Maybe the word "Product" is in there so they can release many lines. like nano product blue, or nano product purple for various orgonizations and still diffirentiate between their standard colorsmonke said:
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.
RED iPod Nano Tomorrow?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
bluedevil14 said:
there are lots of things we can't phantom. but you mean "fathom", as in, understand.
I agree wholeheartedly with your comments about supporting the charity.
I would love to pick up one of these... RED actually looks nice. BUT, I don't know about the white wheel... reminds me of Target and Christmas - UGLY! Oh well...
Some people just don't get it!jamesi said:
It's not about the band (in fact U2 has nothing to do with this), it's about the project and Bono happens to be the spokes person.
And a very good spokes person at that. Like him or hate him, but how many people get to promote their cause to Oprah, President Bush and the Pope.
Love him or hate him he's following his heart and conscience. My hats off to him and hope that one day I'll be able to do the same!
rtdunham said:there are lots of things we can't phantom. but you mean "fathom", as in, understad.
I agree wholeheartedly with your comments about supporting the charity.
Or the people who think that the money is going to the wrong place...of course they seem to forget that they are allowed to donate to more than one charity...it's not like it is an exclusive club or something where you can only belong to one.
TheSailerMan said:
the real question is, DID you then take the shirt off? if so--and I'm a parent--my sympathies go out to you. you mom is no doubt well-meaning, but i encourage you to think for yourself, do what you think is right. peace out.
whatever said:
Very true. His doing something great and his star power is raising awareness to a huge problem in Africa.
If every person who criticizes him did 1% of what he does to help Africa, we all would live in a much better world.
Okay there are other charities and groups who currently provide the "education" and cannot provide the drugs. Basically the drugs are out of reach to these charities, either it's against their mandate or they just can't afford to. Which is why Product Red is focussing on drugs.guzhogi said:
Not to complicated. Do the people in this forum ever leave this page, there is a lot of information out there beyond Mac Rumors.
GuyV said:
Ayn Rand addresses the virtues of selfishness in a book cleverly titled, "The Virtues of Selfishness." She argues there's no such thing as altruism, and that all charity is the result of selfishness--but what's wrong about our feeling good about ourselves for doing good? Especially if, having cultivated that self-image, we do DO good for others? We're not the characters in "The Holy Grail" chanting and rapping ourselves in the foreheads with boards, right?
Plus the red iPods serve as a visual reminder of charity to others, just as charities affix little stickers to our lapels (do any of us still have lapels?) when we donate, or when our office drive meets its goal, or when we vote or give blood. They're visual stimuli suggesting the same acts to others. So flaunt that red iPod!
Yeah i'm quite annoyed about that too as i want one.jameshopkins said:
yeah, but if i'm seeing it right, it merely takes me to the thread--which would have gain posed that 273-post hurdle to my patience. As someone else posted inthis thread, id like to see a search feature on this forum that found specific posts, not just the thread. I believe the apple support forums and others work that way.fitinferno said:There's def a way to search (it's up in the menu bar on the forums) BUT it has the miserable feature of sometimes not finding threads that have ALL of the words you look for but rather just a few of them
bdj21ya said:
I was just thinking...does this mean that you think that money received by Hurricane Katrina charities should have been used to educate people on how to build and maintain dykes, and not to build below sea level and on flood plains, rather than be used to help the short term suffering?
Beligerent said:
You're not cynical just ignorant. PLENTY of diseases have been wiped out or severely reduced (polio, smallpox, etc.). As for the "biggies" like cancer, AIDS, etc., well they are very hard problems to solve. Diseases like cancer, MS, MD, etc. are not communicable and we don't even yet fully understand what causes them. And most communicable diseases we can cure or control, but AIDS is like a super-virus that not only attacks the immune system directly, but also mutates rapidly.
As for the charity/pharma connection: you raise a good point. I would hope that charities are donating money to universities or non-profit research centers, instead of pharmas. And I do believe this is the case. I *don't* think charities are turning around and giving money to for-profit corporations.
And please don't demonize pharmas for making a profit. They never claimed to be charity, and they deserve all the profits they're getting. It costs something like $2 billion dollars to bring a drug to market because of all the regulations and testing that is required, and Pharmas need to recoup those huge costs.
And yes, pharmas milk their drugs for maximum profit, but that's their right. Again, they're a corporation whose purpose is to make money. If they were a non-profit charity, then they would have been established as such. The business that pharmas are in is to discover a new drug, get a patent on the drug, and then milk that drug for maximum profits for the 17 years that they have a patent on it. If you have a problem with that, then you have a problem with the whole patent system. The purpose of patents is to spur innovation by promising companies a 17-year monopoly during which they can potentially make huge profits. The patent system has been spectacularly successfuly in promoting a mind-boggling rate of innovation across all industries, not just the pharma/biomedical field.
rtdunham said:
Brilliant. I'm in. I surely do not need to buy a product to give to charity. Putting it on iTunes would make the donation as easy as pressing a button. I'm asking the same question... how do we get this going?
lmalave said:
This is one of the more misguided comments I've seen in a long time. Yes, of course America is a capitalist society, and any company is entitled to earn all the profits they can. That's the American way.
But to say that the Pharmaceutical companies deserve all their profits, or that they are honest companies merely trying to recouperate their losses is bordering on asinine. Here are some empirical facts for you - you can look them up, it's public information:
1) The top 10 pharma companies had 2006 FIRST HALF (6 month) profits that totaled over $39 Billion dollars.
2) Pfizer alone had first half profits in '06 that totaled over $6.5 billion.
