Email campaign to Apple give MORE ! - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 10-19-2006, 12:21 PM   #31
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 07:35 AM
i dunno, i don't think it would kill Apple to give 100% of the profit on the Red iPods only.



for all the corporate welfare and tax "incentives" these companies get, we ask so little from them in return.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 10-19-2006, 12:45 PM   #32
ONE
love, blood, life
 
U2Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: at pavel's
Posts: 11,603
Local Time: 01:35 PM
trouble is that when Apple issues a product like the RED iPod, the first thing they are competing with isn't other brands, but their own product line - the ordinary iPods. and it's hard for Apple to predict how many people will choose to buy RED iPods instead of ordinary iPods. If they chose to donate 100% of the profits on the RED iPods to the RED campaign, they would risk a lower surplus and declining stock values at the end of the year - because 1) more people would buy the RED iPods instead of the ordinary iPods, 2) they wouldn't make any profits on the RED iPod. that's the last thing any company in a free market economy would want.
__________________

__________________
U2Man is offline  
Old 10-19-2006, 12:48 PM   #33
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 07:35 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2Man
trouble is that when Apple issues a product like the RED iPod, the first thing they are competing with isn't other brands, but their own product line - the ordinary iPods. and it's hard for Apple to predict how many people will choose to buy RED iPods instead of ordinary iPods. If they chose to donate 100% of the profits on the RED iPods to the RED campaign, they would risk a lower surplus and declining stock values at the end of the year. that's the last thing any company in a free market would want.


Apple has a wide, wide variety of products, not to mention a wide, wide vareity of iPods.

i'm just not as sympathetic to their bottom line, which i think would only be minimally impacted, as many are.

also, if more people have iPods, guess what? more people are going to find a way to buy more Mac products, as the iPod, as much as i love it, is filled with many stupid "ha-ha" features that virtually force you to buy other mac products -- why the F do i have to "reconfigure" my iPod if i use a Mac at work but a PC at home?

the real bottom line is that the more people who have Mac products in their hands, regardless of the actual profits from said particular product, is going to mean more overall profit for Mac.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 10-19-2006, 01:04 PM   #34
ONE
love, blood, life
 
U2Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: at pavel's
Posts: 11,603
Local Time: 01:35 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511

Apple has a wide, wide variety of products, not to mention a wide, wide vareity of iPods.
How is this relevant? Apple, like any other company, wants to make a profit on any single product line, they have. If a product line isn't profitable, the stockholders will demand the production of it stopped.

Quote:

i'm just not as sympathetic to their bottom line, which i think would only be minimally impacted, as many are.
There are people employed at Apple who will get their arses burned if what they 'think' turns out to wrong. That's why they might be more careful.

Quote:

also, if more people have iPods, guess what? more people are going to find a way to buy more Mac products, as the iPod, as much as i love it, is filled with many stupid "ha-ha" features that virtually force you to buy other mac products -- why the F do i have to "reconfigure" my iPod if i use a Mac at work but a PC at home?

the real bottom line is that the more people who have Mac products in their hands, regardless of the actual profits from said particular product, is going to mean more overall profit for Mac.
I am quite sure that Apple is aware of this. After all, they could see Microsoft overtake almost the entire software market by the use of this philosophy. And you've noticed yourself. So what does this mean? Are the people in Apple's marketing division fools...or are they aware of the fact that there are other things to considerate?
__________________
U2Man is offline  
Old 10-19-2006, 01:38 PM   #35
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 07:35 AM
i'm just not as sympathetic and understanding of the corporate bottom line, is all. these companies rape and pillage and get huge handouts from the government, and then when we ask them to be anything less than profit churning machines, people rush to their defense, often irrationally in my view, and we make excuses for their shoddy behavior in a way that we wouldn't do for any other entity.

i understand why Apple behaves the way it does, just like any other corporation, and all your points are fair. but i don't know why we're not only tolerant of such behavior, but we go to such great lengths to defend and justify it and even find it commendable.

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 10-19-2006, 04:53 PM   #36
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
ntalwar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,900
Local Time: 07:35 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Liesje


But how would they get around that? The campaign was Bono's idea, but you'd rather he not endorse it?
Oh - he should endorse it by all means.
Just realize that a product endorsement by the world's biggest rock star (plus Oprah) is probably worth $10-$15 million per year. E.g. some athletes make that much from comapines like Nike.

Apple should donate at least that amount back. Perhaps they will - it remains to be seen.
Instead of going for the most "hip" companies, which the RED campaign seems to be doing, they should consider generosity as a larger factor.
__________________
ntalwar is offline  
Old 10-19-2006, 05:36 PM   #37
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
ntalwar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,900
Local Time: 07:35 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2Man




but that's the whole idea of the RED campaign!
Well if it is, then the messages are a bit misleading. Donating a portion of excess profit is like someone offering you ten thousand dollars for free, if you donate three thousand of it to charity. After 9/11 some firms donated as much as $10 million to the victims' families fund - no strings attached. That's real charity.
__________________
ntalwar is offline  
Old 10-19-2006, 09:58 PM   #38
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Se7en's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: all around in the dark - everywhere
Posts: 3,531
Local Time: 07:35 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511

why the F do i have to "reconfigure" my iPod if i use a Mac at work but a PC at home?
it's just like any other firewire/usb hard drive. if the drive has been formatted on a mac first, a windows computer will not recognize it. if you format it on a pc, you should be able to use it on both computers with no problems.

more importantly, does anyone else see the irony in trying to cure a symptom with the illness?
__________________
Se7en is offline  
Old 10-19-2006, 10:02 PM   #39
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 07:35 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by ntalwar


Oh - he should endorse it by all means.
Just realize that a product endorsement by the world's biggest rock star (plus Oprah) is probably worth $10-$15 million per year. E.g. some athletes make that much from comapines like Nike.

