I could see Apple opting to release a special 'skin' for the Nano and iPod's instead. That way they don't have to mess with the 'purity' of the Black & White product line up, and can actually potentially INCREASE the donation amount by making the accessory cheap enough to be accessible to everyone.
It's just a feel good thing. It makes people who would buy one feel like their $0.47 cents is really making a difference.
So here you go and buy a red iPod, show it off to all your friends, while patting yourself on the back for "helping the fight against AIDS".
If you really want to make a difference. Don't buy the iPod and write out a check to an existing AIDS charity for the $400.00
That would make a difference.
But, if you want a symbol that you can carry around proclaiming your fight against AIDS (because of your miniscule donation through the purchase), then by all means buy it!
It is absolutely abominal to commercialize the Fight against AIDS in this manner!
It's just a feel good thing. It makes people who would buy one feel like their $0.47 cents is really making a difference.
So here you go and buy a red iPod, show it off to all your friends, while patting yourself on the back for "helping the fight against AIDS".
If you really want to make a difference. Don't buy the iPod and write out a check to an existing AIDS charity for the $400.00
That would make a difference.
But, if you want a symbol that you can carry around proclaiming your fight against AIDS (because of your miniscule donation through the purchase), then by all means buy it!
It is absolutely abominal to commercialize the Fight against AIDS in this manner!
I agree with you 100%. If the CEO believes this is ethically right, I think I'm going to change the opinion I've about Apple as a company.
I don't why some people have a problem with these branding initiatives. What difference does it make if one person gives $400 to an AIDS charity or if 133 people buy a red video ipod which donates 1% of sales to the charity. Say they give 1% and sell a million of the Red ipods, that would yield 3 Million dollars to the charity. That will make a difference at least to some people. I think you will also find that these types of purchases are in addition to, not in lieu of a person's charitable contributions and are a way to raise additional funds for the charities. If 1 million people get red american express cards and each spend an average of $5000 a year, that's an extra 50 million for the charity. Even if each individual does not do much, if millions do a little, it will make a HUGE impact and at virtually no extra cost to the consumer.
In addition, I think those of you who think "this is an abomination" have not investigated BONO's work on this issue. Ultimately, BONO has been working to relieve 3rd world debt as a path to battling disease (AIDS, Malaria etc.) in these countries by making their governments economically capable of providing drug programs and basic services.
During the U2 tour, he asks people to simply 'sign' a digital petition adding their name in support of such initiatives.
While this RED effort is certainly more directly related to providing REAL funding, the bottom line is that HIGH-PROFILE devices like the iPod, or cards like AMERICAN EXPRESS provide increased 'awareness' and raise the likelihood that ALL people will give, vote, and call for policies to solve these problems.
So, while 3% of the average iPod sale might not be a lot compared to that same person giving the entire price of the iPod directly to charity, the aggregate effect is that MORE money actually goes to the charity through product sales AND the ancillary benefit of increased awareness.
If Steve Jobs gives green light to this project, I'll begin to see the Apple logo not as a symbol of good technology for creative people, but as a weak ideal of ethics that I disagree with. It's not the first time that Steve Jobs does stupid stuff in this fashion, so this might be the final thing I need for changing my mind about what the fruit logo stands for.
You know, if there was a computer vendor that admits having an "official ideology" behind them, making their corporative image (logos/etc) stand for such ideology, it would be natural to feel uncomfortable when you buy one of their products. Apple hasn't arrived to this level yet, but it's in the path, and will arrive to it unless the CEO stops these stupid ideas.
Since when is it unethical to donate to charity? When Apple put links to the Red Cross on their webpage after the Tsunami and Hurricane Katrina was that unethical too? Ooooh, they are a company so they shouldn't do this? Apple sold a lot of U2 iPods even to those who don't like U2 simply because it looked different and was a limited edition. You weren't complaining then. Yet now they can do the same thing with at least some of the money will go to charity and you're freaking out about it. What's the problem? I'll bet the people complaining about this don't give money to charity anyways.
If Steve Jobs gives green light to this project, I'll begin to see the Apple logo not as a symbol of good technology for creative people, but as a weak ideal of ethics that I disagree with. It's not the first time that Steve Jobs does stupid stuff in this fashion, so this might be the final thing I need for changing my mind about what the fruit logo stands for.
