When you earn billions every year, 3 million is not enough. Apple doesn't need to "raise" money. They can flat out foot the bill and do the right thing themselves... and should.
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.
Tim Cook Says Apple Has Raised Over $3 Million for Hurricane Harvey Relief Efforts
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Why is it Apple (or any other company’s) responsibility to foot the bill for natural disasters? Isn’t that what we all pay taxes for? If Apple donated $10M people would say Cook was just showing off or it should have been $20M. And then someone else would say it should be $50M or $100M.
I prefer Islamic Relief over Red Cross, they are rated higher according to Charity Navigator:
Islamic Relief:
https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=3908
Red Cross:
https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=3277
Islamic Relief:
https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=3908
Red Cross:
https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=3277
Why is this Apple’s responsibility? Do you criticize musicians when they do benefit concerts because they should just be giving all the money themselves? You mentioned Sandra Bullock giving $1M. Should we be criticizing Ellen DeGeneres because she only gave $50K? This isn’t some contest to see who can donate the most. And where is it written that donations need to be based on how much revenue one generates or what their net worth is? It’s so stupid.
[doublepost=1504178718][/doublepost]
How about the Salvation Army? I donated there and got a 2:1 match from my company.
I love Salvation Army! What a great org! I donate money, clothes, furniture, electronics, and kitchen items to them. The one near me is for adult rehabilitation programs, money well spent!
Probably way less than that. It is about about 6 minutes of revenue. So say 15 minutes if they make .30 per every dollar.
Wow! So much hate towards Apple for helping. You know that there may be much more donated by Mr. Cook and others anonymously. Many donate that way.....not to receive a pat on the back but because they truly want to help.
Why is this Apple’s responsibility? Do you criticize musicians when they do benefit concerts because they should just be giving all the money themselves? You mentioned Sandra Bullock giving $1M. Should we be criticizing Ellen DeGeneres because she only gave $50K? This isn’t some contest to see who can donate the most. And where is it written that donations need to be based on how much revenue one generates or what their net worth is? It’s so stupid.
And the award for the warmest Macrumors member goes to:
Rogifan!
Bye Felicia!
Please learn the definition of equivocation.
Neither you, nor I, nor the other guy know what Tim Cook has done personally. Nor should we.
To reuse your example, other guy brings to mind someone who claims Tim should make a charitable donation who has never made one himself.
“Should Not be donating money from other people”... On the basis of this level of ignorance alone, Jerry Lewis would be in Hell right now.
I think everyone on here who earns more money than me should donate 5% of their income directly to me. I need the money, and shame on you if you refuse to do so, and even more shame on you if you donate less than 5%.
Don't be stingy now, cough up. I am in dire need of money.
Anyone? No, thought not. I wonder why...
Many people on here are criticising Apple for doing exactly this. People are all talk and no substance, it's pathetic to watch.
Don't be stingy now, cough up. I am in dire need of money.
Anyone? No, thought not. I wonder why...
Many people on here are criticising Apple for doing exactly this. People are all talk and no substance, it's pathetic to watch.
I disagree. Companies do things to make money. Apple could donate $3m from its hundreds of billions without thought if they really wanted to help people.
But they're doing it publicly in order to improve people's opinion of what is, at its core, a profit making machine that'll do anything to improve its bottom line.
And the award for the warmest Macrumors member goes to:
Rogifan!
Bye Felicia!
Wrong again.
It is worth realizing that if the USA had a properly funded and functioning FEMA, and well organized deployment of pentagon assets to assist, there would be no need for the ARC to step in here. Natural disasters are essentially civil defense exercises.
Come on then, put your money where your mouth is and donate $1000.
Nonsense. If you wanted to donate something, even just a dollar, you could.
[doublepost=1504180408][/doublepost]
You seem to have confused me with someone else.
Apple has made some baffling decisions lately on the donation front - first SPLC, and now the Red Cross?
Oh boy, someone is not doing their research.
Oh boy, someone is not doing their research.
You said Apple have the means to donate $3m, I'm saying you have the means to donate $1000 so why aren't you?
No, I said Apple are donating purely for the publicity. Whether they choose to donate $1 or $1bn, they don't need to tell everyone about it. But asking people to donate actively engages their consumer base, makes Apple look good and prompts articles about Apple's 'generosity'.
Nice way to turn a positive into a negative.
In such a construct every glass is half full, every positive action is viewed with suspicion or as a greedy self serving half measure.
By opening up iTunes as a contribution channel, Apple has made it easy for concerned citizens to donate by acting as a pass through for contributions; easy donations = more donations.
Apple has incentivized its employees to contribute by offering to double match them.
Apple has made its own donation independent of the above.
Apple is looking after its employees welfare and in so doing, is taking strains off the rest of the system.
If we are forced to view every positive act as a means of self interest because there are always inseparable elements of self benefit, then no good act will go uncriticized. If such criticism becomes the norm, it will eventually drive away good acts, as the paradigm eventually becomes to forget about doing anything because it will draw negative attention and more criticism.
The approach of criticizing the charitable such that the charitable give up or go underground, thus not motivating others to also be charitable, is a more likely end result of such criticism than guilting them into doing more will be (most likely because if they did more the same sanctimonious critics would amp up their criticism to match.)
And let's not forget the tax breaks Apple will be getting as a result of the 'charity'.
I didn't donate a dime to red cross and probably never will. But I did buy more stocks which in turn is helping them do more things like this. And of course anytime the media gets in a frenzy with things like this trying to guilt trip people into donating, I just take a glance at what I paid in taxes the prior year.