Apple Promotes Music Single to Help Support Victims of London Grenfell Tower Tragedy

[Porco]

You answered your own questions and highlighted the decrepency. Pick up the tax tab, Apple. Pick up the running costs, Apple.
FACT is that customers are making the purchase, it is the customer's sale being directed to charity (it's not a contribution from Apple), BUT even still, Apple is retaining a portion of that charitable purchase. The customer's expectation is that the whole purchase is to go to charity, directly to the victims, not a slush fund.
Fair and reasonable individuals would expect Apple to direct the COMPLETE TOTAL OF SALES, NOT A PORTION. Apple sits on billions and can't even get charity right. What Apple is doing is not charity.
Total scum corporate culture at Apple. Disgusting executives.

I think you are wrong. Apple have stated that 100% of Apple's share is going to charity. 17p is going to the government (VAT is a sales tax, not corporate tax of the kind Apple can avoid). The remaining amount you'd presumably have to ask Simco, the record label about, but given that the project was instigated by Simon Cowell precisely to help out, and he has reportedly also personally given a further £100,000 himself, so I doubt they are hanging on to any profit either.

No customer in the UK expects VAT to not go the government, unless there is a gift aid form to fill in. If Apple or Simco are taking running costs then that isn't profit, hence not profiteering.

You seem to want to be angry at Apple despite the evidence they haven't actually done anything bad here.

 

[smacrumon]

Agh. Really?

Please note the description on iTunes, which states:

"This includes 100% of Apple's share"

[1]

Which I think should end any talk of "profiteering". I invite the posters who claimed as much to retract their slurs upon Apple.

[1] UK iTunes page screenshot, 23 June 2017, 19:10 BST

Apple can't do maths. That's clear from this saga. 99p means 99p to charity NOT 76p.
Apple can easily absorb the tax and processing differences. (And that will be their genuine contribution to the effort.)
How ridiculous and tight has Apple become sitting on those billions of pounds?
Mind you, at the end of the day, it's the customer giving a donation through the purchase, not Apple. The customer and charity is expecting the full 99p, not 76% of it!

 

[Porco]

Apple can't do maths. That's clear from this saga. 99p means 99p to charity NOT 76p.
Apple can easily absorb the tax and processing differences. (And that will be their genuine contribution to the effort.)
How ridiculous and tight has Apple become sitting on those billions of pounds?
Mind you, at the end of the day, it's the customer giving a donation through the purchase, not Apple. The customer and charity is expecting the full 99p, not 76% of it!

No, the charity wouldn't be expecting the full 99p, because they understand VAT.

The customer wouldn't be expecting 99p to go to the charity because it says "at least 76p', right on the purchase page, as quoted by MR and myself in this thread.

If you want to say you think Apple should donate an extra 23p themselves then that's fine (and I wouldn't disagree with you on that, why would anyone?). But you and others claim it's "profiteering" which seems an evidently false specific claim, so invite you again to retract it.

 

[smacrumon]

How do you know that Apple haven't donated?

Apple hasn't donated. Apple doesn't donate in secret. Apple does a big hoohah and public media release telling everyone about it. That's how we know Apple has not donated. No donation, nothing to publicize.

 

[teidon]

Apple doesn't donate in secret.

How do you know Apple (never) donates in secret?

 

[smacrumon]

I think you are wrong. Apple have stated that 100% of Apple's share is going to charity. 17p is going to the government (VAT is a sales tax, not corporate tax of the kind Apple can avoid). The remaining amount you'd presumably have to ask Simco, the record label about, but given that the project was instigated by Simon Cowell precisely to help out, and he has reportedly also personally given a further £100,000 himself, so I doubt they are hanging on to any profit either.

No customer in the UK expects VAT to not go the government, unless there is a gift aid form to fill in. If Apple or Simco are taking running costs then that isn't profit, hence not profiteering.

You seem to want to be angry at Apple despite the evidence they haven't actually done anything bad here.

No anger here, just plain facts. 76p to charity is not the full 99p customers are paying to the charity. Apple and Simco can easily fix that difference. A personal contribution from Simon Cowell is a personal tax write off. It's complete self interest.
Suprising how many people are supporting Apple and Simco and not the charity and customers who are expecting the full 99p to be passed through in full to where it's actually needed.
[doublepost=1498244331][/doublepost]

How do you know Apple (never) donates in secret?

Because Apple has shareholders and the stock market it needs to be forcoming to about its entire business. Secrets payments would contravene several laws and its fiduciary duty to stockholders.

 

[MacSince1985]

The customer and charity is expecting the full 99p, not 76% of it!

