Apple wants your money to help Huricane Harvey survivors

[Ezzy-525]

24 minutes ago, Notional said:

1. No, all huge companies should donate to get that state back on their feet.
2. You are saying the US doesn't help? I don't think so, but of course, there should be catastrophe funds within the US. I do believe they have such a thing.
3. I'm not American. Why would I donate to that? If I had to donate to every disaster around the world, I would have no money left for myself.
4. Where did the 10% of income come from? Apple is donating 0.00438 of their income. It's 4/1000 of 1 percent ffs.

But you're missing the point completely. Apple is just using this as a marketing scheme to give itself consumer goodwill. It's costing them next to nothing. Like I said, couch pennies.

In response to your points:

 

1. They probably should...but they absolutely categorically in no way whatsoever HAVE to do so. That is why they call it charity.

2. There is such a thing as disaster relief funds in the US and they are in effect.

3. You, much like the companies are under absolutely no obligation to donate to the relief of disaster victims whether the event has occurred in the US, your home nation or any other nation.

4. I think I'm right in assuming @RedRound2 picked the 10% as a random figure as you expressed that Apple donating approx. 0.004 of it's income to the relief didn't reach your level of acceptance, and that 10% may be what you deem "appropriate", I'm fairly certain he wasn't attempting to force you to pay 10% of your income to anything, so don't worry about that.

 

As for Apple using this as a marketing ploy...it's somewhat true. But how else in today's world do you expect them to raise awareness of the fact that their own userbase can help people by using the convenient donation button built into the very app they're using.

[Lays]

 

[Notional]

15 minutes ago, RedRound2 said:

Ok, so who is donating more than Apple here. I know Alphabet, facebook and microsoft are quite rich too

 

I said they have enough funds in total to foot off the cost. So does Apple, so does most major companies. But those extra costs aren't meant for natural disasters that happens everywhere around the world and Apple is not a non-profit company

 

Just because you are not american doesn't mean you shouldn't donate. That's frankly a quite absurd logic. I'm not saying you should donate your entire wealth but as you said you could donate 0.00438% of your income

 

Everyone is donating, so I don't think Apple has any goodwill advantage over the others. Also I couldn't give two shits if the phone I was going to buy is from a company that donated for a natural disaster a few years ago, nor does 99% of the people

6

Never claimed other companies shouldn't contribute. On the contrary, so what is your point there?

 

https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/31789 is specifically meant for natural disasters, etc. No Apple is not a non profit company; they are specifically a   45.69 billion USD profit company.

 

Yes it does. The US is one of the richest countries in the world. They don't need my donation (at least they shouldn't). As you said yourself, they can easily foot the bill. Asking me for money in an entirely different continent would just be greedy. But yeah, if I donated a couple of dollars, I would personally be more generous than Apple from an income perspective.

 

I disagree. Apple is a lot more image/brand focused than Facebook, Microsoft, Alphabet, etc. It's one of their strongest suits, which is why they can have such insane profit margins on their products. In fact here in Denmark you have commie politicians who are basically anti capitalist, but uses Iphones, because the branding is so powerful, that they ignore how insanely capitalistic Apple truly is.

 

America is an odd place. They don't want to pay taxes to have a properly working public sector. Not enough for the disaster relief fund. Instead they want to base all help on personal donations, so they can virtue signal like hell. And then in the end, they don't really do that either, but want other continents to pay for them? 

[79wjd]

27 minutes ago, Notional said:

1. No, all huge companies should donate to get that state back on their feet.

No, they shouldn't. If they want to, then more power to them, but for-profit companies have no obligation or expectation to donate. 

6 minutes ago, Notional said:

Never claimed other companies shouldn't contribute. On the contrary, so what is your point there?

 

https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/31789 is specifically meant for natural disasters, etc. No Apple is not a non profit company; they are specifically a   45.69 billion USD profit company.

