I kind of wish the Red color wasnt related to project red.

You are opposed to fighting AIDS in Africa for personal reasons?

If you really don't want to kick in ten bucks (at no extra cost to yourself) to help people who are suffering and dying, buy a different color and get a red case.

This is just a guess (correct me if I'm wrong AmazingDM) but he may think a lot of it doesn't go to fighting AIDS in Africa. (Might think it goes to African leaders, people who work for Project Red, etc.)

if you dont think that the product red is ligament then gohere ( http://www.joinred.com/globalfund.asp)

I don't see what the big deal is, even if a little bit of the money got over to africa its still more supportive than just buying the other iPods and its not taking anymore money out of your pocket.

This AIDS project is actually good for Apple. Consumers see that they're supporting some project that is supposed to eliminate AIDS, so they buy it thinking that it is for a good cause. It is for a good cause, but Apple is doing it for the wrong reason. TO MAKE MONEY.

AmazingDM, you post a lot, but you got all quiet on this subject. You started this thread, care to address the questions your post provoked?

Most of your posts are concerned with color. Do you have a problem with helping black people? Do you prefer pink people as well as pink ipods?

...futher, as a rule Project(Red) only seems to apply to products that are otherwise mass-market popular in scope... It's more a question of the Nano being mainstream enough for Bono to accept it for the program than there is in Apple actually pushing for it.

It honestly wouldn't surprise me if Bono approached Apple, rather than the other way around...

I think its a god cause but what about the people in the united states that are poor and have aids...The money should go to a global type deal instead of one country...just my 2 cents.

Well I DID say they were personal reasons right?

I'm just curious whether or not red will be a standard color, it doesnt seem to fit into the neon pastel color kinda thing they got goin

Yes and I DID give you a chance to tell us whether you are rascist or homophobic or WHAT?? What gives, pal?

I think its a god cause but what about the people in the united states that are poor and have aids...The money should go to a global type deal instead of one country...just my 2 cents.
Why? Because the number of people with AIDS in Africa who can't pay for their medication far suprasses the number of people in the U.S. who can't pay for theirs.

This is a great thread and simply shows how intolerant people are on BOTH sides of the argument. He, or anybody, has the right to disagree with the project for whatever reason they want. He simply asked a question about the color, lets be honest it's been hijacked by this project. So he doesn't want people thinking he bought a red iPod just to support project red, why is that such a big deal? I like the red one, but would not ever buy one simply because of this. So what?

I'm with AmazingDM on this one.

Actually, the name is more of a description of what the country is.

There are 50 states that are united under a common government, and they are therefore the United States of America.

I'm agreeing with him in his wish that the color were not so closely associated with the project. I like the color but would not buy one because of it's association with the project. I have issues with the charity that wold also keep me from buying one because of the support that is given. I am simply separating the color and it's association from my views on the project itself.

I don't think that the OP has earned any respect for his views, simply because he hasn't explained or justified them.

You might ask why he should have to justify them?

Because to say that "For personal reasons I don't support project red" would leave the reasonable observer to suspect that these 'personal reasons' might be based either on racist/xenophobic feelings, or on some kind of belief that it's wrong to help people with AIDS (perhaps for misguided religious reasons, or perhaps due to some kind of hatred for homosexuals). This is pretty serious, and would be unacceptable to any decent human being.

There may be some alternative explanation, but if there is, then perhaps Amazing DM should provide it, before lots of us start suspecting that he's either a racist or a homophobe, or some kind of fundamentalist christian who hasn't quite grasped the fundamentals of Christ's teachings about tolerance, forgiveness, etc.

And the idea that anyone would avoid buying a Product Red Nano because they wouldn't want to appear to support the cause of fighting AIDS in Africa makes me uncomfortable. I can see that one might not want to go out of one's way to support the effort, but to go out of your way to disassociate one's self from the charity seems callous to an almost inhuman degree.

Moreover, a pillar-box red was never likely to be an official Apple colour (they've never used basic primary colours), and is available only because of Product Red. If you really can't bear to risk being thought of someone who cares about the scourge of disease in the Third World, the answer is simple. Buy another colour or use colorware, but for god's sake spare us all this whining.

I don't know if cynical is the right word in this case, JH.

If you post a thread starting with the words:

"For personal reasons I don't support project red" I'd say that you're being so controversial and confrontational that you're inviting people to react, to question and to challenge.

Moreover, I cannot imagine a legitimate personal reason for not wanting to support Product Red that one would not be willing to explain or justify.

If I were to say, for example, that "For personal reasons I don't agree with those who condemn 9/11" I'd expect to have to explain myself. (Naturally I absolutely condemn 9/11 - it's just an example).

Personally, I'd rather take $10 off the price of the iPod, buy a box of condoms, and send 'em to some guy in Africa.

I'll have done my part.

Hey, that could catch on -- Product(RED) condoms.

He is entitled to not have to mention why he doesn't support (RED) seeing as it is personal. I don't understand what could hold someone back from supporting AIDS in Africa though..

I'm starting to have different thoughts of AmazingDM after I just read this post ( http://forums.ipodlounge.com/showpost.php?p=1072159&postcount=13)...

Personally, I'd rather take $10 off the price of the iPod, buy a box of condoms, and send 'em to some guy in Africa.

I'll have done my part.
That A) wasn't funny, and B) was totally misguided as to the principles of Project (RED).

Maybe he just wants a red iPod and doesn't want to go around appearing to be an activist. Well, too bad. Its not just an iPod thing; that's what a red device (iPod, cellphone, etc) means now. Pick some other color if you're worried about appearing benevolent.

