Apple's Town Hall Meeting Emphasized Corporate Philanthropy

Discussion in ' News Discussion' started by MacRumors, Feb 2, 2012.

  1. MacRumors macrumors bot


    Apr 12, 2001


    Last week, following Apple's blockbuster earnings report, the company held an internal town hall meeting with employees to discuss "exciting new things". While one piece of information about new employee hardware discounts did surface, little else from that meeting has made its way off of Apple's campus.

    The Verge now reports that it has been hearing that discussion of the company's philanthropic efforts was a notable focus of the event, with Tim Cook spending "quite a bit of time" talking about the company's work in that area. One of Cook's first visible actions as CEO was to institute a charitable matching program for employees under which the company would match donations up to $10,000 per employee per year, a move that marked a distinct departure for Apple following the Steve Jobs era. That program resulted in $2.6 million in donations in its first two months of existence.

    According to The Verge, Cook disclosed at the town hall meeting that Apple has also given $50 million to Stanford University's hospitals, divided equally among projects for a new main hospital and new children's hospital. Apple's involvement in Stanford's philanthropic efforts for the hospitals was announced last year as part of a consortium also involving eBay, HP, Intel, Intuit and Oracle, but Apple's specific monetary commitment to the effort had not been revealed.
    Cook also reportedly addressed Apple's work with (Product) RED, the Bono-led effort to fight AIDS, with Cook noting that the company has given over $50 million to the project through its special (Product) RED-branded iPods and accessories. Bono had previously cited Apple's involvement in (Product) RED in rebuffing criticism of Jobs regarding his lack of public philanthropy.

    Article Link: Apple's Town Hall Meeting Emphasized Corporate Philanthropy
  2. thecartoonguy macrumors 6502a


    Jun 28, 2008
    Now open the gates to allow the flood of those who will say this is not enough :rolleyes:
  3. boy-better-know macrumors 65816


    Jun 30, 2010
    It's nice to see, and I like to think it isn't just a public relations stunt, but rather that Cook is actually concerned with charity.
  4. *LTD* macrumors G4


    Feb 5, 2009
    For some reason I get bad vibes about this. I doubt this sort of thing would have happened under Jobs, but it's not Jobs' Apple anymore, and this might be good for the company going forward now that their massive cash stash is such a matter of public discussion.

    Is there media/consumer pressure for Apple to *be* more charitable? If so, is Apple wise to bow to it?
  5. basesloaded190 macrumors 68030


    Oct 16, 2007
    Clearly not a publicity stunt as this was not shared with the public, but rather with just Apple employees.
  6. topmounter macrumors 68020


    Jun 18, 2009
    FEMA Region VIII
    It's all fun and games as long as they're making their numbers.
  7. bretm macrumors 68000

    Apr 12, 2002
    I did not invest in a charitable foundation. Show me how this increases profits for myself and the other owners of Apple and we'll let you stay Tim. But the charitable announcement have far outnumbered the charitable announcements.
  8. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Oct 9, 2006
    Yeah that is because Jobs was a greedy person and not someone to look up to as a person. Great marketer and visionary but a horrible person.
    Jobs also promised that he would bring back the corporate Philanthropy when Apple was doing better. That was a lie and Jobs never kept that promise and for the last 5-6 years of his tenure at Apple there was no excuse for not keeping the promise.

    It is a start but Apple is still a long ways to go. Apple has at least made progress to piss poor status. Apple was so bad that it made piss poor look really good so it is a step in the right direction.
  9. *LTD* macrumors G4


    Feb 5, 2009
    THAT is the concern here. Focus. Priorities. The courage to swim against the current. You nailed it.
  10. Peace macrumors P6


    Apr 1, 2005
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    Come on LTD. Add up the number of Product Red stuff Apple sold and tell me Steve didn't give to charity.
  11. strabes, Feb 2, 2012
    Last edited: Feb 2, 2012

    strabes macrumors regular

    May 12, 2010
    Sorry for the rant, and this is probably going to make a lot of people (statists) mad, but I'm sick of everyone complaining about how Steve Jobs didn't give money to charity. Steve Jobs' positive impact on the lives of countless people is incalculable. Anyone who has ever voluntarily bought an Apple product valued the product more than the money they exchanged for it, meaning they're better off after having made the exchange. Any person who works for Apple is better off because they have judged that working for Apple is better than their next-best work option, even if that option is unemployment.