 

Yes it does. The US is one of the richest countries in the world. They don't need my donation (at least they shouldn't). As you said yourself, they can easily foot the bill. Asking me for money in an entirely different continent would just be greedy. But yeah, if I donated a couple of dollars, I would personally be more generous than Apple from an income perspective.

So it's wrong of Apple to not donate tens of billions of dollars to help, but it's perfectly okay for an individual to tell someone in need in another country to fuck off? Oh the logic we weave. 

[RedRound2]

1 minute ago, Sauron said:

your words:

This is called, taking something entirely out of context. I haven't insulted anyone directly. Sure I've called the post disgusting and cancerous because that's what it is. I called the mods useless because they seem to turn a blind eye towards apple hate train

1 minute ago, Sauron said:

Maybe your standards of what qualifies as an insult are different from mine, but I think we can all agree this wasn't necessary and is deliberately provocatory.

I'm not seeing your posts for the first time. I've seen yours in alot of other I hate Apple posts and I generally have an idea on how some people think/see apple. Again, didn't insult anyone directly, but calling your statements, which you potray as factual, i can refute on

1 minute ago, Sauron said:

You're the one who went and quoted me specifically to taunt me on how I left out some information I couldn't have at the time. I would also argue that, given all the "hater" related quotes from you, you're the one who started talking about people rather than the news piece. Or is that only valid when you do it to others?

I never taunted you. All i did admittedly was rub on your face the fact that Apple did exactly the opposite on what you potrayed Apple as and that's no mistake

1 minute ago, Sauron said:

I haven't seen you be this adamant on the many threads where MS or Google have been hammered by negativity. Or is the "hate" towards them always deserved while Apple can do no wrong? Not that any of this matters in the current context - calling out people the way you've been doing is just rude regardless of the topic at hand.

SHow me which other companies get hated on for no reason. Link me a thread. Here Apple added a much easier channel for people to donate and everyone for no reason was hating on Apple. It would never have been the same story if it was another company

[Notional]

4 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

No, they shouldn't. If they want to, then more power to them, but for-profit companies have no obligation or expectation to donate. 

So it's wrong of Apple to not donate tens of billions of dollars to help, but it's perfectly okay for an individual to tell someone in need in another country to fuck off? Oh the logic we weave. 

If they are part of that country, they have a responsibility. Maybe not a legal one, but definitely a moral one. I lot of people would expect that of them.

 

Yes, Apple is (a big) part of the US. I am no part of it at all. LIke someone said, the US is plenty capable of footing their own bill. Asking me is greedy. How much are the americans or america donating to the migrant crisis in the southern EU? No? That's what I thought. Don't be a hypocrite.

[Ezzy-525]

14 minutes ago, Notional said:

If they are part of that country, they have a responsibility. Maybe not a legal one, but definitely a moral one. I lot of people would expect that of them.

 

Yes, Apple is (a big) part of the US. I am no part of it at all. LIke someone said, the US is plenty capable of footing their own bill. Asking me is greedy. How much are the americans or america donating to the migrant crisis in the southern EU? No? That's what I thought. Don't be a hypocrite.

Just to reiterate, they are not forcing you. And they're barely asking you. It's a popup on the itunes and app store, that's all. Feel free to ignore it. You're not being pressured into anything.

 

However, you seem to want to force companies to give billions whilst simultaneously doing what you're accusing them of.

 

"I'm not paying anything, why should I!?!?!...but you should give billions because I think you should."

 

And if we're talking about how Apple is a "big part of the US", their total revenue is around $180 billion per annum...the US economy is worth around $18 TRILLION...with a T. Exxon Mobil has a annual revenue of around $370 billion...I suppose they should double whatever Apple gives yeah? In fact, whilst we're at it, could you draw up a list of things that people should be paying and we'll get it sorted out?

 

Oh, and morality does not end at a countries border. They apply to us all as humans.