Next time you get a call for charitable donations, ask the solicitor what percentage of the donation actually goes to the charity. They are required by law to tell you. It's usually below 20% and often closer to 10%. The rest goes towards "operating costs".

In this case, Apple guarantees that ALL its profits will go to the cause. The amount varies from country to country and even state to state depending on tax laws, exchange fees and processing fees. So "at least 76p" is as good of an estimate as they can do. I would be very surprised if Apple makes a penny of this deal, and they'll most likely round up the payments to the charity.

 

[Porco]

No anger here, just plain facts. 76p to charity is not the full 99p customers are paying to the charity. Apple and Simco can easily fix that difference. A personal contribution from Simon Cowell is a personal tax write off. It's complete self interest.
Suprising how many people are supporting Apple and Simco and not the charity and customers who are expecting the full 99p to be passed through in full to where it's actually needed.

You know, you can just admit it isn't "profiteering". That doesn't mean you can't carry on expressing a wish for Apple to publically donate in addition.

The plain facts are that the sale price, including tax, is 99p, and that Apple are not witholding any of their share of that sale price, and that at least (which means a minimum of) 76p will go to the charity. Which means Apple are not profiting from the sale, which means to accuse them of "profiteering" seems factually inaccurate. So once more, I invite you to retract that claim.

 

[smacrumon]

No, the charity wouldn't be expecting the full 99p, because they understand VAT.

The customer wouldn't be expecting 99p to go to the charity because it says "at least 76p', right on the purchase page, as quoted by MR and myself in this thread.

If you want to say you think Apple should donate an extra 23p themselves then that's fine (and I wouldn't disagree with you on that, why would anyone?). But you and others claim it's "profiteering" which seems an evidently false specific claim, so invite you again to retract it.

"No, the charity wouldn't be expecting the full 99p"

Actually, I'm certain the charity WOULD be expecting the full 99p. As would the customers making the purchases frankly.

The charity is losing ~24% of the expected amount. That's insanely crazy.

Apple needs to get its thinking cap on instead of basking in the glory of the generous giving of its customers. This was a badly thought through plan.

Someone's profiteering from the missing 23p, we certainly know the charity and victims are not.
[doublepost=1498245705][/doublepost]Th

Next time you get a call for charitable donations, ask the solicitor what percentage of the donation actually goes to the charity. They are required by law to tell you. It's usually below 20% and often closer to 10%. The rest goes towards "operating costs".

In this case, Apple guarantees that ALL its profits will go to the cause. The amount varies from country to country and even state to state depending on tax laws, exchange fees and processing fees. So "at least 76p" is as good of an estimate as they can do. I would be very surprised if Apple makes a penny of this deal, and they'll most likely round up the payments to the charity.

The 23p difference should be made up by Apple. What's everyone so afraid of? The customers are giving a full 99p. Apple is only passing on 76p of the customers full payment, so why can't Apple put in its own donation of 23p? What's everyone so afraid of Apple covering the difference to ensure the full 99p gets to the charity?

As it currently stands, Apple is making ZERO donation and simply passing on ~76% of the customer donation. At the same time Apple is seeking publicity through this process having given ZERO donation from itself.

That's really messed up.

 

[Porco]

"No, the charity wouldn't be expecting the full 99p"

Actually, I'm certain the charity WOULD be expecting the full 99p. As would the customers making the purchases frankly.

The charity is losing ~24% of the expected amount. That's insanely crazy.

Apple needs to get its thinking cap on instead of basking in the glory of the generous giving of its customers. This was a badly thought through plan.

Someone's profiteering from the missing 23p, we certainly know the charity and victims are not.

Well... I'm a customer and I expect the charity to get at least 76p per sale. So that's 76p for sure, and maybe a bit more once it all shakes out.

17p per sale is going to the UK government as VAT, like any other sale would. This is entirely expected for anyone in the UK. Any competent registered charity would realise that.

Simco Ltd (Syco) are stating "all proceeds" are going to the charity. So the small difference, it must be assumed, are not profits, but running costs of various kinds. And so we come back to your erroneous claim of "profiteering", which you seem incapable of recognising was going too far in your criticism.

I invite you one last time to retract your specific claim that Apple are "profiteering" here.

 

[smacrumon]

Well... I'm a customer and I expect the charity to get at least 76p per sale. So that's 76p for sure, and maybe a bit more once it all shakes out.

17p per sale is going to the UK government as VAT, like any other sale would. This is entirely expected for anyone in the UK. Any competent registered charity would realise that.

Simco Ltd (Syco) are stating "all proceeds" are going to the charity. So the small difference, it must be assumed, are not profits, but running costs of various kinds. And so we come back to your erroneous claim of "profiteering", which you seem incapable of recognising was going too far in your criticism.

