Apple donates $500K to San Francisco anti-poverty initiative
Apple's charitable contributions continue to grow, with another half-million dollars given to SF Gives, a charity that fights poverty in San Francisco, Calif.
The donation from Apple, which was revealed by sources to Fortune, brings SF Gives $500,000 closer to reaching its goal of $10 million to fund local charitable programs. SF Gives hopes to have a total of 20 businesses contribute to reach that mark.
Other companies that have reportedly pitched in to SF Gives are Google, LinkedIn and Zynga. There have been 15 corporate contributors thus far, Monday's report said.
Still, 10 or so companies are said to have declined chipping in, citing their own, separate charitable contributions. SF Gives hopes to reach the $10 million mark by a self-imposed deadline of Wednesday.
Donations to SF Gives through the Tipping Point Community are not limited to corporations. Individuals can also contribute at the program's official website.
Under Chief Executive Tim Cook, Apple has been much more open about its philanthropic endeavors than it was under the leadership of secretive company co-founder Steve Jobs. But perhaps Apple's greatest charitable contribution has come from a program started under Jobs: Product (RED) devices, which to date have raised more than $70 million for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS.
Cook is also currently offering up a lunch date through CharityBuzz to raise money for the RFK Center for Justice and Human Rights. With 8 days left in the bidding, the price of that sit-down has reached $175,000. Cook set a record a year ago when the same offer went for $560,000.
The donation from Apple, which was revealed by sources to Fortune, brings SF Gives $500,000 closer to reaching its goal of $10 million to fund local charitable programs. SF Gives hopes to have a total of 20 businesses contribute to reach that mark.
Other companies that have reportedly pitched in to SF Gives are Google, LinkedIn and Zynga. There have been 15 corporate contributors thus far, Monday's report said.
Still, 10 or so companies are said to have declined chipping in, citing their own, separate charitable contributions. SF Gives hopes to reach the $10 million mark by a self-imposed deadline of Wednesday.
Donations to SF Gives through the Tipping Point Community are not limited to corporations. Individuals can also contribute at the program's official website.
Under Chief Executive Tim Cook, Apple has been much more open about its philanthropic endeavors than it was under the leadership of secretive company co-founder Steve Jobs. But perhaps Apple's greatest charitable contribution has come from a program started under Jobs: Product (RED) devices, which to date have raised more than $70 million for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS.
Cook is also currently offering up a lunch date through CharityBuzz to raise money for the RFK Center for Justice and Human Rights. With 8 days left in the bidding, the price of that sit-down has reached $175,000. Cook set a record a year ago when the same offer went for $560,000.
Comments
“Steve is dead, all is lost” comments aside, I think Apple under Tim Cook is morphing into a better company all around. WWDC will be Cook’s to win or lose on the product and innovation front but Apple does seem to be becoming more ‘human’ in it’s public persona. For all his genius Steve Jobs had some serious personality and personal issues that were never dealt with. Those issues were reflected in the way he ran Apple and the public face of the company.
Just my personal opinion.
I might be in the minority on this one, but I believe companies do their best work by being successful and as a side-effect employing people (which is not to suggest that people are somehow owed jobs by businesses).
I'd rather Apple kept the focus on product in the eyes of the public and the other stuff be kept private. I agree with Jobs on this.
After reading the Forbes article, I agree the most with the statement that individuals should feel free to make donations, but it is a misuse of investor money to make charitable donations.
After reading the Forbes article, I agree the most with the statement that individuals should feel free to make donations, but it is a misuse of investor money to make charitable donations.
WTF?! Are you stoned or something? Do you mind explaining this statement?
After reading the Forbes article, I agree the most with the statement that individuals should feel free to make donations, but it is a misuse of investor money to make charitable donations.
Its Apple's money, not your money...they should be able to do whatever the hell they want with it, not what some pissant analyst/investor thinks is best for Apple. They can take their shares elsewhere if they don't like it. I know this will never happen, but Apple can't go public fast enough.
Apple has tens of billions of dollars, $500,000 is a drop in the bucket, and for a good cause. Its the customers that provided Apple with this money and its nice to see Apple is using some of it to give back to people in real need. Investors have already gotten more than their share.
Rising tide floats all boats. SF is Apple's home town. If the donation helps improve the quality of life in SF then that helps improve Apple's public image which is good for business.
Nobody would complain if Apple donated to a liberal arts organization or some academic cause. Some people just don't want to see them spend any money on poor people. If you have been to SF you know there are a lot of homeless on the streets. If there were fewer, the city would be better in my opinion.
Why do you think going private is a good idea (if it was ever even remotely possible)? How many successful public companies go private? Dell recently went private but I would never equate Apple to Dell.
Because there wouldn't be people bitching up a storm trying to run Apple better than Apple because they have a few shares. There wouldn't be all this crap about how Apple isn't doing very well and how the CEO should be replaced. Apple could just be Apple and not have investors. Basically, it eliminate distractions from analysts, investors, etc.
Apple is not Dell...you cannot compare the two. Dell makes shitty PC's and fell behind the times as it only relied on cheap PC sales to keep its company going and this isn't where the future is. Going private wasn't going to save them, but it did take the heat off them.
Who could afford to take them private? Someone has to buy them. Do you think Apple management would be better off taking orders from a Saudi Prince?
Who could afford to take them private? Someone has to buy them. Do you think Apple management would be better off taking orders from a Saudi Prince?
This is why it would never happen. It would be nice if Apple could just buy themselves out with the cash they have. Again, I know this can't happen. Shareholders are just a pain in the ass thats all.
There will always be "poor people.". If a person is capable of thinking and acting on their own behalf, they have a chance at changing their circumstances.
More accurately, it's Apple's AND the investors money. I don't agree with Apple giving a dividend, yet they were pressured by investors to do so. I don't agree with splitting the stock, but again investor pressure brought this about. Apple does not owe "society" a thing beyond making money and adhering to the laws. I don't believe in corporate giveaways. Individuals are free to donate ("throw away"?) their money on charitable contributions. If it was Apple's business to manage and administer charitable donations, I have no doubt they'd be the best in the world at doing so. It's not their business.
Laughable of Apple to only give 500K when they have billions in cash!
http://www.baptistmessenger.com/oklahoma-baptists-give-500k-to-moore-public-schools-for-1600-person-storm-shelter-at-central-elementaryjunior-high/
Can't disagree totally, but the best scenario was Steve in the innovation / presentation chair and Tim running the day to day operation, which was pretty much how it was in the last few years. So I'd vote to get the time machine out and go back and get Steve.
As you know they can't own themselves, but I was just being sarcastic about the Saudi Prince. He doesn't have enough money to even show up on the radar. It would take every penny of the 10 wealthiest people on the planet to afford to take Apple private. Shareholders are much easier to deal with than billionaires.
There will always be "poor people.". If a person is capable of thinking and acting on their own behalf, they have a chance at changing their circumstances.
You, sir (and I use that term with not a small touch of irony), are a complete idiot.
As I've said in other threads like this, at least it allows me to add to my ignore list and stop having to listen to sleaze.
Many homeless street people are mentally ill. Just because there will always be poor people according to some bible script doesn't mean it is true, but if you read that passage further it says we should help those in need.