Apple has not made any significant donations to charity since 1997

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_jobs#cite_ref-57

by ck2 • 15 years ago

7 54 15 years ago

en.wikipedia.org

ck27• 15 years ago

As seen on Reddit.

Also:

http://philanthropy.com/blogs/social-philanthropy/is-apple-a...

http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/06/nonprofit-develope...

christo16• 15 years ago

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.

benologist• 15 years ago

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.

ck27• 15 years ago

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.

nailer• 15 years ago

Apple benefits from individuals. Why are strangers entitled to their profits?

wtallis2• 15 years ago

"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.

jamesaguilar• 15 years ago

> One might say they owe something back.

What, the wonderful computers they make for us are not enough?

prodigal_erik2• 15 years ago

US society has already decided what Apple owes back each year, via the IRS. I don't see why it's fair to expect them to dispose of more of their shareholders' money than some other companies in the same position. It's not as if their shareholders would reach a consensus about an unrelated social problem to solve, much less make an empty gesture towards solving (charities can't fix the free rider issue, which is why they almost never get enough resources to actually succeed and shut down).

joelrunyon• 15 years ago

Personally charitable & publicly charitable are two different things. Unless you know something the rest of us don't, I would be careful passing judgement on someone you only see in keynote speaking environments.

forza• 15 years ago

Seems like a trickle-down economics type of excuse to me. If they really wanted to do that they really could do it like Buffet used to http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/1997ar/shcontri.html

Muzza• 15 years ago

Good. Charities usually squander their money.

ck27• 15 years ago

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/

Johngibb2• 15 years ago

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!

maxharris10• 15 years ago

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.

OpieCunningham5• 15 years ago

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).

maxharris10• 15 years ago

Bernie Madoff did not earn anything. He stole.

You cannot justly equate a destroyer of value (Madoff) with a creator of value (Jobs).

prodigal_erik2• 15 years ago

Low pay is a pricing signal. A surplus of teachers and nurses are disregarding other kinds of work society is announcing a greater unmet need for, in favor of what they feel driven to do. While they are entitled to say "to hell with whatever society values most from me", I wouldn't call it noble.

ck27• 15 years ago

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.

maxharris10• 15 years ago

I'm not responsible for anyone's lot in life but my own. I pay taxes which keeps the government going, which keeps each of us from robbing the other. Having already paid to keep order (and for a whole lot of additional stuff that violates my rights), I owe nothing.

Steve Jobs pays a hell of a lot more in taxes than I do.

kevin_morrill• 15 years ago

No one owes anything back to society for existing, much less thriving.

nickbp7• 15 years ago

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.

aik• 15 years ago

>> Anyone can give away fifty million dollars

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).

DuncanIdaho• 15 years ago

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• 15 years ago

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.

Irfaan• 15 years ago

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.

glenra2• 15 years ago

Apple does have a similar policy.

SeanNieuwoudt• 15 years ago

"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.

WordSkill• 15 years ago

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.

glenra2• 15 years ago

> 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/

Apple has not made any significant donations to charity since 1997

Related Stories