[Notional]

8 minutes ago, Ezzy-525 said:

Just to reiterate, they are not forcing you. And they're barely asking you. It's a popup on the itunes and app store, that's all. Feel free to ignore it. You're not being pressured into anything.

 

However, you seem to want to force companies to give billions whilst simultaneously doing what you're accusing them of.

 

"I'm not paying anything, why should I!?!?!...but you should give billions because I think you should."

You're strawmanning hard here. I think companies have a responsibility in the country they exist in. I've never said they should pay billions, but I'm pointing out that asking for others to donate, while they sit on billions and won't even donate what is a couple of dollars for even poorer individuals is entirely hypocritical. Especially when it's used as a goodwill marketing ploy.

 

In Denmark we mostly donate through taxes. Danmark is one of the countries in the world that donates the most based on GDP. Both in terms of the government, but also private donations.

[79wjd]

1 minute ago, Notional said:

You're strawmanning hard here. I think companies have a responsibility in the country they exist in. I've never said they should pay billions, but I'm pointing out that asking for others to donate, while they sit on billions and won't even donate what is a couple of dollars for even poorer individuals is entirely hypocritical. Especially when it's used as a goodwill marketing ploy.

 

In Denmark we mostly donate through taxes. Danmark is one of the countries in the world that donates the most based on GDP. Both in terms of the government, but also private donations.

someone should be donating because they want to help those in need, it should have no bearing what cpuntry youre from -- the aim is to help need. Plenty of countries help refugees. And regardless, the US and US citizens donate plenty of money to other countries in one way or another. I guess all that should stop to. 

[Notional]

16 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

someone should be donating because they want to help those in need, it should have no bearing what cpuntry youre from -- the aim is to help need. Plenty of countries help refugees. And regardless, the US and US citizens donate plenty of money to other countries in one way or another. I guess all that should stop to. 

So let's say Bill Gates' house catches on fire. Would you donate money to him to rebuild? Or would you assume he would just build a new one by paying with his many billions of dollars? Why would you donate to someone who has enough money already? That's not what donations are for.

 

Donating to poorer countries and humanitarian disasters, where the country/people cannot afford or are not capable of helping themselves enough; is what donations are for. Not one of the richest countries, where one of the richest domestic companies are stingy AF.

[Ezzy-525]

19 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

someone should be donating because they want to help those in need, it should have no bearing what cpuntry youre from -- the aim is to help need. Plenty of countries help refugees. And regardless, the US and US citizens donate plenty of money to other countries in one way or another. I guess all that should stop to. 

Nooooo, America and it's big bad evilcorps should pay for everything...unless it's something I don't want them to pay for. In fact, we should just confiscate all of Apple's money and share it out between everyone. Same goes for farming...perhaps some sort of collectivisation. Or best yet, what about we get rid of companies and have it all owned by the state! Then everyone can work at government factories.

 

I'm fed up of companies making products and then selling them at market value based on demand and then kept the money they earn through this...it's high time they stopped forcing people to buy their products, and any money they have should be immediately given to worthy causes (of which I get to choose).

[Ezzy-525]

14 minutes ago, Notional said:

So let's say Bill Gates' house catches on fire. Would you donate money to him to rebuild? Or would you assume he would just build a new one by paying with his many billions of dollars? Why would you donate to someone who has enough money already? That's not what donations are for.

 

Donating to poorer countries and humanitarian disasters, where the country/people cannot afford or are not capable of helping themselves enough; is what donations are for. Not one of the richest countries, where one of the richest domestic companies are stingy AF.

That's not at all what they're asking you to do. 

 

What they're actually asking you to do (BY YOUR OWN VOLITION), is to help a few million people who have been displaced and lost their homes and all of their belongings (and most likely the company they work for will be closed, so no income coming in), by giving a dollar of your own and in return Apple will give the same (and then some).

 

Either way...they really can't do right for doing wrong, which is a shame. The whole point was about giving to help your fellow man, and instead became a hate on apple thing. Again...I'm an android user, and a windows user. I've never bought anything from Apple and probably never will as I personally consider it to be overpriced and I'm not really a fan of how their products look...the same reasons I won't buy a $500 pair of jeans.

 

Disasters happen. Some people help, some people complain that people aren't helping. All I can say is I hope that the people of Texas get their state back to normal soon, so they can go back to telling people how everything is bigger there (even the weather). 

 

I'm an atheist (that's for another thread), but I know the folks in Texas are mighty fond of that Jesus fella. So from me to them...may God bless the people of Texas!

[79wjd]

31 minutes ago, Notional said:

So let's say Bill Gates' house catches on fire. Would you donate money to him to rebuild? Or would you assume he would just build a new one by paying with his many billions of dollars? Why would you donate to someone who has enough money already? That's not what donations are for.

 

Donating to poorer countries and humanitarian disasters, where the country/people cannot afford or are not capable of helping themselves enough; is what donations are for. Not one of the richest countries, where one of the richest domestic companies are stingy AF.

okay, the government of Texas and the US goverment have plenty of money to cover the damages. No one should donate anything at all. Everyone take your donations back.

[HalGameGuru]

1 hour ago, Notional said:

-snip-

Virtue signal? Who is the bigger problem there? People who voluntarily give of their own limited resources or people who hold a gun to other people's head via the state to fund what THEY believe is more important from those with the gun to their head with the same limited resources and then puff themselves up because they are more "compassionate" by coercing people into doing what they want rather than voluntarily giving of their own resources? Let people who want to virtue signal for whatever reason have their circle jerk. What matters is people helping those in need. And any money or support elicited via coercion of the state is morally bankrupt compared to ANY support voluntarily and consensually provided.

[Notional]

1 hour ago, HalGameGuru said:

Virtue signal? Who is the bigger problem there? People who voluntarily give of their own limited resources or people who hold a gun to other people's head via the state to fund what THEY believe is more important from those with the gun to their head with the same limited resources and then puff themselves up because they are more "compassionate" by coercing people into doing what they want rather than voluntarily giving of their own resources? Let people who want to virtue signal for whatever reason have their circle jerk. What matters is people helping those in need. And any money or support elicited via coercion of the state is morally bankrupt compared to ANY support voluntarily and consensually provided.

 

The former, as they make very little difference in the end, and do it more for their own sake, than for the cause (If they are virtue signalling that is. People just doing it to help are different).

A state can do a lot more good than individuals. That is also why FEMA has their disaster fund and a fully equipped and on stand by solution and system to help in disaster areas. Individuals or even smaller setups like Red Cross can't do anything compared to a fully funded government intervention. Paying for such securities is a fundamental part of a country/state. So calling gun holding nonsense is just that: nonsense.

 

Reading this thread has given me a very interesting insight, and understanding into why the US is such a fracked up place. No wonder nothing works over there. The bold part exemplifies that perfectly. You literally just defined a state/country as morally bankrupt by definition.

[HalGameGuru]

53 minutes ago, Notional said:

The former, as they make very little difference in the end, and do it more for their own sake, than for the cause (If they are virtue signalling that is. People just doing it to help are different).

A state can do a lot more good than individuals. That is also why FEMA has their disaster fund and a fully equipped and on stand by solution and system to help in disaster areas. Individuals or even smaller setups like Red Cross can't do anything compared to a fully funded government intervention. Paying for such securities is a fundamental part of a country/state. So calling gun holding nonsense is just that: nonsense.

 

Reading this thread has given me a very interesting insight, and understanding into why the US is such a fracked up place. No wonder nothing works over there. The bold part exemplifies that perfectly. You literally just defined a state/country as morally bankrupt by definition.

