By Bryan Smilek, Opinion Writer
Recently, Apple has publicly announced that it plans on adding 20,000 jobs in America to boost the economy. Additionally, the company has promised to contribute $350 billion to the United States’ economy. The anticipated donation of $350 billion is expected over a five-year gap, boosting Apple’s donation by $75 billion. Although Apple may promise to assist the economy by adding jobs and giving money to economic causes, the company has been wildly inconsistent in the past.
Prior to announcing its donation plans, Apple, in the past, has been considered a selfish company. Apple products intentionally phase out software in older versions of certain devices, such as smartphones, in an effort to cause the consumer to purchase a new phone. Such behavior is rather unethical and is a selfish effort to maximize the company’s profit. In addition to being expensive, the products have become much more expensive due to the company having to buy OLED processors from their main competitor, Samsung. The company’s dependence on their main rival has caused them to raise prices even more in an effort to cover expenses while generating revenue.
Although Apple may be acting selfishly, the controversial aspects of the company can be furthermore exposed. In 1984, the company launched a commercial on which people were enslaved by a man on a large television. The people had become completely dependent on technology and listened to what the man on the screen had to say at all times. At the end of the commercial, a young lady destroys the computer, liberating the people of the slavery of technology. She symbolized Apple because the company’s main message was that their technology would assist individuals rather than causing humans to become completely reliant on their devices.
Apple may have promised that their products would become liberating rather than enslaving the general public. However, that mission has been abandoned in recent times. The vast majority of people buy Apple products and act completely dependent on the items for tasks such as alarm clocks, fitness monitoring, and buying plane tickets for a business trip. The company has become a monopoly in the technological sphere, allowing them to set the price of its products and take advantage of their power by setting ridiculous market prices.
This raises the question: how can America trust that such a self-centered, hypocritical company will invest in the country’s economy when it is solely interested in maximizing profit? The answer is that Apple cannot be trusted because the investments that the company promises are not really as exciting as they sound. Currently, Apple spends $275 billion on domestic companies over a five year span. There is no growth on a yearly basis, causing the donation to be exactly $275 billion. Additionally, Apple has a planned $75 billion in repatriation tax and capital expenditure. However, more than half of that payment is a tax payment to bring back capital from foreign affairs. This translates to the revelation that Apple had already planned to expend the rest of the $75 billion on capital. These figures prove that apple is not dramatically increasing its investments in the U.S economy. Rather, the company is helping itself by receiving tax breaks and was already accounting for most of the money they are going to donate when calculating their domestic taxes.
In conclusion, Apple cannot be trusted to invest in the U.S. economy because the numbers are misleading and the company has a bad habit of straying from its ideologies. By maximizing profit and increasing prices, the company has indicated that it is acting in the best interest of the company. Although a good business strategy, it does not bode well when the public has to trust in the company that has captured a large portion of their annual incomes. Also, the numbers are misleading, showing that the company is not dramatically increasing its investment in the economy. Overall, Apple is not improving its investment in the economy. The company may be assisting the United States’ economy, but it still has experienced benefits for itself while doing so.
A version of this article appeared in the Tuesday, January 30th print edition.
Contact Bryan at