3, 2012, 09:33 AM   #74
alephnull12
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Who cares what they donate?

If you're a customer and think they should donate, whenever you buy something from them, set aside an extra ten bucks and donate it yourself.

Problem solved.
alephnull12 is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 3, 2012, 09:38 AM   #75
AustinIllini
macrumors Demi-God
 
AustinIllini's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Austin, TX
Quote:
Originally Posted by alephnull12 View Post
Who cares what they donate?

If you're a customer and think they should donate, whenever you buy something from them, set aside an extra ten bucks and donate it yourself.

Problem solved.
We can't have that! If Apple were to raise each product price by $10, someone wouldn't like it, likely someone on this board.
__________________
Victory ILLINOIS Varsity!
Early 2011 13" MBP iPad Mini Retina 32 GB Google Nexus 5
AustinIllini is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Former iOS Chief Scott Forstall Surfaces After Quiet Year of Traveling and Philanthropy MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 263 Jun 29, 2014 11:02 AM
Apple Store Opening - Guildford Town Centre Surrey, BC - 28.09.13 psll Apple, Industry and Internet Discussion 0 Sep 25, 2013 10:53 AM
Tim Cook Congratulates Apple Employees on Record Quarter, Announces Town Hall Meeting Today MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 165 Jan 25, 2013 11:23 AM
For those that think Apple didn't do a good job of meeting demand Geckotek iPhone 5 Sep 23, 2012 12:18 AM
Apple Retail Stores Meeting? Bradllez MacBook Pro 5 Jun 17, 2012 05:31 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:51 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC