So do you disagree with the premise that companies, in general (excluding NGOs of course), are in business for the money? Because you claim that "there are many companies that value their product, and pursue perfection first and foremost".
Excluding NGOs and non-profits, would I still disagree with that premise? Yes. But as I've tried to make clear, it is a matter of degrees. Just like individuals, companies can have multiple incentives, motivations, intentions, etc. all at the same time, and sometimes even in conflict with one another. So the issue strikes me as figuring out what are the primary, and what are the auxiliary, motives. Every non-profit and non-ngo is in it for the money, at least in part, but I see no reason to think that all businesses are primarily concerned with making money first and foremost.
If you do, besides Apple, list a few. Is this only a technology company thing? Hardware or software? If you disagree with the original premise then it becomes an economic debate.
I don't think it's isolated to technology. Think of the specialty organic supermarkets that are now showing up. I don't know about your city, but we have a few here that are happy not to keep expanding, and whose sole motivation is to setup a place where you can be guaranteed that all the products in that shop adhere to very strict standards that are clearly listed on the webpage. The primary goal here is to provide the locals with high quality food that they otherwise wouldn't be able to obtain. Yes they need to remain profitable in order to remain in the marketplace, but I see no reason to think the primary motivation for setting up that shop is financial.
Another example? A close friend of mine owns a bike shop. He doesn't make much money, some years he makes a little profit, other years he breaks even, and some years he lost a little money. He loves owning the shop and helping people get into the sport of cycling. He loves being part of a community that resolves around his shop's group rides, etc. He couldn't care less about being rich, all he cares about is one thing. Cycling as much as possible, owning nice new rides, and being part of a vibrant and fun community.
Now another software one. There are plenty of little developers who put together a product not to hit it big, in fact they know their product is a niche product and will not appeal to the masses, in fact they would be happy to have one of the major corporations take up the slap, but in the mean time they need their computers to fulfill a very specific task, so they setup a business to provide that ability to others, including themselves.
I can give you specific names, but they are not really needed. The point is the grand sweeping claims are not what holds true for everyone out there. Apple struck it big, there is no doubt. What is in doubt is whether or not they started from humble aspirations and managed to keeps those goals along the way.
Do I need hard evidence when I have logic? If Apple can single itself out as the only company that doesn't have profits as its first priority, then people will be more happy buying from them. I will admit that sales skyrocketing is perhaps an overstatement of the benefits. Or are you suggesting Apple's image doesn't consist of quality, good customer service, innovation, and ease of use?
Logic would be fine if it worked, but the problem is you are making a claim that Apple would be unique in this regard when there are easily generated counter-examples that make it clear Apple wouldn't be unique in this regard if their claims held true. So, in light of the logic breaking down, I'd hope one would have some data as a safety net.
I agree that they make quality products. What I disagree is the inevitable "why". When you ask whoever constitutes the embodiment of Apple as a company (board of directors, all shareholders, however you want to define it), their honest answer is not going to be "because I/we want to change the world", it's going to be because they want to make money. That's the reason Apple formed as a business in the first place. Granted, they may/will/have changed the world in the process of operating, but if changing the world was Apple's primary objective, they would be a NGO, not a for-profit company.
I think they just gave you their honest answer, and you responded by calling them liars. I'm simply calling you out on it. If you are going to start questioning people's integrity, you better have good reasons. The response, "but my view of the world dictates that every single business without except is primarily focused upon revenue" is not a good response. In this case, the benefit of the doubt should incline you to re-evaluate your dogmas.
Steve Jobs is known to have contradicted his words with his actions. Apple says whatever is convenient for them at a specific point in time.
Jobs changed his mind a lot, no doubt. But I see no reason to doubt his integrity.