Apple should donate at least that amount back. Perhaps they will - it remains to be seen.
Instead of going for the most "hip" companies, which the RED campaign seems to be doing, they should consider generosity as a larger factor.
I see your point, but I've always felt that no one deserves tens of millions a year for endorsements. They should endorse things because they really DO support them, like Bono has always done FOR FREE. I don't think free endorsements are the problem with endorsements. When hundreds of millions are starving every day NO photo op should be worth $10 million. I support the way that (RED) is being endorsed; it's something I always hoped to see. If anybody owes anyone anything as far as endorsements are concerned, it's the people pocketing the millions that should be giving it all to charity.
__________________
Liesje is offline  
Old 10-20-2006, 01:17 AM   #40
ONE
love, blood, life
 
U2Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: at pavel's
Posts: 11,603
Local Time: 01:35 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by ntalwar


Well if it is, then the messages are a bit misleading. Donating a portion of excess profit is like someone offering you ten thousand dollars for free, if you donate three thousand of it to charity. After 9/11 some firms donated as much as $10 million to the victims' families fund - no strings attached. That's real charity.
what bono & co. behind the RED campaign have realized is that the amount of "real charity" in this world is far from enough to solve this problem, and if bono thought that, he would (rightfully) be accused of being extremely naive. instead they try to use the mechanisms of the free market to help africa. and the idea is to give the companies some incentives to donate. and yes, it's about improving their image and ultimately their bottom line. and so what? why does it matter that the RED companies are improving their bottom line at the same time? isn't the most important thing that money is donated to the cause? money that wouldn't have been donated otherwise.
__________________
U2Man is offline  
Old 10-20-2006, 10:30 AM   #41
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
ntalwar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,900
Local Time: 07:35 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2Man

and yes, it's about improving their image and ultimately their bottom line. and so what? why does it matter that the RED companies are improving their bottom line at the same time? isn't the most important thing that money is donated to the cause? money that wouldn't have been donated otherwise.
Yes, but the companies should be selected based on how much they can potentially donate and not according to how hip, cool, or sexy their products are. There are probably several comapies out there that can donate more than Apple. A goal of the campaign should also be to maximize the amount of money raised. Companies that are donating only a token amount should be excluded.
__________________
ntalwar is offline  
Old 10-20-2006, 12:01 PM   #42
ONE
love, blood, life
 
U2Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: at pavel's
Posts: 11,603
Local Time: 01:35 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by ntalwar


Yes, but the companies should be selected based on how much they can potentially donate and not according to how hip, cool, or sexy their products are. There are probably several comapies out there that can donate more than Apple. A goal of the campaign should also be to maximize the amount of money raised. Companies that are donating only a token amount should be excluded.
well, not according to the people that are behind the RED campaign. what is it really that you want to protest?

excluding apple from this campaign will not make the amount of money raised any bigger.

i'm still not sure that you have understood the idea of the RED campaign. the RED logo itself is supposed to be considered hip, cool and sexy.
__________________
U2Man is offline  
Old 10-20-2006, 01:01 PM   #43
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
ntalwar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,900
Local Time: 07:35 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2Man


well, not according to the people that are behind the RED campaign. what is it really that you want to protest?

excluding apple from this campaign will not make the amount of money raised any bigger.
Do you work for Apple or something? It seems as if you care more about benefiting the multi-billion dollar Apple corporation than the Global Fund.
__________________
ntalwar is offline  
Old 10-20-2006, 01:12 PM   #44
ONE
love, blood, life
 
U2Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: at pavel's
Posts: 11,603
Local Time: 01:35 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by ntalwar


Do you work for Apple or something? It seems as if you care more about benefiting the multi-billion dollar Apple corporation than the Global Fund.
so because you get the idea behind the RED campaign and understand it's limitations, you MUST work for Apple? I see.

To answer your question: no. and believe me, i don't care how much money apple makes. YOU seem to care a lot, though.
__________________
U2Man is offline  
Old 10-20-2006, 01:30 PM   #45
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
ntalwar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,900
Local Time: 07:35 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2Man

YOU seem to care a lot, though.
Potential consumers(like me) of RED products should care about how much is going to the charity, and how much is going to the company. When I donate to a charity, I look at the overhead rates of the charity, for example, and avoid those with high overhead. I want to know not only that I am "helping", but how much I am helping.
__________________

__________________
ntalwar is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:35 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com