Just ahead of World AIDS Day, Apple has renewed its commitment to supporting the global fight against AIDS through its long-standing partnership with (RED).
In a post on X, Apple’s vice president of worldwide marketing Greg Joswiak referenced 19 years of collaboration with (RED) and announced that the company will donate $5 to The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria for every purchase made via Apple Pay from now until December 7.
The charitable effort coincides with World AIDS Day and is capped at a total donation of 3 million dollars. For over nearly two decades, Apple and (RED) have raised funds that support life saving AIDS prevention, testing treatment, and community care programs around the world.
Consumers who use Apple Pay at Apple Stores online, through the Apple Store app, or on Apple.com, will automatically contribute to these efforts when they make a purchase during the campaign period.
This year’s initiative builds on numerous past campaigns where Apple mobilized its customer base in support of global health. In previous years, Apple donated $1 per eligible purchase around World AIDS Day but recent efforts have ramped up the contribution amount and expanded the potential impact.
The intended effect is to transform everyday transactions into vehicles for philanthropy. It allows Apple customers worldwide to contribute to the fight against AIDS without making separate donations intentionally.
According to (RED), data partnering brands and corporate contributions have fueled substantial progress in global health. Over many years, the combined efforts have delivered hundreds of millions of dollars in funding and supported widespread access to HIV testing, antiretroviral treatment, and maternal care aimed at preventing mother to child transmission.
For Apple users, this campaign offers a simple way to make an impact. Anyone planning to shop at Apple around the holidays can help by choosing Apple Pay when making a purchase.
Want to see more of our stories on Google?
P.S. Want to keep this site truly independent? Support us by buying us a beer, treating us to a coffee, or shopping through Amazon here. Links in this post are affiliate links, so we earn a tiny commission at no charge to you. Thanks for supporting independent Canadian media!
It's kind of shameful that Apple would cap donations to $3M considering they made $114B in annual net income last year. That's like donating a whopping 13 minutes worth of sales , it's a joke.
3 million is still much more than 0 which many other companies donate. It’s not relevant how much Apple have but how much they give. Three million is still a lot of money and they have been doing it for years so it amounts to hundreds of millions, as stated by (RED).
But that’s the human nature: if you give someone a chocolate every day, they will be happy but if just one day you don’t, they will be upset and disappointed. If, on the other hand, that whole time you never give someone a chocolate and then one day give them one, they will be happy and grateful.
You're looking at the nominal value and outcome of that donation, which is fine. But I do think proportionality matters. If any company or person is only willing to commit 13 minutes their time and resources to a cause, what is the value of their commitment and what is their intent? This is pure marketing disguised as philanthropy and it needs to be called out.
I won’t dispute that it is marketing disguised as philanthropy, but what’s the alternative? For Apple to turn off the faucet? The motivation is important, but even when it’s questionable, it takes the back seat to the good it has been done with perhaps not so pure and lofty intentions. Those who benefit from it p usually don’t have the luxury of questioning (or rejecting) any help they can get, be it given for self promoting reasons.
You're right, those who benefit shouldn't reject help or question it. That's the role of those who are watching, hence my first comment. This is the company that gifted a custom plaque with a 24-karat gold base to the WH not too long ago. I feel no guilt calling them cheap relative to their massive resources.
That’s fair. My point is that focus of the criticism should be more on those who don’t give anything than on those who give something, even if it’s less that one would have liked.