Apple and Employees Give $2.6 Million to Charity Through Donation Matching Program

[ThanksSteve]

Nice jobs by the employees.

Can't give Apple a pat on the back for $1.3m. I'm sure they do more, but for this story...that's not even pennies for them.

 

[ken94538]

1.3Million compare to 13 Billion Apple 10 Executive get the bonus

1.3Million compare to 13 Billion Apple 10 Executive get the bonus

ridiculous. 99% >>>> 1% Apple top executive.

 

[toddybody]

Perhaps they should be focusing on their own business instead. A lot of these companies that are "far less financially successful" happen to specialize in waste, false starts, failed products, and asinine business decisions that are costing their employees jobs (RIM, HP, and more.)

I certainly hope that those who are making fools of themselves with lousy iPad competitors, for example, aren't throwing money away for charity. Consumers are being hoodwinked with the Playbooks, Slates, and Xooms of the market.

Now THAT is disgusting.

It's all about the product. It all comes down to that.

Sorry Dude, its more than just products. 21st Century companies need to provide more than just a product or service to be considered great in my book.

Theres some things that Apple is doing wonderfully, namely 1. environmental awareness and sensitivity, and 2. Customer experience (customer service, and an ecosystem that "just works".

They need to improve in regards to their philanthropic efforts and have no reason not to. Job's said they would revert back to major contributions once successful. Well, theyre there and nothing has changed.
I want more out of a company that just shiny things. If Im to invest in them personally, I really want a company that reflects my world views and charitable perspectives. Steve said they dont work for the shareholders, but that wonderful statement has become a lie. With one of the highest profit margins in their industry, lowest in class warrenties, rediculous BTO pricing methodologies, and barely any philanthropic footprint...Apple is far from perfect. Im not asking them to pull a Bill Gates, but I believe to whom much is given much is expected. Im hoping Cook realizes this and rocks the house. Anyways, stay classy LTD

 

[TheMacPotato]

another $94.7Million and they'll match Microsoft's employees donations for last year. http://www.onlinecardonation.org/charitynews/archives/147

 

[AppleScruff1]

another $94.7Million and they'll match Microsoft's employees donations for last year. http://www.onlinecardonation.org/charitynews/archives/147

Hang on, someone will most likely be along shortly to explain that Apple is doing it better......

 

[poppasketti]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A334 Safari/7534.48.3)

"For all of you saying Apple should donate more- What percent of YOUR net income do you donate to charity?"

About 1%. But I'm barely breaking even.

 

[sirozha]

Apple should give a few hundred million of their 80 billion.

That's not Apple's money to give away. It's shareholders' money, and I, as a shareholder, object to any charitable contributions given to any charity by Apple. Leave it up to individual shareholders to contribute or not to contribute.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

another $94.7Million and they'll match Microsoft's employees donations for last year. http://www.onlinecardonation.org/charitynews/archives/147

Simple fact of truth to the matter Apple is a piss poor corporate citizen. They gone from god awful in that department to very piss poor. An improvement but a very long way to go to get to just ok.

 

[AppleScruff1]

That's not Apple's money to give away. It's shareholder's money, and I, as a shareholder, object to any charitable contributions. Leave it to the shareholders to contribute or not to contribute.

Did you object to the million shares of stock being given to Tim Cook or the other million shares divided up amongst the other key execs? Or are you generous with your money that way?

 

[kjs862]

really glad to hear this! go apple!

 

[TheMacPotato]

That's not Apple's money to give away. It's shareholders' money, and I, as a shareholder, object to any charitable contributions given to any charity by Apple. Leave it up to individual shareholders to contribute or not to contribute.

Wow are you serious? Do you have any morals? I wouldn't want to be a shareholder in a company that DIDN'T give any money to charity.

 

[samcraig]

1.3Million compare to 13 Billion Apple 10 Executive get the bonus

ridiculous. 99% >>>> 1% Apple top executive.

Well - to be fair (while I agree with your concept) - we have no idea what the 10 Executives will be doing with the money they wiil (eventually) get. It's very possible that those 10 execs are very philanthropic.

 

[CrackedButter]

Post-Steve Jobs Apple is more generous!

You can tell now who has read Job's biography and who hasn't.

I was reminded through reading that book, that Apple (through Jobs) gave away tons of computing material to the education markets. It's not always about money you know and Jobs wasn't a complete heartless bastard either. Plus there was Product Red.

I never give money to charities either, I only give them items to sell.