I invite you one last time to retract your specific claim that Apple are "profiteering" here.

As a customer, I expect 99p to go directly to the charity and no funny business inbetween. No retraction required. Apple is 100% profiteering from the publicity of passing on only 76p of the 99p customer donation while Apple makes zero donation of their own.

 

[Porco]

As a customer, I expect 99p to go directly to the charity and no funny business inbetween. No retraction required. Apple is 100% profiteering from the publicity of passing on only 76p of the 99p customers are donating while Apple makes zero donation of their own.

That's a very loose definition of "profiteering", but I'll take your definition-twisting clarification of "...from the publicity" as a tacit admission they are not, in fact, "profiteering" in the financial sense, which was the clear implication in your earlier posts, and the usual interpretation of the word's meaning.

Personally I think Apple have done a good thing in partnership with Simco Ltd. Could they do more? Sure. Could they make a large donation on top of helping out as far as they are? Sure. And then I'm sure some posters here would be accusing them of trying to buy publicity.

The only thing that really matters is the charity will be getting a load of cash to help the people affected that they otherwise wouldn't. I find your negativity a little unnecessary.

 

[smacrumon]

That's a very loose definition of "profiteering", but I'll take your definition-twisting clarification of "...from the publicity" as a tacit admission they are not, in fact, "profiteering" in the financial sense, which was the clear implication in your earlier posts, and the usual interpretation of the word's meaning.

Personally I think Apple have done a good thing in partnership with Simco Ltd. Could they do more? Sure. Could they make a large donation on top of helping out as far as they are? Sure. And then I'm sure some posters here would be accusing them of trying to buy publicity.

The only thing that really matters is the charity will be getting a load of cash to help the people affected that they otherwise wouldn't. I find your negativity a little unnecessary.

It's pure publicity and a tax write off. No negativity here, just truly frank and direct with my evaluation. Yes, the people that matter and of most importance here are the victims.

 

[KazKam]

It's pure publicity and a tax write off. No negativity here, just truly frank and direct with my evaluation. Yes, the people that matter and of most importance here are the victims.

This is money, raised by Apple, that would otherwise not have been raised. Here's some "maths" for you... 76% of something > 100% of nothing.

Also, Porco has rationally argued how Apple is clearly passing the full amount of PROFIT to the charity. Your responses have been stubbornly obtuse and irrational. You sir/madam lose.

The only concession I'll grant you is that this is part publicity stunt, as most fund-raisers and charities are to some degree. However, in the end, the charity is receiving money it would not have otherwise received. As I stated in my last post, everyone wins. You are just bound and determined to hate the big corporation, and you're entitled to. But that doesn't make you right... and you aren't.

 

[Olganech]

I am not talking about a token £0.99 single here. I am saying if Apple really cared they could give a single days profit from their UK operations.

 

[DeepIn2U]

Apple taking a proper ... social ... cause & stance.

Loved this song as as kid. Never new why, never liked the genre of other songs in this area but these guys did make GOOD music. I love good music, and this had real meaning and depth. Powerful.

 

[smacrumon]

This is money, raised by Apple, that would otherwise not have been raised. Here's some "maths" for you... 76% of something > 100% of nothing.

Also, Porco has rationally argued how Apple is clearly passing the full amount of PROFIT to the charity. Your responses have been stubbornly obtuse and irrational. You sir/madam lose.

The only concession I'll grant you is that this is part publicity stunt, as most fund-raisers and charities are to some degree. However, in the end, the charity is receiving money it would not have otherwise received. As I stated in my last post, everyone wins. You are just bound and determined to hate the big corporation, and you're entitled to. But that doesn't make you right... and you aren't.

It's not raise by Apple, customers are raising the money. The customers are making the contribution, NOT Apple.

99p donation from customers, only 76p going to charity. No contribution from Apple. That's completely messed up. A billion dollar company that's not even making 1p contribution. Absolutely motivated by publicity. Disgusting Apple. Rotten right to the core. Executives at Apple have a lot to explain.

Customers and the charity would better help the victims donating 99p directly and not through the Apple and Simco donation abyss where a quarter of the donation vanishes while non contributors like Apple pretend they've done something. Apple have done nothing except damage the fundraising potential for this charity.

Pay up Apple! Make up the 23p difference for each 99p that's missing with a contribution direct from the company!

 

[iGeek2014]

Google Play Music are also stating:

At least £0.77 of each purchase of the song featured on this page will go to The London Community Foundation (a charity registered in England No. 1091263) in support of those affected by the Grenfell Tower fire.