The post-Jobs era: Tim Cook brings philanthropy back to Apple | Hacker News Reader

The post-Jobs era: Tim Cook brings philanthropy back to Apple

arstechnica.com

68 pointsevo_924 comments

I believe the matching gifts was entirely Tim Cook's show.

However I think Jobs is planning on doing some significant philanthropy. I don't believe he will leave it all to his family or simply write a check to a charity.

I've thought about this a lot and I believe he's got something planned that will be both innovative and backed by a significant chunk of his net worth.

He's certainly had a few years to reflect on how he wants to be remembered, a gift not everyone receives. He's going to opt to enhance his considerable legacy.

It would actually be amazing if he gave some of the money to the Gates foundation - as a way of showing that there are things that transcend competition and that all in all they would all just like to make the world better. (Also, let's face it, who else is even equipped to do billion-dollar philantrophy?)

Still, I hope we're nowhere near the point when he has to do it.

Didn't Jobs cancel the existing charity/giving program at Apple when he rejoined the company as CEO? I'm trying to find my source for this, but its hidden under all the recent controversy with the Sorkin article

Here's an interesting read from the late 90's - http://reason.com/archives/1997/06/01/how-green-is-the-valle...

Apparently Jobs started (and later gave up on) a charitable foundation. What's also interesting about the article is how much it berates the new dot-com millionaries for not giving away their personal wealth, attacking Gates, Jobs, Filo & McNealy

I wonder if this was a common viewpoint or if the article in question was just biased

I always figured Jobs was trying to maintain a neutral position with regards to charity, contributions, etc. It's hardly uncommon for people to donate to personal causes anonymously to avoid the politics and potential perceived tackiness with what's intended to be a generous act.

Another reason Jobs might have to prefer anonymous donation is his religion. He's Buddhist, and they believe that anonymous giving aids on the path to enlightenment.

perhaps he felt that he earned his money honorably and never cheated or stole it from anyone, and thus had no guilt that needed assuaging.

Apple employees can still donate anonymously but this program lets them double the donation at the cost of anonymity.

In town hall / all-hands meetings, the question of philanthropy (or other moral issues, like environmental stewardship) came up a LOT during the 5 years I spent at Apple.

The response was almost always "we're not looking for recognition for our good deeds, so that's why it may appear as if we're not doing much".

That's why it took so long to get a public-facing "Apple and the Environment" page; philanthropy does not come out of the marketing budget at Apple.

Given the media frenzy around every new Mac product, I thought Apple needed no marketing at all by now =).

I'm sure this was in the works before Jobs left. Even with its entrepreneurial culture Apple is too big to roll something like this out in a couple of weeks.

I wonder if this is part of Jobs' succession plan -- like he withheld some easy things that he knew his successor would be able to do after he left to get some initial good press?

I wouldn't put it past him to have several things that would generate good PR ready to go at a moment's notice.

That doesn't mean this wasn't Cook's baby. Jobs was on medical leave for almost all of 2011, leaving Cook in charge since January. He had plenty of time to prepare.

Maybe Jobs just felt that most non-profits are scammy and corrupt? Even (RED) turned out to be grossly mismanaged.

The "(RED) is mismanaged" meme is debatable, at best:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_Red#Criticism

Headline in two weeks:

"Apple donates to anti-gay rights organization" (The Salvation Army is a 501c3)

This is a good idea. Practically no one would argue against charitable matching, so it gives Tim Cook an early win with rank-and-file employees. As COO, many within Apple have not interacted with Cook, so this popular move helps establish loyalty and reduce leadership uncertainty.

In his first company-wide email as CEO he said, "I want you to be confident that Apple is not going to change," yet Cook clearly knows he is not Steve Jobs. This sets a marker to distinguish that his run of the company will be different even if he is going to try to preserve Apple's DNA.

This is a very common benefit for employees of large companies. It's surprising to me that this is news.

Even the most mundane things become news if Apple does them.

bleh. So part of the price I pay for a Mac is now doled out to some charity of Apple's choosing. How about they just cut prices by the total amount of the match, and let me figure out where I'd like to donate.

I fail to see a correlation between an internal Apple policy, and the price of their products.

It's actually one of Friedman's classic arguments, poorly articulated.

http://www.colorado.edu/studentgroups/libertarians/issues/fr...

Even Friedman's argument observes that some "socially responsible" spending might actually be in the interests of a corporation's shareholders

Tim Cook offering a tax-deductible (I assume) employee benefit that has the additional side effect of generating positive publicity probably falls into that bracket.

Because you or someone like you would just end up not donating at all.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com