Product Red(en.wikipedia.org)
en.wikipedia.org
Product Red
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_Red
51 comments
I don't really care if it's internally some tax dodge or sales strategy if it serves as an opportunity to bring color back to a world dominated by monochromatic colors and brushed aluminum. The donation to a good cause is just an added bonus.
Sample size one but I've seen Product Red multiple times before and had no clue it was about AIDS.
My iPhone has this “product red” branding on it and it kind of annoys me. Im always skeptical of these kinds of branding/marketing for a cause type things but I just wanted a red iPhone…
> It's just a vehicle to drive sales.
I'll bite - Why is this a problem?
Let's assume (Red) is using funds properly (not going to touch that). If selling products that carve out a portion of profits get donated then isn't this great?
> Because the only effect it has is suckers that really care about AIDS giving more money to Product Red.
If more money is going to the right causes why the holier-than-art-thou thought process. It was the same criticism with the ice bucket challenge. "people don't care about ALS..." "nor about <fit your cause here>".
It gets more money into good causes. If <said thing> didn't exist, they'd have less money.
I'll bite - Why is this a problem?
Let's assume (Red) is using funds properly (not going to touch that). If selling products that carve out a portion of profits get donated then isn't this great?
> Because the only effect it has is suckers that really care about AIDS giving more money to Product Red.
If more money is going to the right causes why the holier-than-art-thou thought process. It was the same criticism with the ice bucket challenge. "people don't care about ALS..." "nor about <fit your cause here>".
It gets more money into good causes. If <said thing> didn't exist, they'd have less money.
See also "The Copenhagen interpretation of ethics": https://blog.jaibot.com/the-copenhagen-interpretation-of-eth...
I'm afraid to respond saying how thought provoking that article is, because then I might be on the hook to actually do something to make the world a better place.
Nice article, but sounds like it was written by an Uber product manager justifying their decision for surge pricing. My cynical view is that Uber predominantly benefits from surge pricing, and they pass the minimal amount on to their drivers, drenching their disadvantaged potential passengers with much higher prices.
Oh this is a beautiful concept - I didn't know about it. Explains so much. Thank you!
My interpretation of the ice-bucket challenge criticism was that it had a lot of people dunking ice buckets on their heads on social media; but it is unclear how many wrote checks instead (or as well).
At least in this case there's pretty clearly money flowing to the cause rather than just teenagers doing teenager stuff on social media with added warm fuzzies.
At least in this case there's pretty clearly money flowing to the cause rather than just teenagers doing teenager stuff on social media with added warm fuzzies.
> If <said thing> didn't exist, they'd have less money
The "Criticisms" portion of the article has one response to this sort of argument. Most of Red's aid is in the form of purchasing pharmaceutical treatments for those who need it. It sounds good in the short term, but it's essentially a private subsidy to the pharmaceutical companies and an excuse to keep drug prices high and not bother with government pricing regulations or government funded treatment programs. The argument is that the money could be better spent on lobbying for government aid and price limits.
The "Criticisms" portion of the article has one response to this sort of argument. Most of Red's aid is in the form of purchasing pharmaceutical treatments for those who need it. It sounds good in the short term, but it's essentially a private subsidy to the pharmaceutical companies and an excuse to keep drug prices high and not bother with government pricing regulations or government funded treatment programs. The argument is that the money could be better spent on lobbying for government aid and price limits.
>>The argument is that the money could be better spent on lobbying for government aid and price limits.
By whose judgement?
If someone comes to me and asks for money for their medical treatment, of course I'm going to give them it. They need it now, I'm going to help. Or are we going to argue that this money that I spent would have been better off donated to an organisation that lobbies government for regulating medicine prices(while the person who needs help now suffers because they aren't getting the meds).
It just strikes me as such armchair judgement of the situation(not you personally, I mean the general criticism around this).
By whose judgement?
If someone comes to me and asks for money for their medical treatment, of course I'm going to give them it. They need it now, I'm going to help. Or are we going to argue that this money that I spent would have been better off donated to an organisation that lobbies government for regulating medicine prices(while the person who needs help now suffers because they aren't getting the meds).
