From this 2010 article [1] it says charity buzz takes 20% off to cover operating expenses. So this winning bidder just wasted $122,000 that could have gone to charity. I would rather donate directly and have all the money go to the charity and then call up Tim Cook and say, "I just improved my supply chain efficiency by 20%. Want to have coffee?" Any CEO would be crazy to turn down the opportunity to talk to me. Of course, I don't care about talking to Tim Cook, so I'll just donate my measly few bucks like any decent person and get no recognition out of it.
To add to that, charitybuzz is a for-profit corporation. Not that I am against that, but it is worth keeping in mind as there have been a number of scandals in the past, where money from charitable non-profits gets re-directed to 'non-profit services firms' that are for-profit entities (The Wycleaf Jean scandal is a good example).
In general it is good to keep your eyes open when dealing with the non-profit world. There are some very good, well meaning organizations out there, but there also a lot of organizations that solely exist as tax shelters, influence peddlers, and resume/ego boosters.
The interesting thing is that even if Tim Cook were to spend every working hour of his time doing $610,000 coffee, he would earn Apple only about one billion dollars -- under 1% of Apple's yearly revenue.
Which you would then turn around and write a book, blog, tour the country, appear on MSNBC, and get a cozy job as a financial consultant for rich dummies. Well worth the price.
Is anyone else irked that some rich guy is getting even more connections in exchange for a huge wad of cash, yet this is given the name (see: website name) of "charity"? When rich people give society back the money they stole, in exchange for improving their personal connections and reputations, we're supposed to laud them because "it's for charity". Well, here's a fucking idea. How about Tim Cook has coffee with a regular guy out in Montana who's never seen $500 in one place?
I was going to write that comment, but you were quicker. Thanks, I absolutely agree.
I would also say that the motivation for buying into that coffee meeting is puzzling. If someone can afford that ridiculous price tag they're pretty successful to begin with. Chances are, Tim Cook won't have anything meaningful to offer to that guy/girl besides the bragging rights of having met with Tim Cook.
It's kind of embarrassing to be that person. Even if I had that kind of money and a desperate wish to meet Tim Cook (why?), I wouldn't want the press to find that out.
Cook clearly doesn't need the money (edit: nor does he need to raise it this way for charity). So he either does it for ego, or he actually wants to help other people's businesses. Is this his idea of "giving back to the community"? If so, he should consider doing an office hour once a week for startup founders or something.
>If someone can afford that ridiculous price tag they're pretty successful to begin with. Chances are, Tim Cook won't have anything meaningful to offer to that guy/girl besides the bragging rights of having met with Tim Cook.
This seems to be an odd thing to say. The wealthy have nothing else meaningful to gain or learn? Bill Gates had nothing meaningful to gain from reaching out to Steve Jobs? Is the only reason you could want to meet with Tim Cook because you want him to help your business?
I assume that Tim Cook is probably an extraordinarily interesting man with many great insights. I think there are many reasons beyond "bragging rights" an already successful person could have to want to meet him.
>I assume that Tim Cook is probably an extraordinarily interesting man with many great insights.
He probably won't say anything more than you could get from an MBA at University of Phoenix (which costs a smidgen less than $610,000). While I'm sure he's an intelligent man, I wouldn't assume that he's anything more than just a skilled businessman. If you're looking for managerial advice he's probably a good person to talk to, but I wouldn't call him interesting or say he has many great insights. So yeah, it's probably just bragging rights or having something to pitch to Apple.
I guess you can say that about anyone if you don't provide any evidence.
Olympus, I'm sure you are an intelligent man, but I wouldn't assume that you're anything more than the average HN reader. I wouldn't call you interesting or say that you have many great insights.
But seriously, you don't think the CEO of Apple has insights about tech and where it's going?
Let me start by saying that I don't dislike Tim Cook, but to me he's just another rich guy running a company, not a tech visionary [1].
I certainly don't offer anything more than the average HNer but the difference is that I don't auction off coffee dates with myself.
To answer your question, no, I don't really think that Tim Cook has insights about tech and where it's going. He's a competent businessman, but he doesn't offer $610,000 worth of insight unless you're pitching a business deal. He is a businessman who works in the tech industry. He doesn't do tech, he does management. He has an M.B.A. He does hiring and firing [2]. He isn't ambitiously driving Apple in new directions, he has his hands full holding onto what Steve created. He isn't responsible for creating any revolutionary products. The only thing I would think he could speak with knowledge on is Apple's product launch plans for the next few years. Beyond that, he has no idea where tech is going more than the average HNer.
[1] I would regard Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Elon Musk, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, as tech visionaries because of the companies they created. I would regard Tim Berners-Lee, Linus Torvalds and Dennis Ritchie as visionaries because they created 'backbone' technologies that we still rely on today.
