

Apple has not made any significant donations to charity since 1997 - ck2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_jobs#cite_ref-57

======
WordSkill
The headline is completely incorrect - Wikipedia does NOT say that "Apple has
not made any significant donations to charity since 1997".

What it actually says is:

"Jobs has not reinstated a philanthropic division at Apple."

So, he hasn't hired a bunch of people to sit in an office, giving someone
else's money away and feeling pretty good about themselves. I'd say that is A
GOOD THING - you don't need full-time staff in order to give money to good
causes, that's just more overhead that stops money getting to the people who
really need it. Jobs also got rid of the Apple Museum when he returned to
Apple in 1997 .... because it was irrelevant ego bullshit and completely
unnecessary.

Wikipedia says absolutely nothing about how much money Apple has donated and I
know for a fact that it has aided progressive causes that other corporations
would be too nervous to assist for fear of conservative backlash.

I hope that the submitter of this, ck2, realizes that, with one rotten
headline, he is now part of what is wrong with media reporting - distorting
the truth in order to sensationalize.

~~~
glenra
> Wikipedia says absolutely nothing about how much money Apple has donated and
> I know for a fact that it has aided progressive causes

For instance, Apple does tie-in promotions such as the Product(RED) iPods that
support the Global Fund to Fight AIDS: <http://www.apple.com/ipod/red/>

They also provide grants and recognition to teachers and schools:
<http://www.apple.com/education/apple-distinguished-educator/>

------
maxharris
Charity is morally neutral. I believe that being good means making the most of
your own life.

If you want to help someone, or even a lot of people through charity, that's
fine, but it should not earn you any moral credit.

Moral credit should only come from what you've truly achieved, and that means
creating value somehow (invention, scientific discovery, beautiful art, and
honest work of any kind). Anyone can give away fifty million dollars, but not
many can actually earn the same sum in their lifetimes.

~~~
ck2
If you live a society that doesn't morally (or physically) oppress you, so you
CAN _make the most of your own life_ you've already benefited from it.

You've already taken for granted something you owe back.

~~~
nickbp
I totally agree with this. A lot of people don't realize how much they are
helped by their society because they've never seen how bad it can truly be.
Here's an example of I mean (and a worthwhile read to boot):
<http://www.expeditionportal.com/forum/showthread.php?t=50799>

You aren't going to be able to develop your skills if there is no society or
infrastructure to support that development, if transit is difficult and
dangerous, if all money and energy is being siphoned to a few corrupt people
at the top. Of course charity isn't the only solution to breaking this cycle,
but it certainly helps more than a $1500 laptop.

~~~
ck2
Thanks for "getting it". Sorry to see you were downvoted.

------
Irfaan
One of the things I liked about Microsoft was the company's gift matching
policy - they'd 100% match your donation to a charity up to <SOME LARGE
NUMBER>. I found myself being more generous because of it, what with each of
my dollars worth two.

I'm surprised Apple doesn't have a similar policy - sure, it didn't make or
break my decision to join MS, but it was an awfully nice compensation bonus.

~~~
glenra
Apple does have a similar policy.

------
ck2
As seen on Reddit.

Also:

[http://philanthropy.com/blogs/social-philanthropy/is-
apple-a...](http://philanthropy.com/blogs/social-philanthropy/is-apple-anti-
charity/24565)

[http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/06/nonprofit-
develope...](http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/06/nonprofit-developer-
apples-no-donation-policy-is-a-cop-out.ars)

------
DuncanIdaho
Is Steve Jobs an disciple of Ayn Rand? There sure seems to be a number of
indicators pointing in that direction.

If he is - then you can't really blame him can you? He could hardly justify
charity as moral.

~~~
Tycho
That doesn't follow. Objectivism has no problem with charity (Rand: 'it's good
and proper'), just with this moral-blackmailing/guilt-tripping schtick. I
think many Objectivists believe that (private) charity would be larger overall
in the sort of society Rand envisioned.

------
christo16
SJ believes that his job is to make shareholders rich and by doing so, gives
them the means to be charitable. I would tend to agree with him.

~~~
ck2
As a corporation Apple profits massively from society.

One might say they owe something back.

With the extreme loyalty of it's userbase, they could set some very nice
examples.

Why Steve Jobs isn't personally charitable with $5B in the bank is a rather
depressing mystery.

~~~
wtallis
_"One might say they owe something back"_

One could say that they are giving something back, by using those profits to
develop ways to make computing more accessible and useful, something they're
better at and more willing to invest in than anyone else.

~~~
ck2
Let me repeat that back to you as I understood it.

What you are saying is Apple (and their work) is _$deity_ 's gift to the world
so they don't owe anything else regardless how many billions of dollars they
make from it.

People in parts of the world that need help to survive or thrive more than a
meager existence, aren't helped by Apple's pretty software UI and hardware
design.

~~~
wtallis
You can use the argument that people in third-world countries are starving to
bash just about anything that anybody on this site does for a living.

If you truly believed that argument, you wouldn't be wasting your own
disposable income on broadband and a cell phone.

------
SeanNieuwoudt
"Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day, teach him how to fish and he'll
eat for a lifetime".

Apple owe's you nothing, they are entitled to do exactly as they please with
their profits.

------
Muzza
Good. Charities usually squander their money.

~~~
ck2
Not sure who downvoted you instead of explaining this:

There are plenty of popular "knee-jerk" charities like the Red Cross that
squander their donations. However there are also plenty of smaller, more
focused charities that give a huge percentage of their donations directly to
their causes and are extremely efficient. The catch is you have to research a
charity before donating and most people cannot be bothered.

These days with the internet, there is no excuse for not researching:

<http://www.charitynavigator.org/>