It just strikes me as such armchair judgement of the situation(not you personally, I mean the general criticism around this).
The idea that there's some kind of globally-optimizing resource allocation for altruism and that you're open to criticism for failing to adhere to someone's line on it is just so fucked up.
>The argument is that the money could be better spent on lobbying for government aid and price limits.
So it's better for lobbyists to get the money to encourage pharma companies to increase US prices to give Africa free doses? I don't see how that is a better use of the money. Now you've spent twice as much money on this. Once for lobbyists and then again from US price increases and pharma companies make just as much in the end.
So it's better for lobbyists to get the money to encourage pharma companies to increase US prices to give Africa free doses? I don't see how that is a better use of the money. Now you've spent twice as much money on this. Once for lobbyists and then again from US price increases and pharma companies make just as much in the end.
> Because the only effect it has is suckers that really care about AIDS giving more money to Product Red.
Guess I am one of those. I bought a Red iPhone 8 a few years ago for the following reasons:
1. I had to get a phone for my new job.
2. I liked the colour.
3. It was the same price as non-Red models.
4. It happened to send a few dollars towards a good cause which would not have been sent if I had bought the regular colour product.
I'm apparently a sucker who would rather give a little than nothing at all.
Guess I am one of those. I bought a Red iPhone 8 a few years ago for the following reasons:
1. I had to get a phone for my new job.
2. I liked the colour.
3. It was the same price as non-Red models.
4. It happened to send a few dollars towards a good cause which would not have been sent if I had bought the regular colour product.
I'm apparently a sucker who would rather give a little than nothing at all.
All the reasons you listed are not related to your charity at all. Basically is 1-3 and you just accidentally hit your #4 point. If it wasn't a color you liked, or you didn't need a phone, or it was more expensive, you would have not done it EVEN if it was to help.
You’re actually reinforcing the idea: YES, it /isn’t/ charity. It’s a tiny modification to an existing behavior which individually might produce a negligible positive outcome, but cumulatively might produce a large(r) positive outcome.
I think prev post is saying: /some/ people making a trivial individual choice to produce /some/ cumulative benefit is preferable to /zero/ people making that same trivial choice to produce /zero/ cumulative benefit.
I think prev post is saying: /some/ people making a trivial individual choice to produce /some/ cumulative benefit is preferable to /zero/ people making that same trivial choice to produce /zero/ cumulative benefit.
The way I see it, most people will not go out of their way to donate to HIV/AIDS in Africa. What RED has done is bake giving into getting a product, one you would have gotten anyways. Donating could certainly be more efficient but way more people are going to buy iPhones, and be tempted to buy the RED iPhone. Less efficent but at the end of the day there is going to be more money in the pot.
Well, you just described the point of product red and why it is not irrelevant just because there are "proper" charities.
1 they manage to collaborate with big names like Apple that create products in demand, 2 they make sure the color is not ugly, 3 they make sure you don't pay more.
If not for product red Y-bar may not have donated to HIV/AIDS cause at all. Same for me, I always buy product red if device is available because why not, I don't care about the color much.
1 they manage to collaborate with big names like Apple that create products in demand, 2 they make sure the color is not ugly, 3 they make sure you don't pay more.
If not for product red Y-bar may not have donated to HIV/AIDS cause at all. Same for me, I always buy product red if device is available because why not, I don't care about the color much.
I think that comment was more aimed at someone who would seek out these products and sincerely believe their consumer choice is changing the world. You seem to be a bit more level-headed about it than those people, like - "if it helps a little, sure. if not, well this was the product I wanted anyway".
I’m sure there are big Product Red fans, but my guess would be the majority of the people fall into the same camp as him. I’ve bought product red stuff mainly because I liked the item in that color, and it supports a charity.
I also got a red iPhone because I liked the look.
I doubt the money does anything to help anyone, even if it is actually donated.
I doubt the money does anything to help anyone, even if it is actually donated.