Now sure with $80 Billion, Apple *could* part ways with some of it. It does sound so simple on the face of it. I would like to think they could part ways with a few hundred million or just a Billion but I won't demonise them if they don't. Last I heard, freedom of choice still exists in the US, if they choose not too then that's what they choose. Should public opinion over rule that?

This is capitalism. You should look towards your government for what you're asking of Apple.

 

[samcraig]

You can tell now who has read Job's biography and who hasn't.

I was reminded through reading that book, that Apple (through Jobs) gave away tons of computing material to the education markets. It's not always about money you know and Jobs wasn't a complete heartless bastard either. Plus there was Product Red.

I never give money to charities either, I only give them items to sell.

Now sure with $80 Billion, Apple *could* part ways with some of it. It does sound so simple on the face of it. I would like to think they could part ways with a few hundred million or just a Billion but I won't demonise them if they don't. Last I heard, freedom of choice still exists in the US, if they choose not too then that's what they choose. Should public opinion over rule that?

This is capitalism. You should look towards your government for what you're asking of Apple.

Well to further your well written post, I will say one other way you can "take action" is to simply not purchase Apple products if you don't agree with their politics. I'm not saying people should stop buying Apple or that if you buy that means your complicit. I'm merely saying one way to be heard as a consumer is to vote with your wallet.

 

[diazj3]

When a company literally has tens of billions of dollars of cash and cash equivalents available they can be pretty damn generous without risking their expansion plan.

Big Apple fan but their philanthropy is a joke.

Well... they do need all that cash (and maybe more) to accomplish Job's last dying wish...

"I will spend my last dying breath if I need to, and I will spend every penny of Apple's $40 billion in the bank, to right this wrong," Jobs said. "I'm going to destroy Android, because it's a stolen product. I'm willing to go thermonuclear war on this."​

cheers!

 

[gkpm]

I agree that Apple should be more charitable when charity CEOs don't earn > $100K/year salaries. There are some even some making over $1 million!

If it's a charity they run I'm sure they could easily survive on $50K plus the feeling of doing done good. Surely that's the essence of a charity?

Have a read of the Charity report at: http://www.charitynavigator.org/__asset__/studies/2010_CEO_Compensation_Study_Revised_Final.pdf

It's quite shocking to read.

So until the whole charity system gets rid of the money suckers I don't see the point of contributing at all. Better save the money from those contributions to pay for a trip and do the charity yourself in one of those countries that need help.

If you teach 10 people some useful life skill that's already better than contributing $100,000 - 90% of which would end up on some CEO's (or relative) pocket. If you don't want to travel write a book and give it away.

ps - before you ask, yes I teach at a local adult learning centre for free. some students have gone to get decent jobs from it.

 

[DESNOS]

Honestly, if someone knocked on my door and told me to hand over my money, I'd probably call the cops... Really, this is Apple's and their shareholder's decision, not ours. We all aught to focus on improving ourselves rather than forcing our own agendas down the throats of others. Do you donate to charity? If so, then great! Apple earned every cent of their stockpile and as such should be allowed to do what they want with it. Charity is (almost) always a good thing, but property rights are even better.

 

[thirteen1031]

Apples and Oranges on the Occupy Reference

It's always "Occupy MacRumors" at the very mention of free market capitalism.

Hmm. Someone doesn't quite understand what the Occupy movement is all about ...and, hence, is comparing Apples and Oranges (no pun intended).

The Occupy movement isn't waving signs saying, "Give us charity!" or even, "You're rich, share the wealth" or "You're rich, be more charitable." They're waving signs saying, "Give us jobs" (meaning they're angry that American companies are outsourcing the jobs) and "Pay your taxes" (Meaning that such companies aren't paying any--and I don't mean not paying their fair share--I mean, not paying ANY!). If Apple has created jobs and paid taxes, then there is no "Occupy" going on here.

Let me just repeat that to make sure you understand. No one in the "Occupy" movement cares whether the 1% give to charities or not, nor even what they do with their profits. They care that the 1% pay their taxes and create jobs rather than bilking customers, being bailed out by tax payers, and taking tax breaks on the promise that they'll create jobs--then reneging on that promise.

That's your education on the topic--so you won't look stupid again by not understanding what your'e referring to--please remember if you feel inclined to make another "Occupy" reference. It's not about hating people or companies that are wealthy, it's not about philanthropy or the lack of philanthropy...it's about who is and is not paying their fair share into our infrastructure.

 

[BaldiMac]

Minus the fact it was a promised that he would bring it back when apple was doing better. Apple has been doing great for at least the past 5 years.

It was brought back when Apple is doing better. The promise was kept, just not in the timeframe that you, personally, expected. And, again, your failure to account for the reason why in making a moral judgement is intellectually dishonest.