A state has nothing without individuals, and coercing resource collecting bankrupts the entire edifice. Red Cross or the Cajun Navy are nigh infinitely greater actors. There is nothing the state does that private concerns couldn't. FEMA is a small part, and most of what it provides is money. Local resources and National Guard do the bulk of the heavy lifting. And in THIS case the Coast Guard and National Guard primarily provided support via machinery that is heavily regulated for private ownership. A handful of blackhawks is an eye catcher but the hundreds of private individuals in boats and trucks pulled far more weight.

 

The state IS morally bankrupt from the get go. You wanna go back to bastiat and 'The Law", Spooner, Mises, Rothbard, etc. the state is a morally bankrupt institution. And using the state to promote YOUR specific agenda is in no way compassionate or morally justified. You voluntarily giving of YOUR OWN resources is compassionate and morally justified.

 

EDIT: A person giving solely to virtue signal is not a problem, they are still voluntarily providing that boon to those in need. While I too would consider it a lesser act of charity it is not a problem.

[dalekphalm]

10 hours ago, RedRound2 said:

That's the end with all the quotes, took me a while

 

Oh, all the haters going on about how Apple isn't donating anything. Guess what, you're wrong. They collected 1 million from their iTunes donation channel and Apple is pitching in an extra 2 million dollars.

https://9to5mac.com/2017/08/30/tim-cook-harvey-email/

@RedRound2 I'm really not sure why you quoted me, but I'll bite. At the time of my post, there was no major publication posting any information about Apple donating or matching donations - I know because I looked, and spent a good 20-30 minutes Googling and reading every article I could find about Apple and Hurricane Harvey. Every article I read mentioned the iTunes donation prompt, and most also talked about the other major tech companies matching donations or doing their own donations.

 

Frankly, if you're insinuating that I'm an "Apple Hater", then I don't know what to tell you. I own and use an iPhone 6s as my primary mobile device. I don't hate nor love Apple. They're a company that makes for the most part, fairly solid, yet expensive devices. I personally dislike using macOS, though acknowledge that it's not a bad OS, just not for me. I actually quite like iOS, but it's of course not perfect.

 

Anyway, I'm glad that Apple is actually donating something now. Whether they did it for the right reasons or for PR ultimately does not matter at all.

2 hours ago, Notional said:

I've never said they should pay billions, but I'm pointing out that asking for others to donate, while they sit on billions and won't even donate what is a couple of dollars for even poorer individuals is entirely hypocritical.

I normally agree with you on a lot of issues here, but I must say that you seem pretty biased against Apple here. Sure, Apple could do more. So could Microsoft and Google and Exxon and Yahoo (Welllll maybe not lol) and Intel and AMD and every other major US company. But they had no obligation to do anything at all. You say they have a moral obligation, but a company is not a person. Each individual person around the globe can decide for themselves if they should donate or not. Donations, by their very definition, are voluntary. And no, paying taxes does not count as donations (Coming from a Canadian who does not mind paying high taxes for a proper tax funded social system).

 

Furthermore, if we agree that (and I'm rounding here), Apple donated approximately 0.004% of their net income, your assertion that they're not even donating "a couple of dollars" (by comparison) is not necessarily correct.

 

Let's look at the Median US household income (2014): $51,939 (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States)

Now let's look at the average tax rate for Americans: 29.8% (Source: https://www.fool.com/retirement/2017/03/04/whats-the-average-americans-tax-rate.aspx)

Now some math: 51939 * 0.702 [100 - 29.8 = 70.2; converted into decimal] = 36461.178 [rounded to: $36,461.18]

 

So how much is 0.004% of $36,461.18?

 

36461.178 * 0.00004 = 1.45844712

 

So rounded, Apple donated the equivalent of $1.46 compared to the average US household.

 

So is that a lot? Hell no. But it's not "pennies". You could say it's couch change, but let's be honest, the average person doesn't donate very much money. If every US citizen donated $1.46, that would be over $400m USD, which would go a long way to helping those in need.