> anyone
If you want but a single data point Apple yesterday highlighted a woman who got tested through a Red-funded clinic, and because she was tested early, she could also be treated and give birth to a HIV-free baby.
If you want but a single data point Apple yesterday highlighted a woman who got tested through a Red-funded clinic, and because she was tested early, she could also be treated and give birth to a HIV-free baby.
It's also worth reminding people just how amazingly successful medical science has been in solving the HIV health disaster.
A multi-year untreated infection would have been a death sentence still in the mid-1990s, but today we can routinely treat these cases to a level where the virus is undetectable.
Something that people also tend to forget is that there was a strong HIV-AIDS denialist movement. In the 1990s a lot of regular people and also some scientists were convinced that HIV doesn't cause AIDS, despite accumulating evidence to the contrary. Nobel Prize winner Kary Mullis was involved in this conspiracy-minded movement. The president of South Africa was also convinced, which caused thousands of unnecessary deaths in the country where HIV spread like wildfire at the time.
When somebody tries to argue that Covid-19 or climate change are fake based on the views of a single doctor or other scientist, I point at Kary Mullis.
The HIV-AIDS denialists even had a magazine, but it ceased publication in 2001 when all the editors had died of AIDS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_(magazine)
A multi-year untreated infection would have been a death sentence still in the mid-1990s, but today we can routinely treat these cases to a level where the virus is undetectable.
Something that people also tend to forget is that there was a strong HIV-AIDS denialist movement. In the 1990s a lot of regular people and also some scientists were convinced that HIV doesn't cause AIDS, despite accumulating evidence to the contrary. Nobel Prize winner Kary Mullis was involved in this conspiracy-minded movement. The president of South Africa was also convinced, which caused thousands of unnecessary deaths in the country where HIV spread like wildfire at the time.
When somebody tries to argue that Covid-19 or climate change are fake based on the views of a single doctor or other scientist, I point at Kary Mullis.
The HIV-AIDS denialists even had a magazine, but it ceased publication in 2001 when all the editors had died of AIDS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_(magazine)
I also buy the Product Red iPhones. If they help a bit, great! Also they are distinctive so long as you get a clear case. And they are often the best colour.
It doesn't just raise brand awareness but reduces stigma. By associating a disease with high end products like premium iPhones etc people are likely to feel less threatened by the disease.
It's a good theory, but I'd have a very hard time telling if it's concrete effect or just wishful thinking.
Of course, Apple gladly censors it in China: https://mashable.com/article/china-red-iphone-just-red
I remember when Apple began making Product Red devices. And then I noticed many years later, recently, that they’re still doing it, but with far less fanfare. The presentation I saw rushed over it as a footnote along with the colour options.
Made me wonder if they are in some way still obligated to do so or something.
Made me wonder if they are in some way still obligated to do so or something.
may be they are afraid of the negative press of "no longer supports <insert cause>."
Charities and humanitarian efforts are such a quagmire of problems:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Global_Fund_to_Fight_AIDS,...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Global_Fund_to_Fight_AIDS,...
I expect charities to be 100% free of fraud on the same day that the last criminal commits the last crime.
As I patiently await that day I continue supporting charities because the alternative is worse.
The fact that instances of fraud have been noted is positive. The only charities with no instances of fraud are those that are either not looking or actively covering it up.
As I patiently await that day I continue supporting charities because the alternative is worse.
The fact that instances of fraud have been noted is positive. The only charities with no instances of fraud are those that are either not looking or actively covering it up.
"Bono’s Product Red brand wanted to dispense even with the philanthropic intermediary. ‘Philanthropy is like hippy music, holding hands’, Bono proclaimed. ‘Red is more like punk rock, hip hop, this should feel like hard commerce’. The point was not to offer an alternative to capitalism – on the contrary, Product Red’s ‘punk rock’ or ‘hip hop’ character consisted in its ‘realistic’ acceptance that capitalism is the only game in town. No, the aim was only to ensure that some of the proceeds of particular transactions went to good causes. The fantasy being that western consumerism, far from being intrinsically implicated in systemic global inequalities, could itself solve them. All we have to do is buy the right products."