[2] Firing Scott Forstall is the most significant event of Cook's tenure as CEO.
Just to throw it out there, since we don't know won: it may just be a cool experience for the winner. If I had piles of cash, and didn't have to worry about making more piles of cash, I'd consider it a pretty cool experience. I'd likely be giving that or more to charities anyway; if I can get some time with the leader of one of the most profitable countries in the world, why not?
IMO you're either right on that it's just about the bragging rights, or the person who bought the meeting once had a youthful crush on Apple. I've been known to do things that make very little sense as a "gift" to boyhood me.
Cook doesn't need, or get the money. He did it for charity - I don't think we need to come to conclusions as to what else he can contribute to the community. As for his motives, who knows.. Perhaps it's just for the PR.
I don't see this as the purchaser making a charitable contribution. Rather, it is Tim Cook making the charitable contribution by giving his time.
Think of it this way -- if GM donated a Corvette to a charity to auction off, the winner of the auction is buying a Corvette, not giving to charity. It is GM that made the charitable contribution.
The problem with the Corvette analogy is that the Corvette has a well defined market price. GM's donation to charity is exactly equal to that price and the difference between the auction price and the market price is the contribution from the auction winner, who is only willing to pay 2x, 3x, 10x because the proceeds are going to charity.
Tim Cook's time does not have a well defined marginal price since his compensation package is almost surely not tied to the amount of time he works.
This is called a IRD (Improvised Rhetorical Device). You drop it aside a seemingly reasonable argument so that you can later hijack the entire conversation to talk about what you really wanted to. It's effective in it's primary function but also makes it easy for those on the other side of the argument to paint you as a wild radical.
I don't think it is fair to criticized parent for expressing his broad opinion on economics in this particular case. There is a wide body of political and economic thought which believes that capitalism in general is a system designed to create scarcity, social and economic stratification. This vein of thought is particularly prevalent in communist and anarchist circles (see, The Conquest of Bread, Kropotkin, 1892, for a progressive criticism of historic economic systems).
Granted, most everybody who uses this website willfully engages in capitalism. However, quite a few do not, and are simply compelled to participate in it. To somebody in the second group who perceives what appears to be a notably frivolous use of money, it is particularly galling to for that same act to essentially further the aforementioned stratification.
I don't think capitalism is necessarily bad, and it's certainly better than Soviet-style (pseudo-)socialism.
Meritocratic capitalism I'd favor strongly. The problem is this who-you-know corporate capitalism based on conformity rather than excellence.
I agree that corporations create artificial scarcity, and that it's horrible. I don't know if that's a "capitalism" problem so much as an undesirable result of what happens when a small, socially closed set of people hog lots of resources.
Sure, but of course there are other options. Both liberal capitalism and national socialism/state communism (Soviet) are highly centralized forms of government, whereras anarcho-syndicalism is decentralized and highly capitalist, and anarcho-communism is decentralized, based upon overproduction and a radical reimagination of property rights.
Barcelona and other parts of Valencia with a strong culture of trade were famously stable (the essential city services remained up and running, etc.) flying the black flag as an anarcho-syndicalist region in the 1930s for a few years before being infiltrated by the communists and dominated later in the Spanish Civil War.
Most people who are rich got there by externalizing costs or by taking resources (rarely money; often land and social capital) that didn't belong to them, but whose legitimate owners (often the public) didn't have the ability to defend.
There are exceptions, but I doubt that they're more than 15%.
Have you bothered to actually do any research into this wild assumption? Or, as I suspect, does it just help you to feel better thinking that 85% of rich people "stole" their money?
He was referring to the bidder, not Tim Cook. The bidder is the one gaining connections.
But that's why it's an act of charity by Tim Cook, not by the bidder. It's like a bake sale -- it's the person making cupcakes that's donating to the cause, not the person stuffing their face.
Surely you realize that the reason it's being called "for charity" is that the money is actually going to a (presumably legitimate) charity, not because Tim Cook is nice enough to spend a bit of time with the buyer.
Charity and fundraising are the two socially acceptable ways to buy influence in the US.
Honestly, I like that it's out in the open. Influence is subject to the same scarcities everything else is. You won't equalize society by hiding powerful peoples' connections, something every "equal" society has learned.
I was thinking that the rich guy buying that should give it to a young entrepreneur whose endeavor is very dependent on supply chain management (or creation in that case), since it's Tim Cook's strong point.
I keep hearing about Apple's supply chain management. Have they actually done anything clever or is it simply a side effect of the largest player's ability to extort anticompetitive favors from their supply chain? Honest question.
It's easier to be self-righteous than, you know, actually doing something yourself. What have you done for charity recently to merit this sanctimonious tone?
[1]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-27/jay-z-s-new-year-s-...