You know, if there was a computer vendor that admits having an "official ideology" behind them, making their corporative image (logos/etc) stand for such ideology, it would be natural to feel uncomfortable when you buy one of their products. Apple hasn't arrived to this level yet, but it's in the path, and will arrive to it unless the CEO stops these stupid ideas.
Since when is donating money a bad thing?
Even if SJ does only do it for the extra sales and good light, that doesn't make it a bad thing.
If they do it, it's a win-win situation. Would you rather them donate no money towards fighting AIDS?
I believe if they do release a product like this they should donate ALL profits to charity, but you can't really change that if it turns out otherwise. Hey, even 1%'s better than 0%.
1-There's no detailed information about how these people help to fight AIDS. All organizations with good reputation provide details about their strategy. The only reputable name here is "Bono", or "U2". Sincerely, I don't know why I should trust Bono more than a pharmaceutical business.
2-The fight against AIDS is a very politiced cause. Different parties have very different numbers in their statistics, showing that at least somebody is lying. Because of this, if you have a project against AIDS, you're entering the field of ideologies, even if you didn't want that, because nobody has won the fight against AIDS, and there're a lot of hidden interests there.
3-Donating money to charity can be bad: There're certain cases where money arrives to an undesired purpose.
4-It is unethical to base your strategy in making your customers feel "special" because they own an item whose color "proves" that he/she is a charitable person.
5-If, at the end, the Apple logo becomes a symbol of some ideology, I won't be able to see it as a creative technology business anymore.
1-There's no detailed information about how these people help to fight AIDS. All organizations with good reputation provide details about their strategy. The only reputable name here is "Bono", or "U2". Sincerely, I don't know why I should trust Bono more than a pharmaceutical business.
2-The fight against AIDS is a very politiced cause. Different parties have very different numbers in their statistics, showing that at least somebody is lying. Because of this, if you have a project against AIDS, you're entering the field of ideologies, even if you didn't want that, because nobody has won the fight against AIDS, and there're a lot of hidden interests there.
3-Donating money to charity can be bad: There're certain cases where money arrives to an undesired purpose.
4-It is unethical to base your strategy in making your customers feel "special" because they own an item whose color "proves" that he/she is a charitable person.
5-If, at the end, the Apple logo becomes a symbol of some ideology, I won't be able to see it as a creative technology business anymore.
1 - You are right, detailed information should be forthcoming. Still, Bono has done more to raise the issue than anyone else, and has also convinced the G8 countries to forgive crushing debt of afflicted countries. He's been promoting causes like Amnesty International for over two decades, so it isn't as if is social awareness simply popped up out of nowhere.
2 - Everyone has estimates. Estimates aren't necessarily lies. It is impossible to count everyone, I don't even think getting accurate estimates is a realistic expectation here.
3 - That's true, but I don't think it would necessarily be the case for such a high profile. While the money might be wasted, I doubt it would go towards anything like the Final Solution.
4 - see 5
5 - The Apple logo has been a symbol of one ideology or another for decades. There are people that think they are special because they own Apple products, and seemingly, there is always someone rushing to defend any stupid thing they do because Apple is never wrong. You probably think I am doing that right now, but I don't know. I currently think that judgement should be withheld to get the specifics..
I have never understood the point of padding the prices of anything - iPods, toilet paper or lemonade - with charitable donations. If I want to give for some purpose then I give explicitly, kthx. If I go to an electronics store or a food store, I want electronics and food.
1-There's no detailed information about how these people help to fight AIDS. All organizations with good reputation provide details about their strategy. The only reputable name here is "Bono", or "U2". Sincerely, I don't know why I should trust Bono more than a pharmaceutical business.
3 - That's true, but I don't think it would necessarily be the case for such a high profile. While the money might be wasted, I doubt it would go towards anything like the Final Solution.
Actually, this is a problem with the money Bono and Bush have raised...a lot of it is funneled through "faith-based" channels that preach abstinence rather than safe sex practices, and spend a lot more time spreading Christianity in general than specifically working to reduce HIV transmissions.
Actually, this is a problem with the money Bono and Bush have raised...a lot of it is funneled through "faith-based" channels that preach abstinence rather than safe sex practices, and spend a lot more time spreading Christianity in general than specifically working to reduce HIV transmissions.