Mark Fisher - Capitalist Realism
Mark Fisher - Capitalist Realism
I just like the red color being tired of black or silver consumer electronics. Never did an extensive research what Product Red means. Thanks for posting.
I wonder why the iPhone Pro has a history of not offering a Product Red variant.
I would imagine they sell lower volumes of it so they can only offer a smaller range of colours
Honestly the colors on Pro/Max models are heinous. On the other hand, even if you are good about not dropping your phone, a xxxx $ phone probably should go into a full-cover bumper anyway so it doesn't matter how ugly the phone is.
~$1200 iPhone X; 5 years; no case.
I don't understand why buy a fancy device only to wrap it in an ugly plastic.
I don't understand why buy a fancy device only to wrap it in an ugly plastic.
F = m * a
Even a thin case will greatly reduce the maximum force a phone will experience when dropped. Metal edged phones are great for flare, but terrible for drop absorbtion.
Even a thin case will greatly reduce the maximum force a phone will experience when dropped. Metal edged phones are great for flare, but terrible for drop absorbtion.
How is this equation relevant? A phone cases increases the value of m...
A phone case increase M on the impacted object. It does not increase it on the phone.
A soft barrier between the phone and the ground increase the time between initial velocity and end velocity; reducing acceleration. Therefore, reducing the maximum force the phone receives.
A soft barrier between the phone and the ground increase the time between initial velocity and end velocity; reducing acceleration. Therefore, reducing the maximum force the phone receives.
Just maybe the common wisdom of the HN zeitgeist that the only reason 50% of cell phone users in the US buy an iPhone because it is a “status symbol” is wrong?
If you don’t subscribe to that notion, then it makes perfect sense to protect something that you paid $1200 for for the utilitarian value despite it making it look worse.
If you don’t subscribe to that notion, then it makes perfect sense to protect something that you paid $1200 for for the utilitarian value despite it making it look worse.
I’d an iPhone a status symbol? It’s barely possible to tell the manufacturer of a modern smartphone without taking off the case and checking the rear.
Because the cost & hassle of finding myself stuck somewhere far from home with a broken phone is non-trivial. Or even at home.
[deleted]
Greenwashing has been replaced by redwashing?
capitalist realism at its finest
Wow, this is actually nice to spot all the worst company/brand/product on the market. I wonder if they are in talk with EA for some red edition of games and loot boxes.
The idea wasn't bad, I don't get how they choose their products. Maybe this is a kind of green-washing for those companies (for social matter instead of environment).
The idea wasn't bad, I don't get how they choose their products. Maybe this is a kind of green-washing for those companies (for social matter instead of environment).
I guess (RED) is mainly for companies large enough to funnel revenue to a tax-haven, but in need of a tax-reducing vehicle when bringing the money back home.
I wouldn't be surprised if Apple decides their exact annual contribution to (RED) not just per device sold, but based on how much revenue they need to transfer to US. It's not even cynical, it would be good accounting practice to report the revenue of Product(RED) before anything else, as you can get a tax-deduction for your "charitable expenses", while the rest of your revenue stays off-shore until a new opportunity comes along.
You basically get the social aspect for free...
I wouldn't be surprised if Apple decides their exact annual contribution to (RED) not just per device sold, but based on how much revenue they need to transfer to US. It's not even cynical, it would be good accounting practice to report the revenue of Product(RED) before anything else, as you can get a tax-deduction for your "charitable expenses", while the rest of your revenue stays off-shore until a new opportunity comes along.
You basically get the social aspect for free...
It's a write-off
Because when people see Product Red written somewhere, they Google it, and it's not like they're going "ah, yes, AIDS. It's still a thing isn't it?"
It's just a vehicle to drive sales. Because the only effect it has is suckers that really care about AIDS giving more money to Product Red.
> "Product Red has been criticized for not having an effect proportional to the advertising investment, for being much less efficient than direct charitable contribution, and for having a lack of transparency"