[hackuser]

I don't know enough about their new ethical approach to say whether it's PR, whether it's just a few well-publicized decisions, or whether it's broad-based and substantial. I'm not saying either way; I just don't know. But it could make me a loyal customer much more than cool design and fashionable cache ever would.

[alsetmusic]

A couple days after Tim Cook stepped into the CEO position, he reversed a Jobs policy and announced that the company would begin matching employee donations to charities. I considered this a fairly classy and subtle way to signal that he wasn't going to lie down on the job (it had been requested many times on company mailing lists).

Source: I was on those lists.

[tajen]

As a French person without the culture of corporate donations, I'm both wondering why it was seen as negative that Apple didn't match? Shouldn't they redirect donations to people they prefer?

[athenot]

It's just another perk that's customary in large US corporations.

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.

[thaumasiotes]

> getting subsidies for food and vacations would look quite odd to Americans

Silicon Valley companies frequently subsidize food for their employees.

[milge]

Because it's a tax writeoff and the more time workers are at the office, the more work is getting done. Or so the managerial thought process goes.

[distances]

In many European countries it would probably be considered a taxable benefit for the employee, and would increase the employee taxes. Just as a background why some things are different across the pond.

[thaumasiotes]

I'm just saying, I don't think food subsidies look "quite odd" to Americans, I think they look fairly normal.

[alsetmusic]

Certain teams at Apple get free dinners to boost morale when working late. This included a pretty nice catered meal once a week in my department. No doubt, this is common at industry leaders.

[mikeash]

That's not so much a perk as it is very cheap overtime pay. It would be a perk if they gave you dinner even when you leave at 5PM.

[retox]

Seems incredibly self entitled to me. Why should your employer shell out money for whatever their employees decide? I don't understand it at all. What if you want to donate a controversial charity?

If you feel that strongly about a charity double your own donation.

[lukeschlather]

You seem to have this notion that employees are asking for handouts. They aren't. They're saying, "Hey, I would like a $5k raise. I know you're planning on giving it to me anyway, but I wanted to point out that if you do it in the form of charitable matching, the company will only have to reduce its income by $4700 to give me that $5k raise, since the matching is tax-deductible."

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.

[Cacti]

It's not everything. Usually there is a list of acceptable national charities for things like heart disease, diabetes, MS, education, poverty alleviation, etc. Chances are you'd recognize every one on the list. Sometimes employees vote on that list, sometimes it's mostly set by HR.

[mikestew]

"Usually"? My experience with companies large and small has been that if it's a 501(3)c, they're on the "list". For instance, unless you live in western WA, I guarantee the "chances" you'd "recognize" the animal shelter to which we divert our employer match is zero. Now if your chosen charity is "Whitey Uber Alles", meh, maybe it might be an issue. Don't know from experience, who's going to say "no" to an animal shelter?

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?

[retox]

I see, thanks for the insight.

[st3v3r]

Couldn't you say the same thing about any perk? "Oh, you want more vacation time? Seems incredibly self entitled to me." "Oh, you want free coffee? Seems incredibly self entitled to me."

[srtjstjsj]

It shows management sharing decision-making with employees.

[ewzimm]

They just didn't donate to anybody, which looks bad when the founder of your biggest competitor is also the world's biggest-spending philanthropist.

[protomyth]

Was there a list of what were acceptable charities for the match?

[vitd]

There are a number of companies set up specifically to help with matching grants. See Benevity, Double the Donation, etc.

https://www.benevity.com https://doublethedonation.com

EDIT: They generally keep lists of charities that most companies find acceptable to donate to.

[protomyth]

The first one has certificate problems and the second doesn't provide a customer list (probably a good thing). I was specifically asking if Apple had a list of charities that it found acceptable for matching donations.

[nostromo]

When they took on the FBI I decided that it was more than just vacuous PR.

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.

[piyush_soni]

I supported Apple's stand against the FBI, but believing it's purely altruistic would be simplistic and optimistic thinking at best. When safety and security are your perceived selling point, it's the best PR you can have. I'm not entirely sure about the validity of this nytimes article [1], but if we believe it, Tim Cook had asked FBI to submit their request 'in private' - but FBI did it openly, so Tim Cook 'had to' become the privacy crusader.

[1] : http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/19/technology/how-tim-cook-be...