 

Now onto why should non-US people donate to a US crisis? Yes, America is basically the richest country on earth. Yes, they have huge issues with financial inequality and problems with properly funding social nets, but many of the affected people in the Hurricane are people that don't have help.

 

Anyway, this has gotten far enough derailed.

[NumLock21]

11 hours ago, RedRound2 said:

 

 

Oh, all the haters going on about how Apple isn't donating anything. Guess what, you're wrong. They collected 1 million from their iTunes donation channel and Apple is pitching in an extra 2 million dollars.

https://9to5mac.com/2017/08/30/tim-cook-harvey-email/

 

Apple also donated their own money? That's wonderful. My point wasn't about Apple not donating. My point was about Apple asking for donations from their customers, and then handing it as if it was themselves who has donated it. You donate your money, and instead of the victims knowing it's you who donate it. They only know is from Apple and not you. Basically you don't get credit for your contributions.

[LAwLz]

I think it's a very sad world we live in when someone/something gets hated for not "donating enough".

Hell, when the thread started they were getting hated for making it easier for people to donate.

 

If you have made a negative comment about Apple in this thread then you're a fucking piece of shit. I strongly believe in "credit where credit's due". This is a very good example of where that should apply. Even if you disagree with Apple on other things, them making it easier to donate money to people in need, as well as donating money themselves, deserve credit. They would deserve credit even if they didn't donate any money out of their own pockets at all.

[Notional]

18 minutes ago, HalGameGuru said:

A state has nothing without individuals, and coercing resource collecting bankrupts the entire edifice. Red Cross or the Cajun Navy are nigh infinitely greater actors. There is nothing the state does that private concerns couldn't. FEMA is a small part, and most of what it provides is money. Local resources and National Guard do the bulk of the heavy lifting. And in THIS case the Coast Guard and National Guard primarily provided support via machinery that is heavily regulated for private ownership. A handful of blackhawks is an eye catcher but the hundreds of private individuals in boats and trucks pulled far more weight.

 

The state IS morally bankrupt from the get go. You wanna go back to bastiat and 'The Law", Spooner, Mises, Rothbard, etc. the state is a morally bankrupt institution. And using the state to promote YOUR specific agenda is in no way compassionate or morally justified. You voluntarily giving of YOUR OWN resources is compassionate and morally justified.

4

So let me see if I understand you correctly:

• Taxes by definition is moral bankruptcy? If that is the case then you essentially advocate for anarchy. That is absolutely insane.
• The national guard is no longer part of the state? What? Nor the Coast guard? All the big private enterprises are funded and somewhat driven by state agencies, like FEMA.
• So for a state to protect, help and save its OWN population from natural disasters is now considered "YOUR specific agenda"? Wtf are you on about. You went way into the deep end.

6 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

I normally agree with you on a lot of issues here, but I must say that you seem pretty biased against Apple here. Sure, Apple could do more. So could Microsoft and Google and Exxon and Yahoo (Welllll maybe not lol) and Intel and AMD and every other major US company. But they had no obligation to do anything at all. You say they have a moral obligation, but a company is not a person. Each individual person around the globe can decide for themselves if they should donate or not. Donations, by their very definition, are voluntary. And no, paying taxes does not count as donations (Coming from a Canadian who does not mind paying high taxes for a proper tax funded social system).

 

Furthermore, if we agree that (and I'm rounding here), Apple donated approximately 0.004% of their net income, your assertion that they're not even donating "a couple of dollars" (by comparison) is not necessarily correct.

 

So is that a lot? Hell no. But it's not "pennies". You could say it's couch change, but let's be honest, the average person doesn't donate very much money. If every US citizen donated $1.46, that would be over $400m USD, which would go a long way to helping those in need.

