I know I will get smacked by the mods for this BUT how bloody d--b are you?
This is money to charity from products that are essentially painted red. This interferes with innovation???
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 (Product) RED Charity Contributions Reach $70 Million
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I know I will get smacked by the mods for this BUT how bloody d--b are you?
This is money to charity from products that are essentially painted red. This interferes with innovation???
Oh i get that. I'm not arguing against what you're saying.
Just trying to say from the Moral side of things, They could, and probably SHOULD all be doing more.
I know when I choose where my purchasing power goes, I tend to look more favourably on Companies that have strong ties to social programs and work.
I would rather help a company, or invest in a company that is willing to take a small blip to the bottom line, but assist communities and social problems, encourage social responsibility, and living wages for all employees, Than a company that puts its entire sole purpose to line a few executives pockets and buy them another multi million dollar yacht.
Too bad Jony Ive has poor taste.. The current 5c colors are horrible to say the least...
Steve had great taste...
this is one of the most ridiculously self centred, arrogant and braindead statements issued on Mac Rumours in one of the longest times.
I can get by the ignorant fanboys drooling over their Androids or iPhones.
But to say that a charitable donation for a really good cause is in anyway WORSE for the company, and society and should stop doing it so that they can "innovate more"...
nevermind the logical fallacyt that they're not mutually exclusive... you sir, should probably get away from your computer for a while./
As Bob Geldof found out the hard way, it's not about the amount of money you throw at complex political and social problems. It's more important to carefully manage how the money is used. I assume the reason Apple began working with the Product Red campaign was because of Steve Jobs' respect for Bono.
While any company (and individual) could always contribute more to charities, at least Apple is doing something and also publicizing the cause.
Agreed 100%. It needs to be given judiciously, but it does need to be given. And it is very good that they advert this: it sets a minimum standard. I just wish they would set it higher.
----------
I wonder what would happen if they really did this: what would that do for their public image and business? What would it do for their character and outlook? There is something inside us that turns when we give selflessly and it is a power that is not to be underestimated.
Does anybody really know how much money Apple or Steve Jobs donated to charity? Some people prefer to do it anonymously.
Unfortunately in this world, if you show a tendency for giving, you get bombarded with requests for money and things can get out of hand. You can't please everyone, so sometime its better to give the impression you're not going to try.
Unfortunately in this world, if you show a tendency for giving, you get bombarded with requests for money and things can get out of hand. You can't please everyone, so sometime its better to give the impression you're not going to try.
The impact would be minimal. Zuckerberg donated $1Bil in 2013, but FB's corporate image nor his personal image was changed much..
Cook donated $100 M in 2012 and he get gets called out for not being Steve on these very boards whenever a new rumor starts or there is some issues with Apple.
When rich people donate, people just think that since they are rich, they should and it doesn't really help their image in the longer term.
Last edited:
Agree with what you say. The amount of cash Apple has is truly embarrassing. To whom much is given, much is expected. At some point don't they ask, "what the heck do I need this for?" Reinvest it. Donate it. Please don't hoard it.
They are a publicly traded company, they just can't go around donating because they CAN. As for investing, they are spending more and more, their revenue just going up as well.
Sure, they could buy Whatsapp for 20 B and Oculus for 3B if they wanted to spend, but would that have been in their best interest?
Could they be doing more? Sure. But so can almost every other company and individual.
I would definitely buy a red anodized 5s. But I figure the closest we could get is the 5c.
I wish they would
I could go on for hours about how the current notion of "Corporate america" is destroying the very fabric of modern society
but then.. thats not for this topic
I hate to say this, but this is hardly anymore than PR.
70 Million in all those years for Apple is really nothing. In return they get a lot of Press for those things and it makes them seem very nice
70 Million in all those years for Apple is really nothing. In return they get a lot of Press for those things and it makes them seem very nice
Usually almost every company (and person) could be doing "more". I'm just saying they could be doing *a lot* more. I didn't know about Tim Cooke's $100 million donation in 2012. Thanks for the information as that is tremendously inspiring.
To respond to one of your other comments, yes, you're right that the impact to public image would be minimal. On the other hand, that is hardly the prime motivator and I probably should have left it out of my original comment, much less placed it at the top.
Thanks for the replies!
Anyone have a savings account? How would you feel if your bank promised you one rate of return, lets say 1% but at the end of the year you got 0.5%? You would feel cheated, no matter what the bank decided to use that money on. They broke their promise.
Think of for profit corporations as banks that promise people to do everything possible to give you greatest return on your investment (stocks), but then they turn around and take some of those returns and use it how they want (charity or not). They broke their promise.
On the flip side, if the company passes the returns to you as a shareholder and then allows you to decide where to donate that just gives more power to you. The only problem with that is we do not want to be generous. We want someone else to be generous. Like "apple".
Think of for profit corporations as banks that promise people to do everything possible to give you greatest return on your investment (stocks), but then they turn around and take some of those returns and use it how they want (charity or not). They broke their promise.
On the flip side, if the company passes the returns to you as a shareholder and then allows you to decide where to donate that just gives more power to you. The only problem with that is we do not want to be generous. We want someone else to be generous. Like "apple".
it's ok to dream big. I want a red ipad air, macbook air, iMac and mac pro too!
we were teased with the mac pro
The problem what usually comes with your argument (and all other variations of it) is that we are taking about the people that hold the power to "lead" or hold some amount of influence that is much greater than most other individuals' in the rest of society. Albeit in this situation the action of a certain corporation was laudable, complaints by the rest of us is the main way in which we can voice our desires in a way to actually make them into something of substance.
An an example, this is one of the most significant (if not the most) reason why the Firefox CEO was ousted. Although his personal beliefs does not (in my opinion) impair his skill from an objective sense, that he is a person of influence is why what happened to him happened. To bring that example back to this story, that is why it is perfectly legitimate for individuals to complain about this story, even if it is nothing but positive in your opinion.
Last edited: