Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Good for apple. Maybe TC can donate a portion of his proceeds from his last stock sale that would be real nice. Maybe he did. Maybe he didn't. Who knows.
I won't say that I'm impressed with the overall generosity of the Apple Corporation, though 5 million is better than no-million, but people need to google a bit before blaming Cook and some other high-paid executives for being stingy. The fact is, some of the more generous - and there are many who are not - remain fairly private about their personal donations, partially to avoid their personal contributions being conflated with corporate policy. A link:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-ceo-tim-cook-idUSKBN0MM2YM20150326
 
  • Like
Reactions: tzm41
Little Timmy could donate some of the proceeds from all that Apple stock he was cashing in a few weeks back.
 
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.

1. If companies like Apple actually paid taxes and not funneled their money to offshore accounts we wouldn't have these problems. You want them to help? Make them pay their fair share.

2. Apple isn't technically obligated, although morally it is. So I'd be fine with them not doing anything at all, except Apple and all the other big companies are using the disaster to present themselves as these benevolent sweet giants, when in fact the opposite is true. Do you know who else donated money? Exonn Mobil, the company that has been peddling climate change conspiracy theories and buying off politicians for decades to cover up for the fossil fuel industry and to make sure that the subsidies keep flowing.

This reminds me of how fashionable it has become to be an official sponsor of a Pride event, yet we forget that just ten years these same companies did not want to have anything with any of the lgbt organisations. So why now? Because it's cheap PR, let's show the world how amazing and awesome and progressive we are.
 
According to some MR forum members, rather than raising millions, Apple should have done nothing just like Amazon, Google, Uber and everyone else in the tech world.

Disgusting.
Actually, it is probably premature to say which companies have donated what - the storm just hit landfall a week ago. It is also too early to know how much various wealthy executives donated - that often doesn't come out until tax returns are released (unless, of course, you are Trump - then you'll never know). Cook, as are other executives such as Bill Gates, Mark Zukerberg and others, is quite generous with his personal donations. In any case, something is always better than nothing. If every person in the US donated a dollar, that would be some $300 million right there.
 
Meanwhile Verizon has donated 10 million dollars to the Harvey relief fund.......

http://www.androidpolice.com/2017/0...f-efforts-making-atts-350k-seem-like-nothing/

Here's a list of donations so far:

http://money.cnn.com/2017/08/30/news/companies/hurricane-harvey-corporate-donations/index.html

Verizon by far giving the most, wouldn't it be nice if a near trillion dollar corporation matched Verizon's donation?
The fact that COMCAST only donated 500k is disgraceful for what they charge per month.
 
  • Like
Reactions: apolloa
The fact that COMCAST only donated 500k is disgraceful for what they charge per month.

No it isn't. They didn't have to donate anything yet they did.
[doublepost=1504183706][/doublepost]
Apple bragging about "raising" three million dollars is one of the most pathetic things i have ever heard.

It was an email sent to employees, a company update, not a brag.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tzm41
Nice way to turn a positive into a negative...

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.

It's a valuable insights but you're ignoring the other, possibly more likely and definitely more favorable outcome -- a wiser approach to donations that doesn't single out *one* controversial organization, but provide us with a menu of charitable organizations to which we can donate!

The mistake here was Apple making it SOLELY the Red Cross.

Private or Public, That is the Question!

Plus, we must consider a central issue: whether one believes that handling such massive, widespread devastation or addressing massive economic inequalities and poverty should be done primarily through the private sector and donations or through public, governmental actions. Many of us see a place for private, personal donations, but recognize the essential role that government has in creating and sustaining a just, democratic, civil society. Thus, if criticizing corporate giving were to dry up the well of corporate contributions, which it is important to recognize has NOT happened historically, so be it. Maybe, then, we could face these problems, as they should be, as a matter of urgent, long-term public policy.

Historical Note

By the way, we tried charity and libertarianism in 19th century laissez-faire capitalism and it didn't work! Hence, we found that social, labor, environmental, and economic legislation were necessary (as during the Progressive Era, in the New Deal, Johnson's Great Society, and Nixon's many initiatives, including establishing the EPA).

Contributions as Smokescreen or Subterfuge

Note something else: many corporations make a big-to-do about their charitable donations while at the same time getting tax abatements, tax write-offs, and sweetheart deals, and lobbying for and even writing legislation that gives them special, enormous benefits. They use their PUBLIC donations to burnish their image and brand while, often behind the scenes and quietly, robbing the public coffers of much needed money, in amounts far greater than they are donating. Then, adding insult to injury, they get to write off the donations, too, saving them yet more money.

Lest people think that such public policy and political economy analyses renders one heartless or indifferent to the suffering, there is a host of worthwhile organizations to donate to! See the many alternatives listed in this article.

"Where to Donate to Harvey Victims (and How to Avoid Scams)"

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/28/...n=span-abc-region&WT.nav=span-abc-region&_r=0

There are deep immediate needs that need addressing.
 
