Apple's Town Hall Meeting Emphasized Corporate Philanthropy

[BaldiMac]

Originally Posted by Rodimus Prime

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.

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.)

[Rodimus Prime]

Originally Posted by BaldiMac

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.

[rdowns]

Originally Posted by Rodimus Prime

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'.

[BaldiMac]

Originally Posted by Rodimus Prime

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.

[vvswarup]

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.

[chrimu]

Originally Posted by Rodimus Prime

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.

[Ugg]

Originally Posted by Doctor Q

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.

[the8thark]

Originally Posted by Kaibelf

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.

[GoodWatch]

Originally Posted by chrimu

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!

[Bubba Satori]

Originally Posted by thecartoonguy

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?

----------

Originally Posted by vvswarup

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.

[realist101]

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.

[Ugg]

Originally Posted by vvswarup

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.

[linuxcooldude]

Originally Posted by Rodimus Prime

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.

[DisMyMac]

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.

[kalsta]

Originally Posted by *LTD*

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.

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?

Originally Posted by *LTD*

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.

Originally Posted by *LTD*

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.

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.

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.

[strabes]

Originally Posted by Shrink

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.

[vvswarup]

Originally Posted by kalsta

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.

----------

Originally Posted by Ugg

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.

[Aussieiphone]

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.

[sdsvtdriver]

Originally Posted by vvswarup

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.

[iBug2]

Originally Posted by GoodWatch

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.

[kalsta]

Originally Posted by vvswarup

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?

[Abazigal]

Originally Posted by smali

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.

[kalsta]

Originally Posted by Abazigal

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?

[alephnull12]

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.

[AustinIllini]

Originally Posted by alephnull12

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.