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.
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.
Charity is not morally neutral. One part of being good means making the most of your own life. Another part of being good means helping other people.
No one can give away fifty million dollars that they don't have.
There is no inherent moral good in earning fifty million dollars (Bernie Madoff, Goldman Sachs, AIG, your local arms dealer, etc. etc.) There is often significant moral good in earning far less than fifty million dollars (teachers, nurses, etc).
No they can't. Giving away money is incredibly difficult for most people regardless of how much they have. So yes, it is is an act of good will and speaks of one's character.
That being said, I don't believe you have to contribute to random charities to be moral, as long as the cash is helping (or will help) in some other way at some point, and not being used purely for selfish motives.
So much of our lives are guided by chance. One who has a lot hasn't earned everything they have, and a person who has nothing hasn't necessarily earned that nothingness. We live in an unfair world and assisting those with worse luck in certain parts of their life is good will.
What doesn't make sense is for someone to judge someone else for either giving or not giving in any particular moment (or even 14 years).
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.
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.
What a silly excuse to give nothing back - both Apple and Jobs individually are sitting on ridiculous amounts of money regardless of what their shareholders do with their own money.
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:
I think it's at least reasonable to concede that it's possible that Apple does more good in empowering not-so-tech-savvy-individuals than it would in donating money to charities.
As a case-in-point, my girlfriend and I recently gave her old MacBook to my grandmother. Ever since - she's been more engaged with facebook than anyone my age - and it shows in her mood and general well being. I can't help but glow every time I get off a FaceTime call with her!
[+] [-] WordSkill|15 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] unknown|15 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] glenra|15 years ago|reply
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|15 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] OpieCunningham|15 years ago|reply
No one can give away fifty million dollars that they don't have.
There is no inherent moral good in earning fifty million dollars (Bernie Madoff, Goldman Sachs, AIG, your local arms dealer, etc. etc.) There is often significant moral good in earning far less than fifty million dollars (teachers, nurses, etc).
[+] [-] ck2|15 years ago|reply
You've already taken for granted something you owe back.
[+] [-] aik|15 years ago|reply
No they can't. Giving away money is incredibly difficult for most people regardless of how much they have. So yes, it is is an act of good will and speaks of one's character.
That being said, I don't believe you have to contribute to random charities to be moral, as long as the cash is helping (or will help) in some other way at some point, and not being used purely for selfish motives.
So much of our lives are guided by chance. One who has a lot hasn't earned everything they have, and a person who has nothing hasn't necessarily earned that nothingness. We live in an unfair world and assisting those with worse luck in certain parts of their life is good will.
What doesn't make sense is for someone to judge someone else for either giving or not giving in any particular moment (or even 14 years).
[+] [-] Irfaan|15 years ago|reply
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|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ck2|15 years ago|reply
Also:
http://philanthropy.com/blogs/social-philanthropy/is-apple-a...
http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/06/nonprofit-develope...
[+] [-] DuncanIdaho|15 years ago|reply
If he is - then you can't really blame him can you? He could hardly justify charity as moral.
[+] [-] Tycho|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] christo16|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ck2|15 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] forza|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] benologist|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SeanNieuwoudt|15 years ago|reply
Apple owe's you nothing, they are entitled to do exactly as they please with their profits.
[+] [-] Muzza|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ck2|15 years ago|reply
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/
[+] [-] Johngibb|15 years ago|reply
As a case-in-point, my girlfriend and I recently gave her old MacBook to my grandmother. Ever since - she's been more engaged with facebook than anyone my age - and it shows in her mood and general well being. I can't help but glow every time I get off a FaceTime call with her!