    The ideas that only charitable contributions are to be lauded and that business is a necessary evil are collectivist ideas that have infected our psyche. Business, in order to survive, must make the lives of its customers better. This is what Adam Smith described over two hundred years ago in the Wealth of Nations: people seeking their own self interest make the lives of everyone else better. Thus, in a free market, all businesses in a way ARE philanthropic.

    It is only when government has favors to give (tariffs, subsidies, quotas, sweetheart deals, etc) that corruption can exist. Apple never took any government handouts as far as I know, meaning they never used a gun (the government) to compel you or I to do business with or support them, like Lockheed Martin, Halliburton, Solyndra, anyone who got bailed out, etc. This obviously applies to Democrats AND Republicans, because both parties are inherently statist and think Government runs your life better than you do.
  12. *LTD*, Feb 2, 2012
    Last edited: Feb 2, 2012

    *LTD* macrumors G4


    Feb 5, 2009
    So? A lovely disposition and warm generosity didn't create the iPad. Nor did it create billions in cash on hand. Nor did it bring Apple out from the shadows and into the position of the driving force in consumer tech today.

    Frankly, I don't give a sweet **** what sort of person Jobs was. He had a JOB to do: great products. From the average consumer's perspective, as long as he didn't cause any harm beyond what usually occurs in corporate cutthroat culture, he can roll around on the ground and do somersaults for all I care. The PRODUCT is what counts. He can save the warm fuzzes for his wife and kids or whatever. And by that point it's none of my business anyway.

    No one really cared. Consumers especially didn't. We were too busy being interested in Apple'a main focus: products.

    What you're talking about isn't Apple's responsibility. It's sheer generosity, and their choice entirely. It's a bonus. Frankly, I'd be a little more put at ease is if this what it usually is - a PR move - rather than something that will cut into other priorities.

    It's nice to see, but it doesn't get quality product into our hands any faster.
  13. Doctor Q Administrator

    Doctor Q

    Staff Member

    Sep 19, 2002
    Los Angeles
    Keep in mind that the state of California, where Apple resides, is using legislation to promote benefit corporations, which need not prioritize shareholder financial interests over the interests of workers, communities, and the environment. A number of states have enacted such laws.
  14. firewood macrumors 604

    Jul 29, 2003
    Silicon Valley
    A huge portion of Apple's value is within the skill of their employee's.

    Charitable giving increases shareholder value by helping hire and retain talented employees who like working for a corporation that more closely reflects their charitable interests.

    Being known as a good corporate citizen also can make it easier to deal with various local government authorities and voters when issues that affect the company come up (zoning, transportation improvements, etc.) Bribing the mayor is illegal, just happening to donate to his/her favorite local charity...

    Thus many huge publicly traded for-profit corps engage in various charitable efforts, beyond those done purely for cheap PR purposes.
  15. smali macrumors regular

    Jul 19, 2010
    Maybe if ultra rich had given more funding to fight things like Cancer, Mr Jobs might still be here today.

    Of course LTD prefers he be dead than take any attention away from producing consumer toys for people like himself.
  16. mdriftmeyer macrumors 68030


    Feb 2, 2004
    Pacific Northwest
    $50 million for Stanford?

    Stanford recently held over $40 Billion in endowment.

    Not to criticize this effort, but there are other places in need of philanthropy far more than Stanford.
  17. Kaibelf macrumors 68000


    Apr 29, 2009
    Chicago, IL
    When you do as much as Stanford, Apple, or these other "more in need" entities then you can decide how others should spend their money. Oh wait, you can't. Eyes on your OWN paper, class.