Safe to assume he never planned on keeping the promise.

And, once again, you just assume bad intentions to prove bad intentions.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

I agree that Apple should be more charitable when charity CEOs don't earn > $100K/year salaries. There are some even some making over $1 million!

If it's a charity they run I'm sure they could easily survive on $50K plus the feeling of doing done good. Surely that's the essence of a charity?

Have a read of the Charity report at: http://www.charitynavigator.org/__asset__/studies/2010_CEO_Compensation_Study_Revised_Final.pdf

It's quite shocking to read.

So until the whole charity system gets rid of the money suckers I don't see the point of contributing at all. Better save the money from those contributions to pay for a trip and do the charity yourself in one of those countries that need help.

If you teach 10 people some useful life skill that's already better than contributing $100,000 - 90% of which would end up on some CEO's (or relative) pocket. If you don't want to travel write a book and give it away.

ps - before you ask, yes I teach at a local adult learning centre for free. some students have gone to get decent jobs from it.

You are looking at the wrong number.

What better to look at is total administration cost as a percentage of what they raise. CEO would fall under administration. I would say 10-15% should all that should be allowed max for over head. That included paid administration staff, advertisement ect.

 

[samcraig]

Hmm. Someone doesn't quite understand what the Occupy movement is all about ...and, hence, is comparing Apples and Oranges (no pun intended).

The Occupy movement isn't waving signs saying, "Give us charity!" or even, "You're rich, share the wealth" or "You're rich, be more charitable." They're waving signs saying, "Give us jobs" (meaning they're angry that American companies are outsourcing the jobs) and "Pay your taxes" (Meaning that such companies aren't paying any--and I don't mean not paying their fair share--I mean, not paying ANY!). If Apple has created jobs and paid taxes, then there is no "Occupy" going on here.

Put another way (love this that went viral)

Why is it easier to believe 150,000,000 Americans are being lazy, rather than 400 Americans are being greedy

 

[leroypants]

For all of you saying Apple should donate more- What percent of YOUR net income do you donate to charity?

Not sure off the top of my head but I know it's a he'll of alot more than 0.006%.

Bill gates has given 28 billion so far to charity while apple has given 1.3 million....

 

[BaldiMac]

Simple fact of truth to the matter Apple is a piss poor corporate citizen. They gone from god awful in that department to very piss poor. An improvement but a very long way to go to get to just ok.

Please don't confuse a fact and an opinion.

 

[DESNOS]

Hmm. Someone doesn't quite understand what the Occupy movement is all about ...and, hence, is comparing Apples and Oranges (no pun intended).

The Occupy movement isn't waving signs saying, "Give us charity!" or even, "You're rich, share the wealth" or "You're rich, be more charitable." They're waving signs saying, "Give us jobs" (meaning they're angry that American companies are outsourcing the jobs) and "Pay your taxes" (Meaning that such companies aren't paying any--and I don't mean not paying their fair share--I mean, not paying ANY!). If Apple has created jobs and paid taxes, then there is no "Occupy" going on here.

Let me just repeat that to make sure you understand. No one in the "Occupy" movement cares whether the 1% give to charities or not, nor even what they do with their profits. They care that the 1% pay their taxes and create jobs rather than bilking customers, being bailed out by tax payers, and taking tax breaks on the promise that they'll create jobs--then reneging on that promise.

That's your education on the topic--so you won't look stupid again by not understanding what your'e referring to--please remember if you feel inclined to make another "Occupy" reference. It's not about hating people or companies that are wealthy, it's not about philanthropy or the lack of philanthropy...it's about who is and is not paying their fair share into our infrastructure.

Except that being mad at companies outsourcing jobs doesn't do a damn thing to solve the problem. Most jobs are far more expensive here. People want companies to stop outsourcing jobs, but they'll also want all the products sold at the same price or cheaper; that isn't going to happen. I think these people are well intending, but they don't see the big picture. The only way America will ever be the place with all the jobs is if either America's working environment goes to hell, or china's improves, and we cut back on business unfriendly regulation (hopefully the latter). Whining about it like these Occupy people are doing is not going to solve anything. It's great to watch and all, but at the end of the day, even a lot of them don't seem to know what they're there for, unless you missed the large slew of interviews that have been going 'round.

 

[Laird Knox]

another $94.7Million and they'll match Microsoft's employees donations for last year. http://www.onlinecardonation.org/charitynews/archives/147

You are comparing a practice that has been going on for years to one only a few months old. Sure it doesn't come close but over time it will most likely become more ingrained into the corporate culture. Each year more people will participate and the contributions will rise.