Source: I was on those lists.
By comparison, it's like the ticket repas and chèques vacances in the French companies—getting subsidies for food and vacations would look quite odd to Americans.
Different cultures, different perks.
Silicon Valley companies frequently subsidize food for their employees.
If you feel that strongly about a charity double your own donation.
The company essentially gets to offer me more money at no cost to them if they structure their compensation this way. You could be very transparent with this and simply allow employees to direct the company to put money into charity (with the tax going to the charity instead of the government) but it's probably easier for the accountants to simply do matching with a cap, which is why you see companies do it this way.
It boils down to a tax write-off that allows the company to look charitable. But there's a lot of benefit along the way, so who cares of the motivation?
https://www.benevity.com https://doublethedonation.com
EDIT: They generally keep lists of charities that most companies find acceptable to donate to.
A PR person would bristle at the idea of denying to unlock the phone of a terrorist. It took real cojones for Apple to stand up for privacy at such a time.
[1] : http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/19/technology/how-tim-cook-be...
Only safety and security weren't Apple's "perceived selling points".
They were mostly touted for user friendliness, it just works, being the first to bring some technologies to market in a well-thought way (e.g. as opposed to crude crap for early adopters), style, high-end ("luxury") items, etc.
(Incidentally, why the past tense?)
I think security with regard to malware (of which Android has like 90+% of all mobile malware according to surveys) was a selling point, but not safety/security in the privacy/encryption/etc way that the FBI incident was about.
That wasn't, as you say, much on Apple's marketing materials, nor was it much of a factor for the majority of buyers.
>Incidentally, why the past tense?
Because safety and security have become something of a selling point for Apple as of late (I'd say post the FBI incident), but it's not long ago they weren't.
So the past tense was meant to convey that those other things were Apple's selling points "back then", but leave the door open for security being a selling point for them now.
User friendliness, style, high-end luxury - all major companies flagship - check.
It just works - Apple - uncheck. :) (It's largely a myth)
They were actually touting privacy as a differentiator from Android devices.
One of the reasons capitalism works is that it converts customer wishes into tangible economic benefits for a company. If Tim Cook had PR as 50% of his reason for taking on the FBI--wouldn't that still great?
It was good that he took on the FBI. And it if he was responding to his customers' wishes, isn't that good too? So why would combining those be somehow bad?
Sure, Apple is undoubtedly aware of how privacy is a marketing advantage. But since we like privacy, let's not find convoluted ways to dislike Apple for trying to please us.
Not if they were any good at their job. Very publicly standing up against what many would see as heavy handed government and being seen to defend the rights of the little guy (who happen to be their customers and potential customers) got them an enormous amount of very positive press not just in the US but in many countries. It would have cost them a small fortune to pay for that kind of advertising.
I am not saying that it wasn't a good thing for them to do but I really doubt it was some sort of selfless act that happened over protests from PR.
You have to judge the intensity of emotions it will cause in people, the propensity of people to act on those emotions and the base desirability of the different groups.
In this case, they rightly passed on the 'opportunity' because it seemed as if the people who would agree were unlikely to donate to women's rights in the first place (and vice-versa).
(And because their employees threatened to collectively quit)
that's interesting. This is a factual statement, or is it opinion?
That's close to the "No true scotchman" fallacy though.
Truth is, most PR persons in real life would not have gone this far against FBI in such a situation. Even if the "standing up" gave them some positive press, there would still be millions of conservative types giving them hell for not helping catch the bad guys.
In fact even progressives is not a given that they'd have applauded. Imagine if the FBI next asks Apple to help them with the phone of a rape/murder suspect, or the guy at Orlando.
Seriously, the cynicism in this thread is deplorable even for HN standards.
All the thing was a PR show from both sides.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/19/technology/how-tim-cook-be...
"Apple had asked the F.B.I. to issue its application for the tool under seal. But the government made it public, prompting Mr. Cook to go into bunker mode to draft a response, according to people privy to the discussions, who spoke on condition of anonymity."
Why exactly? If Apple wants to make privacy and security its unique selling point, it has to deny an FBI request to unlock one of their phones. Anything else would be a PR debacle.
Not a fan of Memcache? Personally I find it has a certain cachet about it. /jk