0.4%. Thats what 100 million represents with 40 BILLION of profit
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 and Apple Employees Donated $100 Million to Various Charitable Causes in 2019
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Good for Apple. 👍👍
In a news story about an Apple employee who has started a barbershop for at-risk youth, Apple today said that between its own donations and employee donations, it donated more than $100 million to charitable causes in 2019.
Apple says that 21,000 Apple employees donated their time and donated $42 million to causes they care about. Combined with Apple's 1-for-1 donation match and $25 match per volunteer hour, the total amount donated climbed to over $100 million.
Apple's vice president of Environment, Policy, and Social Initiatives Lisa Jackson said the company has a mission to "change the world for the better, and give back to the communities in which we live and work."Much of Apple's story focuses on Jaz Limos, an Apple Park Visitor Center manager in Cupertino who launched Saints of Steel, a nonprofit pop-up barber shop for at-risk youth and people looking for employment and housing.
Saints of Steel was largely funded by Apple. 80 percent of the donations for the first year came from Benevity, a corporate giving program used by Apple, and 74 percent of that donation was made by Apple.More info on Saints of Steel and Apple's donations can be found in the full Apple Newsroom article on the topic.
Article Link: Apple and Apple Employees Donated $100 Million to Various Charitable Causes in 2019
Now Macrumors, please compare domations from competitors like samsung, google, etc. They would be interesting articles and would generate tons of feedbacks.
And? That profit belongs to the shareholders. It's a lot more than $40B, btw. There is no obligation to donate $1. Again, you don't get it.
[automerge]1579281703[/automerge]
They make a lot more than $40B...but I'm failing to see how that negates $100M they did donate when the grand total required was $0.
Profit is owned by the shareholders. This isn't a charitable cause.
It's not flawed logic or nonsense, and I do, indeed, "get it." Just because you attempted to preemptively suppress opposing points of view, they are valid, nonetheless.
Yes, the recipients of the donations benefit either way. However, if Apple had quietly made donations with the pure motive of benefitting others, this discussion wouldn't be happening. The fact that they made a public announcement, drawing attention to the donations made by Apple and their employees, proves that this is more a marketing stunt than a pure donation. In light of that fact, their contribution should have been more in line with other companies' giving. There are many companies that earn far less than Apple, yet they give much more.
You may claim that Apple isn't obligated to give anything, but there is such a thing as social responsibility. If they're attempting to tell the world, "Look how charitable we are!", they should contribute something meaningful and in line with their ability to give. Apple gave more to Tim Cook last year than they gave to charity. Again, there's nothing wrong with Tim earning a good income, but if Apple wants bragging rights about their giving, they should give something more appropriate, considering their income and assets. It's one thing for someone who earns $55,000 per year to make a $100 donation. It's something else to make a public announcement about their paltry $100 donation, as if it's a big deal.
I heard somebody on the biz news break it down to it is similar to a person with $50,000 donating $20. You know what? That's a perfectly acceptable donation. He basically donated proportionately what many people would have done.
No, you deciding what to do with shareholder money is not valid. Apple is neither required nor would shareholders approve of indiscriminate charity donations.
In the end, it’s a huge positive to contribute $100M to good causes, regardless of percentage of profits.
Apple can make a huge difference because their profit is so immense. The percentage is utterly irrelevant.
Your view is tired and completely flawed.
Who said anything about "indiscriminate" donations? Many companies have a shareholder-approved policy of charitable giving, including guidelines for amounts or percentage of revenues or profits to be allocated. No one is suggesting that someone in Apple make a unilateral and unplanned contribution.
You can keep suggesting that views or opinions that differ from your own are "flawed" or "tired" or whatever, but that only demonstrates that you're afraid of considering other points of view. It's not helping your argument.
According to those numbers, your math is off. It would be like someone with $50,000 donating 29¢.
I haven't seen anyone claim that anyone should donate all their money, or that anyone should donate at all. The only argument here is Apple blowing their own trumpet about donations that are paltry, compared to their capabilities.
Okay, it’s a marketing stunt.
However Apple and their employees are required to give $0. The fact that $100M was donated is is a worthwhile item and in fact any corporation who gave should be able send out a press release without the negativity exemplified by what’s in this thread.
My expectation is Apple gave $100M, they were required to give $0. Market stunt or not. Good job Apple.
There is no argument. Apple donating anything is a net positive.
You scolded Apple for only donating 1% of income, I didn't realize donations had to have a certain impact on your business/life to count now. Donating ANY amount is a positive, I certainly won't complain if Joe down the road "only" gives $100 to charity. The article sounds less Apple shouting "look how much we donated" and more "we are proud of our charitable employees".
He didn't argue that. Why are you trying to dunk on a point someone didn't make? KLANG!
Correct not in the top 10 of people who donated because they are a for profit corporation who is not in the philanthropy business. Now if one wants to but pick on Steve Jobs or Tim Cook then have at it.
No, your math is off, it’s $19.22.
Its not particularly relevant though. I can guarantee you that none of the organizations Apple and their employees donated to complained that they should be given more.
No charity looks a gift horse in the mouth, though I can understand why some here on MR forums are so concerned, and feel compelled to do so on their behalf.
The best advice I could give would be to make a shareholder proposal at the yearly shareholders meeting, encouraging the board of directors to set a higher corporate charitable contribution amount. I’m not sure how that works though.
Last edited:
"And far more than Amazon's Bezos donation of $690,000 to the devastating Australian wildfires fund....
Jeff Bezos net worth is around $117 billion."
$690,000 / $117,000,000,000 = 0.00000589743590 * $50,000 = $0.294872
I’d love to know how much of that, went to the Australian Fires? I know Apple donated SOME, but how much is it? 
Ah ok gotcha, my mistake. I read your post when Baymowe quoted you in his post #112 and didn’t realize you had replied to multiple posts, and that there was a subject change to Bezos.
But in that case the math is still wrong, and Bezos’ wealth is especially irrelevant, since he donated nothing.
Based on their $233 billion 2018 revenue, Amazon (the corporation) donated less than 15¢ relative to a $50k salary.
Part of the blowback I think was them seeming to try to flex a $690,000 donation into a better looking million dollar donation by donating in Australian dollars, even though they’re a US corporation. If they were donating to Hong Kong, would it have been $1,000,000 Hong Kong dollars? That’s like $125,000 USD.
But whatever, it’s $690,000 more than they had, and I’m sure they can use it. Maybe Bezos actually made a personal donation, who knows 🤷♂️
OP did actually say that it had to be anonymous to be a true donation; I beg to differ. An anonymous donation has to be anonymous. Making a donation in one’s own name (or that of another) actually is a true donation, despite OP’s assertion otherwise.
OP further argued that it is marketing. Not really; rather PR or branding, but I don’t buy the premise in the first place. So imo it’s none of those. OP even went so far as to call Apple’s behavior shameless. That’s especially offensive to me, since there’s nothing unacceptable, or to be ashamed of, in acknowledging employee donations (or even in Apple announcing its own donations).
Giving promotes giving. Apple posted a press release on their website. I really don’t understand why so many have a problem with this but here we are, 122 posts in.
Whatever. Apple has a thick skin, and I’m pretty sure they’ll continue their charitable contributions even if a couple dozen posters on MR forums are upset lol.
Last edited: