The Inquirer takes a strange angle in this article (entitled iPods will be free for wealthy kids) on yesterday's news about iPods being delivered for free to Duke University freshmen.
Giving the digital 'Duke box' away to one of the few universities where most of the kids can afford to buy them, is probably one of the most bizarre acts of philanthropism we have seen for some time.
This first sentence implies that Apple has made some exclusive deal with Duke in order to provide the iPods to the freshmen. Now, we will skip the middle two paragraphs (where the author, Nick Farrell, explains that the iPods have educational value) and read the last one:
Duke has managed the deal by spending strategic planning funds that it has set aside for one-time innovative technology purposes. It is also being helped out by Apple which has started a program called iTunes on Campus that allows colleges to obtain free institutional licences to distribute iTunes to students.
Technically, if Duke University is paying for the iPods, it is not philantrophy. And since iTunes on Campus is not Duke-specific, Apple is not "helping out." Let's look at what the university has to say:
Duke officials said the iPod distribution is part of a pilot program between Duke and Apple Computer, Inc. that will be evaluated after a year. Duke is paying for the project with strategic planning funds that it has set aside for one-time innovative technology purposes. The total cost of the project is expected to reach $500,000 or more, which includes hiring an academic computing specialist for the project, grant funding for faculty, associated research costs and the purchase of the iPods.
This deal does not sound like "philantrophy" to me, but a standard partnership between a corporation and a institution of higher learning. Perhaps Farrell's anti-Apple bias is preventing him from being objective.
At 9:37 on July 28, 2004, Nick Farrell wrote:
Nah it is a deal with the college... they buy them at a discount. As for the Anti-Apple bias, I am anti most spinning. I just find it weird that when I am writing my comments on Microsoft, people cheer (if they notice)... one word that suggests that something that pours out of the Apple marketing machine and I am suddenly biased. If Apple had won the marketing war rather than Microsoft, then you would all be spitting tacks at Steve Jobs and cheering that creative bloke Bill Gates. Don't what ever you do read this as me being pro-microsoft... I think I am still on Bill's hit list for when the Senate gives him the power to have people killed.
At 12:45 on July 28, 2004, Martey wrote:
I would argue that while Microsoft and Apple are both "evil corporations," Microsoft is the bigger problem, because it won the "marketing war," resulting on it having a ridiculous amount of influence on the tech community.
Despite our differences of opinions over your article (which is partly the result of my attendance at an educational institution similar to Duke), I appreciate your comment.