 

Well, the context of this thread is Apple. So the special biased focus from my side on them is mostly contextual. However, there are a few things that make my criticism on Apple a bit sharper than the others:

1. Apple started this fundraising themselves. So, of course, it's only fair to look at what they a contributing with, now that they are asking for money in their name.
2. We need a little context to the size and wealth of Apple to begin with:

https://www.geekwire.com/2017/256-billion-apple-cash-amazon-microsoft-google-combined/

Apple has more money than Amazon, Microsoft and Google combined.

It gets even worse. If Apple was a country, it would be the 55th richest company in the world. The cyberpunk notion of mega-corporations is not fictional. It's reality:

https://www.cultofmac.com/311876/apples-massive-cash-hoard-makes-richer-141-countries/ (that was in 2015. Apple is worth a lot more now).

Quote

Apple has more in its war chest than the total value of goods and services produced by 141 countries in a given year.

So if Apple has 256 billion dollars in "cash and marketable securities.", that means they donated to a humanitarian catastrophe in their own country, what accounts to a massive 0.00078% of their entire company value.

 

The notion that companies have no obligation might be legally correct. But I disagree none the less. Companies and countries/states live in symbioses with each other. If not we will see private corporations take over more and more responsibilities from the state, without being elected for that. Mega corporate wars of cyberpunk will truly become reality. Just look at what Google is doing against free speech right now. They are applying more oppression on free speech than Venezuela.

---

 

Ok fine, Apple is donating what correlates to LESS than a couple of dollars for the average household. Not exactly impressive for one, if not the, richest company in the US.

---

 

Exactly the average person doesn't donate a lot. Which is why a state/country cannot rely on voluntary donations to help in a state wide natural disaster scenario. Claiming it's morally bankrupt (not you claiming that), is just outright moronic. 400 million dollars is nice, but with an impact of 190 billion dollars on GDP (https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/accuweather-predicts-hurricane-harvey-to-be-the-most-costly-natural-disaster-in-us-history/70002597) and an estimated 3 billion dollars direct damage cost (to insurance), 400 million is not going to do a whole lot. Of course, that's not what the money goes to though, but I doubt we will see that much money donated either way.

[79wjd]

21 minutes ago, NumLock21 said:

Apple also donated their own money? That's wonderful. My point wasn't about Apple not donating. My point was about Apple asking for donations from their customers, and then handing it as if it was themselves who has donated it. You donate your money, and instead of the victims knowing it's you who donate it. They only know is from Apple and not you. Basically you don't get credit for your contributions.

You don't need credit to make a donation -- the best kind of donation is an anonymous one (that still doesn't make non-anonymous donations any less worthy). Also, I don't see how Apple making it easier for donate is Apple taking credit for the donations.... 

[Derangel]

5 hours ago, Notional said:

1. No, all huge companies should donate to get that state back on their feet.
2. You are saying the US doesn't help? I don't think so, but of course, there should be catastrophe funds within the US. I do believe they have such a thing.
3. I'm not American. Why would I donate to that? If I had to donate to every disaster around the world, I would have no money left for myself.
4. Where did the 10% of income come from? Apple is donating 0.00438 of their income. It's 4/1000 of 1 percent ffs.

But you're missing the point completely. Apple is just using this as a marketing scheme to give itself consumer goodwill. It's costing them next to nothing. Like I said, couch pennies.

No, a company should only donate if they want to. The US is not a socialist country where everyone and every company is forced to contribute. If people, or companies, wish to donate they are free to. If they do not wish to donate, so be it.

 

And who the fuck cares if they're doing it for PR? Go ask people being helped if they give a shit that the donation gave a company good PR. Saying "they're doing it for PR" is the dumbest insult. They're making it easy for people to donate and giving money on top of it. That is a good thing no matter why they're doing it. In the past decade Apple has given over ONE HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS to charities around the world. The fuck does it matter if it was good PR or not? Would you rather charities were 100 million dollars poorer?