Voila!! You proved me right: One can't fight against AIDS without choosing an ideology, because first of all nobody defeated AIDS yet, and second, different parties defend that the best way to fight is different from the strategies of other parties. As I said, the fight against AIDS has a lot of hidden interests. Everybody, political parties, the right, the left, religions, the pharmaceutical industry, and even the gay lobby have hidden interests here. You can't defend this cause without joining somebody, even if you didn't pretend so.
Regarding your advice for searching the web for Bono... well that's not my obligation: Apple (and the Red product thing) is the one who is obliged to inform their customers if they decide to support Bono.
user Initiator can claim a red iPod is not a big deal, but he's wrong. Marketing is an art form, and Apple has had great success in using design factors, including color, to add "value" to their products.
Apple has shown discipline in releasing colors, and by doing so they've made colors valuable. You can be bitter that they are prolonging the life of a product, enhancing it with very little expense - but you can't blame them for using it to their advantage. They've consciously designed and maintained an evolving product. Instead of bashing it maybe you should have bought the stock. A company that can sell something just by painting it red? Makes sense to me.
Comments
Just a thought.
So here you go and buy a red iPod, show it off to all your friends, while patting yourself on the back for "helping the fight against AIDS".
If you really want to make a difference. Don't buy the iPod and write out a check to an existing AIDS charity for the $400.00
That would make a difference.
But, if you want a symbol that you can carry around proclaiming your fight against AIDS (because of your miniscule donation through the purchase), then by all means buy it!
It is absolutely abominal to commercialize the Fight against AIDS in this manner!
Originally posted by kresh
It's just a feel good thing. It makes people who would buy one feel like their $0.47 cents is really making a difference.
So here you go and buy a red iPod, show it off to all your friends, while patting yourself on the back for "helping the fight against AIDS".
If you really want to make a difference. Don't buy the iPod and write out a check to an existing AIDS charity for the $400.00
That would make a difference.
But, if you want a symbol that you can carry around proclaiming your fight against AIDS (because of your miniscule donation through the purchase), then by all means buy it!
It is absolutely abominal to commercialize the Fight against AIDS in this manner!
I agree with you 100%. If the CEO believes this is ethically right, I think I'm going to change the opinion I've about Apple as a company.
Then put out the ipod as a limited edition.
recoup the manufacturing costs and create good will and press.
During the U2 tour, he asks people to simply 'sign' a digital petition adding their name in support of such initiatives.
While this RED effort is certainly more directly related to providing REAL funding, the bottom line is that HIGH-PROFILE devices like the iPod, or cards like AMERICAN EXPRESS provide increased 'awareness' and raise the likelihood that ALL people will give, vote, and call for policies to solve these problems.
So, while 3% of the average iPod sale might not be a lot compared to that same person giving the entire price of the iPod directly to charity, the aggregate effect is that MORE money actually goes to the charity through product sales AND the ancillary benefit of increased awareness.
You know, if there was a computer vendor that admits having an "official ideology" behind them, making their corporative image (logos/etc) stand for such ideology, it would be natural to feel uncomfortable when you buy one of their products. Apple hasn't arrived to this level yet, but it's in the path, and will arrive to it unless the CEO stops these stupid ideas.
Originally posted by ecs
If Steve Jobs gives green light to this project, I'll begin to see the Apple logo not as a symbol of good technology for creative people, but as a weak ideal of ethics that I disagree with. It's not the first time that Steve Jobs does stupid stuff in this fashion, so this might be the final thing I need for changing my mind about what the fruit logo stands for.
You know, if there was a computer vendor that admits having an "official ideology" behind them, making their corporative image (logos/etc) stand for such ideology, it would be natural to feel uncomfortable when you buy one of their products. Apple hasn't arrived to this level yet, but it's in the path, and will arrive to it unless the CEO stops these stupid ideas.
Since when is donating money a bad thing?
Even if SJ does only do it for the extra sales and good light, that doesn't make it a bad thing.
If they do it, it's a win-win situation. Would you rather them donate no money towards fighting AIDS?
I believe if they do release a product like this they should donate ALL profits to charity, but you can't really change that if it turns out otherwise. Hey, even 1%'s better than 0%.
