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
There are many ways I could go about answering this. I'll try a simple approach. Companies should charitably help others for the same reason people should: because some folks desperately need the help. Now, if you don't think you should help people who are in desperate need, I really don't know if there is anything that anyone can say which will change your mind. If you want an objective moral impetus, you'll have to look to a higher power for that. The law certainly doesn't say companies "should". And for all those who believe that the only responsibility people and companies have is to obey the law and take care of their immediate circle of family and friends, well, I pity them the dark world they live in.
And what did 70 million get us? Anything? Looks like a whole ton of money wasted. Imagine if this went to public schools. It would have done something there.
Your parents never told you the starfish on the beach story did they.
Ok I googled it. I asked how they made a difference. Apparently, they can't figure out how to throw a single starfish into the ocean...
Maybe I could have chosen a more precise metaphor, but the point is that big problems like AIDS and cancer research are marathon issues: it may take many years before a solution is found. In the meantime, partial solutions are often found and have been for both diseases. Those treatments, or cures for subsets of a given disease category, help the people they affect. And quite frankly, if you have ever had a loved one suffering from either disease I cannot imagine why it is you are asking the question in the first place.
You can say......
all what you want. Or have the amount of cynism you are allowed......But for me, this is a worthwhile cause.
Kudos to Apple for the support to the RED effort.....
all what you want. Or have the amount of cynism you are allowed......But for me, this is a worthwhile cause.
Kudos to Apple for the support to the RED effort.....
If they sold that, I wouldn't have bought my 5S (with a product red case).
Seriously Apple, I am not the only one who wants a red iPod touch as an iPhone.
I'm just staggered
a) what percentage Apple's $70m is of RED's total $240m, and
b) how low that total figure is for 8 years of fairly high profile fundraising.
Doesn't seem too successful, when you consider the money is split between raising awareness (advertising), research (pharmaceutical companies), and then programmes on the ground. Experts can't figure out how the money is actually distributed, and the phrase "more about raising awareness" usually gets trotted out when the questioning goes too deep.
RED's website has changed quite a bit since the criticism's began to bite - it used to be directed at partners - increase profits through co-branding, now it's all about impact, with lots of words and no details.
The wikipedia page (at the moment) is more helpful "part of a new business model the opportunity to increase revenue through the Product Red license".
In 2007, when the advertising industry was silly enough to release figures, it was $100m spent advertising RED, $18m donated. Apple was one of the companies in that advertising spend. And the best part - companies get to say they're helping charities, with no accountability for how the money is actually spent - we trusted RED and Bono and they sounded legit to us.
If you like red things, buy them for that reason, and maybe your money will help somewhere. RED isn't telling. It's a 'for profit', not a charity.
a) what percentage Apple's $70m is of RED's total $240m, and
b) how low that total figure is for 8 years of fairly high profile fundraising.
Doesn't seem too successful, when you consider the money is split between raising awareness (advertising), research (pharmaceutical companies), and then programmes on the ground. Experts can't figure out how the money is actually distributed, and the phrase "more about raising awareness" usually gets trotted out when the questioning goes too deep.
RED's website has changed quite a bit since the criticism's began to bite - it used to be directed at partners - increase profits through co-branding, now it's all about impact, with lots of words and no details.
The wikipedia page (at the moment) is more helpful "part of a new business model the opportunity to increase revenue through the Product Red license".
In 2007, when the advertising industry was silly enough to release figures, it was $100m spent advertising RED, $18m donated. Apple was one of the companies in that advertising spend. And the best part - companies get to say they're helping charities, with no accountability for how the money is actually spent - we trusted RED and Bono and they sounded legit to us.
If you like red things, buy them for that reason, and maybe your money will help somewhere. RED isn't telling. It's a 'for profit', not a charity.
70mill?.... I suppose it's more than they pay in corporate tax!
----------
Save your breath brother, the apologists will.defend Apple to the hilt. No matter what.... So what if it's 0.0001% of their cash... That really isn't important... It's 70 million...
Ps.. Remind me... How many BILLIONS has Billy G personally donated?..
----------
Save your breath brother, the apologists will.defend Apple to the hilt. No matter what.... So what if it's 0.0001% of their cash... That really isn't important... It's 70 million...
Ps.. Remind me... How many BILLIONS has Billy G personally donated?..
Nothing, but it's done plenty towards the fight in eradicating malaria and other infectious diseases through research and vaccines.
It's not about promoting your brand, it's about using your brand to promote, although I do realise that might be a lofty goal for any corporation to accept. Apple should be doing more without looking for PR reward or sales precisely because they ARE swimming with PR and sales.
Shareholders, blah, blah. Tired of shareholders and their whining. They sit around and count money all day. All at extremely low tax rates while everyone else who actually works for a living hands half their check or more over each pay period.
Just as shareholders couldn't care less about employees or humans, no one cares about shareholders either. If they don't like it then don't invest. Or,better yet, just shut up and try to get by on the trillions they already make. And that's that.
So move to a communist country. Most shareholders are hardworking people in other jobs you know. They just invest smarter than most people.
Bought a product RED iPod Touch last year and still love it/use it all the time. I like not worrying about running my battery down compared to using my phone for music, videos and games.
We are only talking about Apple the corporation. You would have a point to discredit Apple if they never "gave" anything.
But, as far as: if at all, when, how much etc. is only their business.
Emphasis on BUSINESS!
I bet that even amongst shareholders the camps are divided between charitable contributions and just making money.