[RedRound2]

2 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

Snip

I apologise. I think all I intended by quoting you was to inform you of the fact that Apple has donated rather than generalizing you with the others. And from our past convos I know you aren't a die hard hater

1 hour ago, NumLock21 said:

Apple also donated their own money? That's wonderful. My point wasn't about Apple not donating. My point was about Apple asking for donations from their customers, and then handing it as if it was themselves who has donated it. You donate your money, and instead of the victims knowing it's you who donate it. They only know is from Apple and not you. Basically you don't get credit for your contributions.

Ok let's say you give some donations to redcross or any other non-profit organisations and they swoop in to save people in texas. I'm pretty sure those people wouldn't know the name of each and every person who donated and rather they would see as redcross donating.

 

Also, it's no secret that Apple made a channel to donate to the victims. I and it's wuite clearly written on Apple's press release that theyre donating 1 million dollars recieved directly from customers along with the 2 million dollars they're donating

 

And I don't understand when you say 'you dont get credit'. Unless youre going to fly to texas and help families rebuild their homes personally I don't think you will ever get credit when you donate some money for charity

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

I think it's a very sad world we live in when someone/something gets hated for not "donating enough".

Hell, when the thread started they were getting hated for making it easier for people to donate.

 

If you have made a negative comment about Apple in this thread then you're a fucking piece of shit. I strongly believe in "credit where credit's due". This is a very good example of where that should apply. Even if you disagree with Apple on other things, them making it easier to donate money to people in need, as well as donating money themselves, deserve credit. They would deserve credit even if they didn't donate any money out of their own pockets at all.

Well said. Couldn't agree more

[NumLock21]

2 minutes ago, RedRound2 said:

Ok let's say you give some donations to redcross or any other non-profit organisations and they swoop in to save people in texas. I'm pretty sure those people wouldn't know the name of each and every person who donated and rather they would see as redcross donating.

 

Also, it's no secret that Apple made a channel to donate to the victims. I and it's wuite clearly written on Apple's press release that theyre donating 1 million dollars recieved directly from customers along with the 2 million dollars they're donating

 

And I don't understand when you say 'you dont get credit'. Unless youre going to fly to texas and help families rebuild their homes personally I don't think you will ever get credit when you donate some money for charity

 

They don't have to know you individually. Apple can say these donation comes both themselves and all the kind hearted men and women out there, who wanted to help.

[dalekphalm]

2 hours ago, NumLock21 said:

Apple also donated their own money? That's wonderful. My point wasn't about Apple not donating. My point was about Apple asking for donations from their customers, and then handing it as if it was themselves who has donated it. You donate your money, and instead of the victims knowing it's you who donate it. They only know is from Apple and not you. Basically you don't get credit for your contributions.

 

44 minutes ago, NumLock21 said:

They don't have to know you individually. Apple can say these donation comes both themselves and all the kind hearted men and women out there, who wanted to help.

I don't get your argument here.

 

Apple aren't taking donations through iTunes and then telling the Red Cross "Hey this came from our bank". Apple also never claimed that the donations were from themselves. In all the media I've read, it was perfectly clear that the donations through iTunes were made by regular people.

 

Furthermore, Apple doesn't even KNOW who donated or how much or their credit info (To be fair, I'm sure Apple can gain some statistics since it's their platform). The transaction is a secure connection going directly to the Red Cross.

 

Lastly, as others have pointed out, the people who are receiving help aren't going to know where the money came from anyway. They'll just know that "Red Cross helped me - thanks to everyone who donated to them!"

 

If you personally donated - either directly to Red Cross, or via the iTunes app, you'll get exactly the same amount of credit - none publicly (unless you personally post something in social media, etc). Red Cross is not going to share your name or personal info - in fact, they'd be liable for a lawsuit if they did so without your explicit permission.

 

I'm just confused about the point of your argument. The only way a person is going to get real credit for donating, is if they haul their ass over to Texas and starts chipping in with volunteer work.