d.f said:
it would be a good PR move and good for raising awareness. good move, if true.
<Politically Incorrect Mode>
I'm all for raising money for research/treatment, but isn't everybody pretty much "aware" already? We get it, aids is a horrible disease. We understand how you get it -- blood transfusion, sharing needles, sex (I won't even say unprotected because I wouldn't trust a condom with my life). Did something new happen, and if so, can we just get the shortened errata, please?
And will we be seeing an orange iPod to help combat world hunger? A yellow iPod to support families of troops killed overseas? A green iPod to support organ donation? A purple iPod to support victims of domestic violence? A pink iPod for breast cancer survivors?
When is it true compassion and when is it a semi-cheap marketing ploy? When is it a high profile celebrity (Bone-o) actually doing something meaningful, and when is it public posturing?
</Politically Incorrect Mode>
As a consumer, I'm all for more colors out of the iPod (there's already a company doing this post-manufacture, by the way) but the political activism angle I find somewhat pretentious and phony. And if we're going to do it, let's not just pick a favorite charity but give people a wide choice. I'm staring at a banner for St. Jude's Childrens Research Hospital in my browser right now, that's a worthy cause too. As is cancer research. As is the March of Dimes. Or any of dozens of other worthy causes I can think of.
Also, I have to wonder if Jobs Inc. will still be making any profit on the sales of these special iPods or will everything go to the charity.
<EDIT:> It just struck me that I read an article on news.com in the last few weeks which unfavorably compared Steve Jobs' charitable work (or lack thereof) against that of archrival Bill Gates, and this may be a calculated damage control move from Mr. Jobs. I will try to find a link. But the gist of the article was that the IMAGE is that Bill Gates is a greedy tightwad and Steve Jobs is a free-love hippie, but the REALITY is that Bill gives a lot of money to charity and does a lot of charitable things especially in the medical community, and uses his fame as leverage to bring attention to his causes, while Steve hasn't really donated to charities other than the Democratic Party, according to public tax records, and doesn't use his public fame to bolster any causes. For example, I believe the article stated Steve survived a bout with some sort of cancer but never speaks about it. I will try to find a link, it was an interesting article.
<EDIT 2:> Found it.
http://www.wired.com/news/columns/0,70072-0.html?tw
Some parts I found interesting:
Wired said:
On the other hand, Jobs has never seemed much concerned with business, though he's been very successful at it of late. Instead, Jobs has been portrayed as a man of art and culture. He's an aesthete, an artist; driven to make a dent in the universe.
But these perceptions are wrong. In fact, the reality is reversed. It's Gates who's making a dent in the universe, and Jobs who's taking on the role of single-minded capitalist, seemingly oblivious to the broader needs of society.
[...]
This is not the case for Jobs. To the best of my knowledge, in the last decade or more, Jobs has not spoken up on any social or political issue he believes in -- with the exception of admitting he's a big Bob Dylan fan.
Rather, he uses social issues to support his own selfish business goals. In the Think Different campaign, Jobs used cultural figures he admired to sell computers -- figures who stuck their necks out to fight racism, poverty, inequality or war.
Jobs once offered to be an advisor to Sen. John Kerry during the 2004 presidential election, and he invited President Clinton over for dinner when Bubba visited Silicon Valley in 1996 -- hardly evidence of deep political convictions.
Jobs can't even get behind causes that would seem to carry deep personal meaning, let alone lasting social importance. Like Lance Armstrong, he is a cancer survivor. But unlike Armstrong, Jobs has so far done little publicly to raise money or awareness for the disease.
Given Jobs' social detachment, I'm confused by the adulation he enjoys. Yes, he has great charisma and his presentations are good theater. But his absence from public discourse makes him a cipher. People project their values onto him, and he skates away from the responsibilities that come with great wealth and power.
Food for thought about our pied piper, fellow Steve followers...
