3 ms·

Since when is Apple a charity and should do altruistic things? I don't see how this will help apple and just seems like a way to spend money.

tl 15y ago
$10b of anything that is locked to Apple-only devices (distributed through iBooks or some other app) would likely help Apple sell more hardware. It's harder to say than it would sell enough hardware to be a profitable decision.
- notatoad 15y ago
  even if it's not locked into apple devices, apple currently has the most desirable devices for consuming digital content. if they make something that causes people to switch from paper to digital, they're going to sell a more iPads.
vladd 15y ago
Make it available for free but only via their AppStore (platform lock-in).
rdl 15y ago
Increased sales of Apple devices -- either via explicit lock-in (delivery via iTunes) or implicit (the iPad is the best consumption device, and maybe could use trusted platform tech to do exams without cheating, etc.) Sell $149-$199 iPad 1 refurb units (or get the iPad 2 down to $250-300), and you'll end up eventually owning the corporate workspace. I am with you on not liking corporate philanthropy in general (profits should be distributed to individuals, who can then make their own charity decisions; I'd hate it if Apple donated to causes I dislike or find sub-optimal), except in cases where the company can achieve both commercial and charity objectives and do so better than anyone else. At the very least, it would have to provide as much cash return to Apple as the blended mix of investments they currently make.
- zitterbewegung 15y ago
  Apple is not in the business of making content. Apple is in the business of making platforms for other people to put their content on.
ktizo 15y ago
Since when has doing altruistic things been a bad thing to do with a giant wodge of spare cash?.
- rdl 15y ago
  It's a great thing to do with your own cash; it's not a good thing to do with someone else's cash. Apple's cash belongs to shareholders, not to Tim Cook or the board.

tl 15y ago

$10b of anything that is locked to Apple-only devices (distributed through iBooks or some other app) would likely help Apple sell more hardware. It's harder to say than it would sell enough hardware to be a profitable decision.

notatoad 15y ago
even if it's not locked into apple devices, apple currently has the most desirable devices for consuming digital content. if they make something that causes people to switch from paper to digital, they're going to sell a more iPads.

vladd 15y ago

Make it available for free but only via their AppStore (platform lock-in).

rdl 15y ago

Increased sales of Apple devices -- either via explicit lock-in (delivery via iTunes) or implicit (the iPad is the best consumption device, and maybe could use trusted platform tech to do exams without cheating, etc.) Sell $149-$199 iPad 1 refurb units (or get the iPad 2 down to $250-300), and you'll end up eventually owning the corporate workspace. I am with you on not liking corporate philanthropy in general (profits should be distributed to individuals, who can then make their own charity decisions; I'd hate it if Apple donated to causes I dislike or find sub-optimal), except in cases where the company can achieve both commercial and charity objectives and do so better than anyone else. At the very least, it would have to provide as much cash return to Apple as the blended mix of investments they currently make.

zitterbewegung 15y ago
Apple is not in the business of making content. Apple is in the business of making platforms for other people to put their content on.

ktizo 15y ago

Since when has doing altruistic things been a bad thing to do with a giant wodge of spare cash?.

rdl 15y ago
It's a great thing to do with your own cash; it's not a good thing to do with someone else's cash. Apple's cash belongs to shareholders, not to Tim Cook or the board.