At the risk of taking this further off topic - the movement itself is worthy. Whether or not SOME of the people are there not fully knowing why. Just this message board. There are plenty of people who have no idea what they are talking about but are part of some major groupthink in support of Apple and their products. They also enjoy the "friendships" they've formed here and stay because they are part of a community. There's nothing wrong with that.
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 Employees Give $2.6 Million to Charity Through Donation Matching Program
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
At the risk of taking this further off topic - the movement itself is worthy. Whether or not SOME of the people are there not fully knowing why. Just this message board. There are plenty of people who have no idea what they are talking about but are part of some major groupthink in support of Apple and their products. They also enjoy the "friendships" they've formed here and stay because they are part of a community. There's nothing wrong with that.
[QUOTE
Apple gave $1.3 million of shareholder's money. Gates has given $40 billion of his personal wealth. Apple is better.[/QUOTE]
I stand corrected. If Ms. Jobs would start a foundation and Apple would contribute - how about that?
Apple gave $1.3 million of shareholder's money. Gates has given $40 billion of his personal wealth. Apple is better.[/QUOTE]
I stand corrected. If Ms. Jobs would start a foundation and Apple would contribute - how about that?
As long as the executive team continues to grow Apple at the pace Steve Jobs has grown it in the past decade, I don't mind them being compensated in this manner. I, as a shareholder, may object to a charity that another shareholder may advocate for. Also, why should the Apple executives or employees decide for me where to contribute? Corporations should have one and only goal - to make profit for the benefit of the shareholders. Charity is not what corporations are supposed to do. Donations are supposed to be done by individuals to a charity of their choice and in the amount they are comfortable with.
Wirefully posted (Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; MSIE 9.0; Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; Trident/5.0; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; SLCC2; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET CLR 3.0.30729; Media Center PC 6.0; .NET4.0C; .NET4.0E))
And the other assumptions would be that the "chairman of the board" of Apple had any power, and that the late turtlenecked overlord was actually physically capable of attending board meetings and participating.
Note that before 24 August 2011, Apple did not have a chairman of the board. Since 5 October 2011, Apple has not had a chairman of the board.
So the reality is that for the last 5 weeks of his life he held a position specially created for him - most likely to smooth fears of the stockholders about the transition as he slowly let go of life in hospice care.
And the other assumptions would be that the "chairman of the board" of Apple had any power, and that the late turtlenecked overlord was actually physically capable of attending board meetings and participating.
Note that before 24 August 2011, Apple did not have a chairman of the board. Since 5 October 2011, Apple has not had a chairman of the board.
So the reality is that for the last 5 weeks of his life he held a position specially created for him - most likely to smooth fears of the stockholders about the transition as he slowly let go of life in hospice care.
Gate's and his wife started the foundation after his Microsoft days. Microsoft has nothing to do with it but obviously it gave him the means to do what he truly wanted to do in life. Only about half of Gate's net worth is in Microsoft, he has sold a lot of his stock and invested it elsewhere. It seems odd that he has distanced himself so far from Microsoft.
They got it in stock, not cash.
Really folk, let's keep things in perspective. That $80 billion is:
(1) For a global company keeping a global company going--$80 billion may seem like a huge amount--but how much would you need to run such a company globally? It not so excessive if the company has to maintain stores and such around the world.
(2) Not in cash--You seem to think Apple has a vault underneath the campus with pyramids of money. REMEMBER when someone says that a company is worth $80 Billion, that's really what it's valued now mostly in stocks and assets, nothing liquid to give away. A lot of that $80 Billion is land and stores and equipment, etc. And as for the part that is stock--that value can drop tomorrow. Look at any stock market crash. Companies valued in millions or billions one day can be worth nothing the next. Like Jobs those Executives are millionaires because of what their stock is worth, not because they have millions of dollars stuffed in their mattresses.
(3) No one person owns that 80 Billion. So, how is Apple's Chairman supposed to say to anyone--executives, stockholders, etc.--"We've decided to give this amount of your millions away to charity...."
That Apple is worth $80 billion doesn't mean that Tim Cook has a bank with $80 billion in it and can write checks giving away that money. That money doesn't belong to him. It belongs to the company. It's not his to give away to charity, it's not any one person's to give away to charity. Which is to say, if $1 Billion is going to be given away--to what charity?--Tim Cook, alone, doesn't get to decide. Steve Jobs wouldn't have been allowed to decide. Likely the stockholders would all have to decide. And where will that $1 billion come from if they don't have liquid assets? Will the stockholders give up their stock? Will the employees give up their paychecks? Will the company not make upgrades or repairs or maintain the infrastructure? What parts of the world will they take this money away from?
It seems really easy until you think about it. Who is going to make this decision, how is he going to get everyone to agree to it, and exactly where is that money going to come from and go to?
A Bill Gates with can sell a house or stocks or liquidate assets and give what he wants to whom he wants. But Microsoft can't do that so easily. Let's keep the reality of who this money belongs to, and in what form it is, before we take Apple to task for not being more charitable.