[coldtea]

>I supported Apple's stand against the FBI, but believing it's purely altruistic would be simplistic and optimistic thinking at best. When safety and security are your perceived selling point

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.

[throwanem]

Safety and security are absolutely a selling point, although not one they lean hard on in their own marketing materials. But it comes up in any comparison between iOS and Android, and not without reason.

(Incidentally, why the past tense?)

[coldtea]

>Safety and security are absolutely a selling point, although not one they lean hard on in their own marketing materials. But it comes up in any comparison between iOS and Android, and not without reason.

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.

[hyperpape]

Tim Cook has been taking swipes at Google and Facebook for privacy issues for at least a year, prior to the FBI issue: http://fortune.com/2015/06/03/tim-cook-attacks-facebook-goog....

[piyush_soni]

Most of the other things you're talking about, can now be seen with flagship products of other major companies.

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.

[IBM]

It's perfectly compatible to comply with the law and still be known for security and privacy and there's no reason Tim Cook "had to" oppose law enforcement. The only people who don't believe this is the HN crowd. This is a fraction of the people who believe Apple was in the wrong for opposing the FBI.

[piyush_soni]

Yes, it's "perfectly compatible", but that also means it's "perfectly normal". And normal is no good when it comes to advertising - that's no PR. How about a company which can fight even with the government for your privacy? Now that will make the users drool.

[snowwrestler]

In general I object to the line of thinking that good things are only good if done for purely altruistic motive. I'm not sure if that's exactly your line of thinking, but your comment seemed to me like it was in that direction.

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.

[dmichulke]

Not sure whether it has a name but I believe long-term thinking + egoism are undistinguishable from altruism, maybe they are even the same.

[jpttsn]

That's a sort of faith that doing nice things will eventually pay for itself. Isn't that a bit naive?

[Quinner]

Enlightened self-interest.

[andyjdavis]

>A PR person would bristle at the idea of denying to unlock the phone of a terrorist

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.

[matt4077]

It's not easy to decide either way. I recently advised a women's rights organization in a similar matter: they were poised to publish a scathing (and somewhat stupid) indictment of islam with regards to women's rights. It's obviously a minefield, with popular opinion divided almost equally.

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)

[robbiep]

> 'with popular opinion divided almost equally.'

that's interesting. This is a factual statement, or is it opinion?

[matt4077]

I just tried to look up statistics and the results mostly depend on the wording. "Afraid of islamic radicalization": 53:47, "Islam part of Germany":37:60, "Muslims can be German": 70:30 etc.

[coldtea]

>Not if they were any good at their job.

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.

[aaronbrethorst]

Good PR is sort of like a Turing Test of being a decent human being; it cannot be differentiated from being a reasonable person.

[smnscu]

Wow, how gullible you are. It's obviously Apple and FBI are actually best buddies and this was just a PR move to sell more iPhones. Wake up, sheeple. /s

Seriously, the cynicism in this thread is deplorable even for HN standards.

[piyush_soni]

Language aside, the cynicism might not be entirely invalid too. It might be naive to believe any one side of the two (i.e., entirely PR, or entirely for 'the greater public good')

[LoSboccacc]

Eh you know right that TC was more thaneager to comply if FBI had issued the request privately?

All the thing was a PR show from both sides.

[nicky0]

Your source for this allegation?

[LoSboccacc]

all trace back to this

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."

[nicky0]

We don't know if he would have agreed.

[st3v3r]

No.

[Kristine1975]

>A PR person would bristle at the idea of denying to unlock the phone of a terrorist.

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.

[ff10]

Does it really matter if it is PR or not? It doesn't change the result, regardless if it is a good result for you personally or anyone else. I understand that people are looking for reasons to like or dislike a brand because, I believe, most of us see a brand choice as a reflection of (a part) of our personalities – that includes company politics. But in the end we have to assume that Apple does what's best for Apple and that includes advocating for civil rights _as in_ defending one of their main selling points. However, Apple is not your buddy, it might pretend to be here and there, but after all corporations are not people.

[k-mcgrady]

Does it really matter if it's just PR? They're still doing it at the end of the day. Their reasoning doesn't really impact the user.

[nl]

fashionable cache

Not a fan of Memcache? Personally I find it has a certain cachet about it. /jk