3 ms·

Apple is a profit-seeking company that builds tech products. Building products that saves lives will increase sales, because people want to be safe, thus incre

Apple is a profit-seeking company that builds tech products. Building products that saves lives will increase sales, because people want to be safe, thus increasing profits. How does donating to charity increase profits? It doesn't, so why would Apple spend money there? Apple is not in the business of saving lives, they're in the business of building tech products. If those tech products can also save lives, that's the most life-saving we can expect from a profit-seeking company that builds tech products. I don't understand why you're expecting Apple to save lives at a loss.

swores 4y ago
> I don't understand why you're expecting Apple to save lives at a loss. I wasn't saying that at all, and I think if you reread both my comments and the context of the thread you'll see that. I was replying specifically to the claim that if it would save a single life it would have been worth Apple doing. And if it were only to save a single life, Apple would have wasted a huge amount of money on that single life, when they could have redirected it towards other ways to waste their money but saving more lives. I was purely pointing out that nobody should think it worth it "if it just saved one life". Not arguing for how Apple should spend money in other areas, just discussing in the context of if Apple were spending money on saving lives. But... while you ask - it's actually very common for companies, big and small, to spend money on charities, usually because they think the public image benefit outweighs the cost. Apple DO spend money on, for example, donating money to HIV charities through their PRODUCT(RED) scheme. https://www.apple.com/uk/product-red/ https://www.apple.com/uk/product-red/ And they spent money on this new feature being discussed in this thread (I assume because they expect it to save more than a single life!).
threeseed 4y ago
> Apple is a profit-seeking company that builds tech products. Also having worked there they are also a bunch of people who like to build great products. And aren't motivated by the bottom line of the company.

swores 4y ago

> I don't understand why you're expecting Apple to save lives at a loss. I wasn't saying that at all, and I think if you reread both my comments and the context of the thread you'll see that. I was replying specifically to the claim that if it would save a single life it would have been worth Apple doing. And if it were only to save a single life, Apple would have wasted a huge amount of money on that single life, when they could have redirected it towards other ways to waste their money but saving more lives. I was purely pointing out that nobody should think it worth it "if it just saved one life". Not arguing for how Apple should spend money in other areas, just discussing in the context of if Apple were spending money on saving lives. But... while you ask - it's actually very common for companies, big and small, to spend money on charities, usually because they think the public image benefit outweighs the cost. Apple DO spend money on, for example, donating money to HIV charities through their PRODUCT(RED) scheme. https://www.apple.com/uk/product-red/ https://www.apple.com/uk/product-red/ And they spent money on this new feature being discussed in this thread (I assume because they expect it to save more than a single life!).

threeseed 4y ago

> Apple is a profit-seeking company that builds tech products. Also having worked there they are also a bunch of people who like to build great products. And aren't motivated by the bottom line of the company.