You seem to be working under the idea that if Apple contributes to charity they go bankrupt, this is inaccurate. Also, the premise that Jobs has allowed Apple's shareholders to donate rather than the company doing it directly seems a little bit silly because all of the income will be taxed and the amount ending up to the charity will be lessened. The reason why any companies donate to charity is because they can't necessarily rely on the rest of society to do it without the example being set by companies themselves. And, are you really trying to argue that someone having an Apple product improves there lives in any way other than padding Apples bottom line which doesn't end up going to charity. Ultimately, under the argument that a companies charitable efforts are really the sum of it's shareholders efforts than aren't you really saying that no company actually needs to do charity work, I've pointed this out before, but, money coming to the stockholder A) has no guarantee of making it's way to charity and B) will be taxed and in other ways lessened so the charity ends up with less and people like Jobs with more.