$70 million since 2006 is peanuts. To be frank its much better to donate directly and don't try to kid yourself your being ethical.
The same gets said about celebrities who have tens of millions who go on charity shows asking people to donate. When they raise a few million, the reaction is that the celebrity could have paid that amount themselves and would still be a multi-millionaire. It is a valid criticism but people are being made aware of the charity through the publicity and the alternative is they wouldn't necessarily be aware of it.
Apple's support of RED gives it a higher profile than it would have otherwise. If Apple has contributed $70m out of say $250b net income since they were involved in the charity then that's ~0.03% of their income. This would be like someone earning $30k per year donating $9 per year. That sounds about right for a charity box. The charity might not need more, it's not like throwing money at things will always make more progress happen, they just need to cover operating costs.
Comments
The same gets said about celebrities who have tens of millions who go on charity shows asking people to donate. When they raise a few million, the reaction is that the celebrity could have paid that amount themselves and would still be a multi-millionaire. It is a valid criticism but people are being made aware of the charity through the publicity and the alternative is they wouldn't necessarily be aware of it.
Apple's support of RED gives it a higher profile than it would have otherwise. If Apple has contributed $70m out of say $250b net income since they were involved in the charity then that's ~0.03% of their income. This would be like someone earning $30k per year donating $9 per year. That sounds about right for a charity box. The charity might not need more, it's not like throwing money at things will always make more progress happen, they just need to cover operating costs.