    Liar. Project red was in place LONG before Steve even got sick. Unlike Meg Whitman and other such trash, Steve didn't feel the need to have his name on buildings and plaques to say "Look at how great I am to the serfs!". Therefore, you know absolutly NOTHING about what he gave and where.
  18. Torrijos macrumors 6502

    Jan 10, 2006
    This is one of the things I find most amazing in USA culture...

    People follow the rich and powerful in their bid to reduce taxes for the 1%, thinking that in exchange they will create more jobs in the USA (not going to happen a lot since it makes no business sense) and then participate in charity (that they receive tax breaks for besides the fact that they chose where the money goes) like benevolent kings.

    I cannot fathom why people don't understand that they are the serfs of the story.
    Taxes aren't some evil plot against the citizen of a country, it's a way for everybody to participate, according to their capacities, to the development of said country in order to maintain a level of society that would allow anybody to strive (to his capacity).
  19. BaldiMac macrumors 604


    Jan 24, 2008
    And corporate philanthropy was brought back when Apple was doing better. How was that a lie?
  20. Kaibelf macrumors 68000


    Apr 29, 2009
    Chicago, IL
    In Whitman's case, it helped bury rape charges against her son. The other son also assaulted a professor who wanted to use a field he had properly reserved. Classy family.
  21. ryuok macrumors regular

    Feb 27, 2011
    Hong Kong
    Tim, can you focus on the actual business of Apple? I have heard enough of these philanthropy CSR stuff, let's leave them to the Unicef shall we? Where's the iPad 3 or iPhone 5?
  22. Shrink macrumors demi-god


    Feb 26, 2011
    New England, USA
    My, my...some of the posters here (not naming names, mind you) would make Ayn Rand sit up and smile. (She smiled sweetly on personal and corporate narcissism and greed).

    Somehow the idea of generosity and concern for other humans is anathema to some posters here (no names, please).

    All that matters is product...

    What a sad and selfish world view.
  23. ixodes macrumors 601


    Jan 11, 2012
    Pacific Coast, USA
    Sadly, it sounds like nothing more than time spent with employees sitting around as Apple tooted their horn about giving away some cash.

    Most others that do this, do it silently and with no fanfare. They do it for the good of the benefactor, not to pat themselves on the back.

    Poor Apple is so self centered, and insecure, they need to make a big deal of anything positive they do. It's burned into the brains of those who are the decision makers.

    While no surprise, this is just laughable. :)
  24. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Oct 9, 2006
    The lie was Jobs was planning on bring it back and SJ never delivered on that promise. Also Apple has been doing great since before 2005 so what is your excuse for failing to keep that promise between 2005 and now.
  25. alephnull12, Feb 2, 2012
    Last edited: Feb 2, 2012

    alephnull12 macrumors regular

    Jan 13, 2012
    The median income for the world is currently about $2000 per year; average income is about $7000 per year. If wealth redistribution were necessary, why woud it take money from really rich Americans, and transfer it to other slightly less rich Americans? Objectively speaking, many people in the United States, who are not among the highest earners, understand that they live a rather luxurious lifestyle, from the global perspective, despite the fact that they are not among the nation's top earners. They also understand that, if carried through to its logical conclusion, the wealth redistribution scam doesn't really leave them with a heck of a lot left over afterwards.

    That, plus, is it really that hard to understand not wishing to put a nominal price on freedom?

    Even if the same marginal income tax rate (say 20 %) were to apply to someone making $2 million per year and to someone making $20,000 per year, the person making $2 million per year would still be paying 100 x more income tax than the person making $20,000 per year. Does the person making $2 million per year consume 100 x as more government resources as the person making $20,000 per year? No.

    An equitable income taxation scheme would be to charge everyone approximately $10,000 per head (approximate US budget divided by population). A flat tax of 20% of income across the board is already very generous taxation scheme that redistributes a lot of wealth.

Share This Page