2-The fight against AIDS is a very politiced cause. Different parties have very different numbers in their statistics, showing that at least somebody is lying. Because of this, if you have a project against AIDS, you're entering the field of ideologies, even if you didn't want that, because nobody has won the fight against AIDS, and there're a lot of hidden interests there.
3-Donating money to charity can be bad: There're certain cases where money arrives to an undesired purpose.
4-It is unethical to base your strategy in making your customers feel "special" because they own an item whose color "proves" that he/she is a charitable person.
5-If, at the end, the Apple logo becomes a symbol of some ideology, I won't be able to see it as a creative technology business anymore.
Originally posted by ecs
1-There's no detailed information about how these people help to fight AIDS. All organizations with good reputation provide details about their strategy. The only reputable name here is "Bono", or "U2". Sincerely, I don't know why I should trust Bono more than a pharmaceutical business.
2-The fight against AIDS is a very politiced cause. Different parties have very different numbers in their statistics, showing that at least somebody is lying. Because of this, if you have a project against AIDS, you're entering the field of ideologies, even if you didn't want that, because nobody has won the fight against AIDS, and there're a lot of hidden interests there.
3-Donating money to charity can be bad: There're certain cases where money arrives to an undesired purpose.
4-It is unethical to base your strategy in making your customers feel "special" because they own an item whose color "proves" that he/she is a charitable person.
5-If, at the end, the Apple logo becomes a symbol of some ideology, I won't be able to see it as a creative technology business anymore.
1 - You are right, detailed information should be forthcoming. Still, Bono has done more to raise the issue than anyone else, and has also convinced the G8 countries to forgive crushing debt of afflicted countries. He's been promoting causes like Amnesty International for over two decades, so it isn't as if is social awareness simply popped up out of nowhere.
2 - Everyone has estimates. Estimates aren't necessarily lies. It is impossible to count everyone, I don't even think getting accurate estimates is a realistic expectation here.
3 - That's true, but I don't think it would necessarily be the case for such a high profile. While the money might be wasted, I doubt it would go towards anything like the Final Solution.
4 - see 5
5 - The Apple logo has been a symbol of one ideology or another for decades. There are people that think they are special because they own Apple products, and seemingly, there is always someone rushing to defend any stupid thing they do because Apple is never wrong. You probably think I am doing that right now, but I don't know. I currently think that judgement should be withheld to get the specifics..
Originally posted by ecs
1-There's no detailed information about how these people help to fight AIDS. All organizations with good reputation provide details about their strategy. The only reputable name here is "Bono", or "U2". Sincerely, I don't know why I should trust Bono more than a pharmaceutical business.
That's because you don't look for it.
Google "bono hiv." First thing that came up was http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/onelife/...ono_aids.shtml
Welcome to 1995. You can perform web searches. Neato.
Originally posted by JeffDM
3 - That's true, but I don't think it would necessarily be the case for such a high profile. While the money might be wasted, I doubt it would go towards anything like the Final Solution.
Actually, this is a problem with the money Bono and Bush have raised...a lot of it is funneled through "faith-based" channels that preach abstinence rather than safe sex practices, and spend a lot more time spreading Christianity in general than specifically working to reduce HIV transmissions.
Originally posted by gregmightdothat
Actually, this is a problem with the money Bono and Bush have raised...a lot of it is funneled through "faith-based" channels that preach abstinence rather than safe sex practices, and spend a lot more time spreading Christianity in general than specifically working to reduce HIV transmissions.
Voila!! You proved me right: One can't fight against AIDS without choosing an ideology, because first of all nobody defeated AIDS yet, and second, different parties defend that the best way to fight is different from the strategies of other parties. As I said, the fight against AIDS has a lot of hidden interests. Everybody, political parties, the right, the left, religions, the pharmaceutical industry, and even the gay lobby have hidden interests here. You can't defend this cause without joining somebody, even if you didn't pretend so.
Regarding your advice for searching the web for Bono... well that's not my obligation: Apple (and the Red product thing) is the one who is obliged to inform their customers if they decide to support Bono.
Apple has shown discipline in releasing colors, and by doing so they've made colors valuable. You can be bitter that they are prolonging the life of a product, enhancing it with very little expense - but you can't blame them for using it to their advantage. They've consciously designed and maintained an evolving product. Instead of bashing it maybe you should have bought the stock. A company that can sell something just by painting it red? Makes sense to me.