No, it would be odd if he had kept all of his eggs in the Microsoft stock basket.
You don't understand economics. Elephants don't give to charity either and not because they are bad, but because giving to charity is not what they do. Corporations are not supposed to give one penny to charity. They are supposed to maximize profit for the benefit of the shareholders. What shareholders do with the money is up to the shareholders' personal choice.
It's a little disheartening to see how many post are from people who believe in their hears that corporations are only about profits and are "cold." Where does this belief come from.
Now I'm not here to complain about who is giving what and how much. But the idea that corporations should only exist to make money for shareholders is wrong.
A corporation is a living, breathing entity.
Banks are corporations - and their job is to make money - and yet we certainly know how that's gone.
The carrier who provides your cell service is a corporation and deserves to make money - and yet how many posts on this forum complain about exorbitant charges.
I'm not going to sit and cast judgement on those that see fit to excuse or not excuse Apple. But take a moment to think before you either praise or fault them to find out if you're being a little hypocritical (in either direction).
my .02
Now I'm not here to complain about who is giving what and how much. But the idea that corporations should only exist to make money for shareholders is wrong.
A corporation is a living, breathing entity.
Banks are corporations - and their job is to make money - and yet we certainly know how that's gone.
The carrier who provides your cell service is a corporation and deserves to make money - and yet how many posts on this forum complain about exorbitant charges.
I'm not going to sit and cast judgement on those that see fit to excuse or not excuse Apple. But take a moment to think before you either praise or fault them to find out if you're being a little hypocritical (in either direction).
my .02
I didn't mean it stock wise. I meant it on a personal level. It's as if Microsoft never existed for him. He has totally moved on from it and keeps it in his past.
----------
Thankfully there are people and companies that do believe in charity. I'm sure that some of your fellow shareholders feel this way too. On this forum it's always defend Apple at all costs.
I'm sorry I might have missed something.
Where does it say that this is ALL the money that Apple donates? Isn't this merely saying that this 1.3 million was raised from the matching of employees?
Is it not possible that they also donate in other ways? If someone has stone cold proof either way, I'd be interested in seeing it.
Also people seem to be glossing over Product (Red). Not sure why that is either.
Where does it say that this is ALL the money that Apple donates? Isn't this merely saying that this 1.3 million was raised from the matching of employees?
Is it not possible that they also donate in other ways? If someone has stone cold proof either way, I'd be interested in seeing it.
Also people seem to be glossing over Product (Red). Not sure why that is either.
I'm against Apple giving one penny to charity because corporations are not supposed to contribute to charity. However, Apple does have $80 billion in cash reserves as of last quarter. Its market capitalization is many times that amount.
You're confusing Apple's value as a company with their cash hoard. Apple is worth a heck of a lot more than $80 billion. The $80 billion is what they have in cash. (At least you're right that it's not kept in a vault.)
--Eric
No, I'm defending my investment portfolio from you trying to raid it. Get your hands off my shares. Let me decide what I do with my wealth. Whatever I do with it is my business, not yours.
----------
It's economics 101.
I'm not raiding anything. I'm merely posting on an internet forum. No need to get upset because I believe a company that has $80 billion in cash should give more than a million to charity. If you think that's good enough, so be it.
Just out of curiosity - how much do you think your portfolio would be affected by Apple (for example) donating 500M?
Here's a hint - almost nothing if anything at all.
bs and lol. That is not an answer.
A lot of companies give money to charity and still do very well. You know, quite a lot of CEO's and owners want to give money to local causes etc. Why? Because they give a **** ( and in cases, is good Pr)
Last edited:
Actually, you need a new perspective.
You're confusing market cap with short term liquidity. Apple's market cap at the moment is $358B (2011-11-10 19:59). That number is simply the current price per share times the number of shares of Apple stock that exist.
The $80B figure is short term liquid assets - cash and easily cashed investments. Note that about two-thirds of the $80B is sequestered in off-shore accounts, so *only* about $25B is available in the US.
Daily operating expenses don't depend on the cash hoard - little expenses like building a new glass cube in New York come from day-to-day cash flow.
Wrong, the $80B is liquid.
The stockholders own the $358B - but the board and CEO control the $80B.
And, of course, Apple has no chairman.
Apple is worth $358B.
And Tim Cook and the board can decide what to do with the $80B that Apple has in the bank. They could decide to spend it all and borrow another $20B if they thought that it was good for Apple.
The reality here in the valley is that Apple is viewed as a stingy, miserly company - in spite of having a huge amount of cash in the bank.
The matching program that recently started under MBA Tim's reign puts Apple in the mid-tier of 501(c)(3) matching programs in the valley.
I hope that Apple steps up to the plate and starts direct corporate donations to 501(c)(3) organizations. Cash, equipment, man-hours - things that can really make a difference for the non-profits in the valley.