Those are PROFIT numbers... profit only, as in money in their pocket after all expenses, patent costs, drug production and distribution costs, payroll, etc are paid. Period.
That's a disgusting amount of profit for corporations that are supposed to be in business of research, development, and the public good. If you genuinely believe these companies don't lie, cover up, and manpulate medical facts for their own benifit, or hike up the prices of drugs unnecessarily for their own gains (at the expense of the health of people around the world) then you are sorely naive and misguided.
blueflame said:
The "product" tag revolves around the charity, not the iPod or apple. If you go to http://www.joinred.com you'll note the various "products." (motorola)red, (converse)red, etc. Pretty clever. There are limitless companies and organzations that can get involved.
This Will Get Lost In The Posts But What The Heck...
I like what Bono is doing, and I like it when people look out for other people. Which brings me to Madonna. This is true selfishness. Madonna, is doing something wonderful for a child, has decided to adopt a boy from Malawi, who is in an orphanage because his father doesn't have the money to care for him. His mother has died, so the boy is 14 months old, and will be the new son of Madonna.
What is so bad about this you ask?
Why not adopt a child who has no parents alive, rather than slip apart a father and son for life. Perhaps give the father money so he can be united with his son again and they can live together, albeit in a smaller house than Madonna would give the boy. Or better yet, keep giving to charities that help the peple of Malawi, rather than spending thousands to take one out and "save" him. I don't normally pick at what celebs do, or others do, but this is selfish on Madonna's part.
Maybe she should get an iPod line, and have money donated to her favorite cause too, which appears to be separating families for life, while satisfying her selfish desire. What color would you make that iPod?
I like what Bono is doing, and I like it when people look out for other people. Which brings me to Madonna. This is true selfishness. Madonna, is doing something wonderful for a child, has decided to adopt a boy from Malawi, who is in an orphanage because his father doesn't have the money to care for him. His mother has died, so the boy is 14 months old, and will be the new son of Madonna.
What is so bad about this you ask?
Why not adopt a child who has no parents alive, rather than slip apart a father and son for life. Perhaps give the father money so he can be united with his son again and they can live together, albeit in a smaller house than Madonna would give the boy. Or better yet, keep giving to charities that help the peple of Malawi, rather than spending thousands to take one out and "save" him. I don't normally pick at what celebs do, or others do, but this is selfish on Madonna's part.
Maybe she should get an iPod line, and have money donated to her favorite cause too, which appears to be separating families for life, while satisfying her selfish desire. What color would you make that iPod?
rtdunham said:
Ahhh, yeah, that would be nice (esp seeing as I've read the entire thread and missed the post you reference, lol).
It's already been pointed out, but i just want to reiterate: (Product)RED is a separate charity. It has nothing to do with Apple as a company.
Moving on, I'm kind of disappointed. When I bought my Nano, it would have made me feel better to know that at least some of my money was going to a good cause. I also would have much preferred red over blue.
Moving on, I'm kind of disappointed. When I bought my Nano, it would have made me feel better to know that at least some of my money was going to a good cause. I also would have much preferred red over blue.
Go to JOINRED.com and perhaps buy another (Product)red™ item. Converse, Armani, American Express, Motorola and GAP all have stuff to sale with some proceeds going to help the very same cause.steve_hill4 said:
With iPods flying off the shelves these days, Apple's holding its own. According to our very own Macrumors.com, Apple sold 8,111,000 iPods in their last Quarter. It's quite possible that over the next year, Apple will sell 10,000,000 of these little red players: that's $100,000,000 and I think this is probably being fairly conservative.steve_hill4 said:
Could they give more? Sure. But they have their own costs to consider, their stockholders to consider. If I give 5% to a cause, I make no impact. If Apple gives 5%, $100M+! It's very possible that this will become a permanent part of the iPod lineup. Apple's impact will huge.
I believe that Apple will contribute far more to the cause than Armani, Converse and anyone else involved in the project.
clintob said:
calling someone asinine based on your opinions of what is a fair amount, and what is lavish, is what's asinine. profits are just that, profits. how it's accomplished is regulated by the likes of the irs and ftc, just to name 2.
2 little brothers of big brother, regulating public and private commodities. strange, isnt it?
and the rest of my rant
here's my point..
if the board was told that the promo and the 5% donation was not claimable, it would not have moved off the table. simple as that.
counter solution:
or, if they felt so strongly about the cause, have the bean counters project sales for a fiscal year, and donate that amount. tieing in the sale of your product to charity is whore-ish. absolutely whore-ish.
as much as you want to convince yourself that red is cool, charity is good, steve is a genius...you will never realize that you are the eskimo, steve is the saleman, and his 10 different flavors of crap on a stick is his ice, that you just bought
there really is no genuine concern from apple or oprah for the african aids epidemic. to conceal sales figures and market shares behind donations is one thing. but to attatch such a grave issue to a novelty like the ipod is just fu#kin rediculous.
you want concern? you want involvement? you want results? then model yourself after jane goodall. there were no photo ops, no lavish incomes, no pop cult press, just a life-long journey of wanting to know, wanting to help, wanting to document, wanting to understand the primates. selling a ginormous amount of ipods and donating 99% of the sales wouldnt accomplish 1% of JG did. and that's the god's honest truth.
what is horribly sad about all of this, minus steve, minus oprah, minus bono?
what's sad is that your consumeristic endorphins need to be stoked more than a baby needs his bottle. enjoy your creature comforts, fools.
what's funny?
if it's not simple, it's not worth doing.
i'm all for simplifying a process, but to say "i'd help if i could just click on it in itunes" is just down right lazy.