I live in the area where the hurricane hit (Corpus Christi). the main city doesn't need to funding (at least not as much as Rockport and the smaller surrounding cities who lost everything). a lot of them are small beach towns. small, older homes need to be rebuilt. based on the rich and famous who have said they've donated - I truly hope they (red cross) give it to those who are in need.

i feel as the red cross pays those to say to donate to them. does the red cross state how much they've received in donations?
 
I'm a bit confused here. So Apple hasn't donated anything. People have. So people are criticizing apple Hosting a donation page basically and not donating Anything?

Just saying that people should not quote that Apple has donated / raised 3 million. The truth is that they were a service in this effort.
 
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.

The governor of Texas has told people to give to the Red Cross but Tim Cook isn’t doing his research. OK.


HD0At.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: ErikGrim
1. If companies like Apple actually paid taxes and not funneled their money to offshore accounts we wouldn't have these problems. You want them to help? Make them pay their fair share.

2. Apple isn't technically obligated, although morally it is. So I'd be fine with them not doing anything at all, except Apple and all the other big companies are using the disaster to present themselves as these benevolent sweet giants, when in fact the opposite is true. Do you know who else donated money? Exonn Mobil, the company that has been peddling climate change conspiracy theories and buying off politicians for decades to cover up for the fossil fuel industry and to make sure that the subsidies keep flowing.

This reminds me of how fashionable it has become to be an official sponsor of a Pride event, yet we forget that just ten years these same companies did not want to have anything with any of the lgbt organisations. So why now? Because it's cheap PR, let's show the world how amazing and awesome and progressive we are.
And who decides what is moral?
[doublepost=1504187931][/doublepost]
And let's not forget the tax breaks Apple will be getting as a result of the 'charity'.
And yet people here are chastising them for not donating more. Btw, everybody gets to deduct charitable contributions on their 1040.
 
It always baffles me that hundred-billion dollar corporations take pride in asking common people to give $5.

Why couldn't Apple donate 5 million dollars themselves? What's that amount to them?

They have ~$250 billion cash on hand, but you who makes < $100K a year should give $50 because they asked you to.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Novus John
Checkout http://directrelief.org and http://www.feedingamerica.org

98% of donations goes into programs, whereas Red Cross has 89% going to programs.

It always baffles me that hundred-billion dollar corporations take pride in asking common people to give $5.

Why couldn't Apple donate 5 million dollars themselves? What's that amount to them?

Why do we have to see the negativity of everything? I wouldn't care if Warren Buffet donated $1000.
 
Tim Cook could have rummaged around in his pockets for loose change and brought out a million... what a pile of hypocritical b.s. this announcement is. Apple execs could double/triple/quadruple? this with a week's remuneration each... but hey, I guess mansions don't come cheap in the Bay Area. Anyone who falls for this virtue-signalling is a sap.
And you could likely take in an orphan child, or adopt some rescue animals. Why don't you?

I also find it strange that you assume they didn't donate something via their own program. Would Schiller or Cook tell you how much they typed into the box?
 
  • Like
Reactions: I7guy
All those untaxed $$$$$ Tim, donate some to Red Cross as a tax deduction ;)
[doublepost=1504164295][/doublepost]

Thing is, apple has not donated anything , they set up a capture form ;) or should I say, turned on the existing one .

I have no issues with apple doing this, they have a wide reach when it comes to a user base that tends to have more funds.... my only concern is Red Cross , I would not donate to them as thier % is not great. When donating shop around and make sure most of your money is going to help people and not into admin fees. Red Cross is more of a business these days

Apple has donated $2 million to Red Cross. It's also matching employee donations 2-for-1. The $3 million referred to includes that $2 million from Apple and an additional $1 million from Apple's employees, Apple's matches, and others donating through Apple's platforms. So most of that $3 million is coming from Apple itself.
[doublepost=1504194987][/doublepost]
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'.

People (and entities) disclose their charitable donations for a number of reasons, but primarily to (1) get some kind of credit (e.g. recognition or good will or whatever) from others for them and (2) to encourage others to donate. Apple's disclosure (through an employee email) in this case is no doubt for both of those reasons. Again, that's why various people and entities disclose such things.

But Apple also has extensive charitable efforts that don't get a lot of attention in part because Apple doesn't regularly go out of its way to emphasize those efforts.

That said, Apple being a public company it is appropriate for it to announce this kind of donation (though it doesn't necessarily have to). This isn't someone donating their own money, where the use of those funds in such a way is really no one else's business.

There was actually a shareholder proposal at Apple's last annual meeting that would have required more disclosure from Apple regarding its charitable giving and the reasons behind such giving. That proposal, which was easily defeated, began:

Whereas, in addition to providing benefits to society at-large, charitable contributions should enhance the public image of our company. Increased disclosure about these contributions would provide shareholders with better insight into our corporate giving strategy.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: MH01
People (and entities) disclose their charitable donations for a number of reasons, but primarily to (1) get some kind of credit (e.g. recognition or good will or whatever) from others for them and (2) to encourage others to donate. Apple's disclosure (through an employee email) in this case is no doubt for both of those reasons. Again, that's why various people and entities disclose such things.

But Apple also has extensive charitable efforts that don't get a lot of attention in part because Apple doesn't regularly go out of its way to emphasize those efforts.

I'm glad you agree with me.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.