In any case, it was pretty naive to think that his motivation wouldn't become a major theme of this thread (assuming that wasn't the intent, which is an assumption I'm unwilling to make).

Probably because it's more fun this way. That and obviously he doesn't want to. Why is this even a big deal? So he has chosen not to say, so what?

Actually, the name is more of a description of what the country is.

There are 50 states that are united under a common government, and they are therefore the United States of America.

Haha, dude thought Africa was one country so I was sorta playing on that. I live in US and actually knew it was one country (state often means nation, so, uh, in other words, it was supposed to be a joke.) Nevermind.

Sorry about the inflamatory accusations that drew your stern glance my way. And apologize to AmazinglyDUMB also, although I doubt I offended him. I might chide him a bit, but we are ipod shuffle owners and that's a bond that minor disageements over how to save the world can't break, right kid? Jackaroo says what I was trying to say very well and more respectfully. Thanks Jacko!

I think I may understand why AmazingDM doesn't want to support Project RED. I personally don't want to support it because people shouldn't be having 53x outside of marriage. But that's just my two cents.

As much as I am sickened Bono and his endless proselytizing, I think it's fair to say he probably does care, and is doing his part; if his celeb status succeeds only in getting more attention to a very serious problem, that's a very big something.

The reason I don't go in for huge celebrity-endorsed charities is I feel there is little chance that any part of my ten bucks actually makes it to the dying AIDS victim. There are so many expenses these giant non-profits have, what with advertising budgets, bureaucratic red tape, flying the celebs to the afflicted countries, employee and officer salaries (no, they don't all work for free), etc. And I wouldn't want my contribution being 'wasted' on that.

Freddy's condom comment may have been made in jest, but I agree with the theory behind it. I felt the same with the whole Katrina fiasco (not trying to bring in a whole new topic to argue about, just illustrating a point) - I'd rather send a truckload of food and clothing, for example, than write a check to a charity that is so all-over-the-place, I couldn't be sure exactly how they'd disburse the funds.

I think AmazingDM is willingly playing the fool anonymously on a web forum to raise awareness of this issue and this charity. ;)

I will be buying a red Nano to support the Project Red charity. The main reason I will be doing this is because of the horrible way Aids has affected the children in Africa. Many are left orphaned, and there have actually been cases of grown men raping children and babies because it is considered "safe" to have sex with virgins. To me, compassion is never a bad thing. Just my 2 cents.

"I personally don't want to support it because people shouldn't be having sex outside of marriage."

I hope that you don't dare describe yourself as a Christian with an attitude like that. I'm pretty sure that Jesus wouldn't think that those who had sex outside marriage would deserve to die of AIDS, even if only those who had been so engaged were the only people to suffer from the disease.

As it is, plenty of AIDS victims are entirely 'innocent', while others don't share your small-minded and simple minded moral code. And that doesn't mean that they deserve to die, nor that they don't deserve to be helped, either.

Or in your bizarre world do children whose fathers may have had sex outside marriage deserve to be born with AIDS? And do faithful wives deserve to die when they catch this dreadful disease from a cheating spouse?

I hope you catch it from your spouse, if ever anyone is stupid enough to marry you.

Another good case in-point...

I love a fresh dose of intolerance first thing in the morning, thanks Jacko...!

That would be what you get for thinking. Remember what they say about assumption's..

TIME says I am the man of the year, as are all of you...

Hahaha, this thread completely changed. It turned from a thread about Product(RED) to a thread about "Man of the Year".

It says "Man" of the year Kris, not "Boy" of the year..... http://forums.ionmac.com/style_emoticons/default/owned.gif

;)

Oh wait, it's now person of the year Baggss, they renamed it. :p

like what are u going to do..not buy it cause it supports something good?

I have issues with the charity that wold also keep me from buying one because of the support that is given.These 'issues', they wouldn't happen to wear giant sunglasses and talk with a lilting accent, would they? ;)

some kind of belief that it's wrong to help people with AIDS (perhaps for misguided religious reasons, or perhaps due to some kind of hatred for homosexuals)If anyone refuses to support AIDS charities because they believe it to be a 'homosexual disease', that would just go to highlight how ignorant they are (aside from the obvious point about bigotry) - cases of AIDS are no more or less prevalent within the homosexual population than they are within any other group you care to name. It's a complete fallacy to assert otherwise.
In fact, the last person I know who tried to argue that it was more common in ### (stupid filter...) men cited an US study as evidence, only to find upon reading it properly that the findings were the complete opposite to what he'd said - the study stated, as I did, that AIDS is not disproportionately common with the homosexual community.

Sorry, touched a bit of a nerve there...

As for whether or not the OP has the right to oppose a charity, of course he does and there is no reason why he should have to justify his opposition to it.
That said, there is also no need to start a thread what was clearly an inflammatory subject - it was either extremely short-sighted or muck-stirring.

To be fair, it may have been a bit naive of the OP to not expect the thread to go down a certain road, but the original question was not about whether or not the charity should be supported, but rather whether Apple would be likely to produce a Red Nano that was not affiliated with Product(RED). Whatever his reasons for not supporting the charity, the question itself was valid.Still, as other people have pointed out, there seems to be no reason (or, rather, no reason that we can think of that isn't based on some sort of intolerance on the OP's part) why anyone would want a red Nano but not be prepared to buy a (RED) Nano.
That isn't to say there isn't a decent reason for having such an opinion but with the OP's somewhat disobliging silence, we cannot be expected to know. And as jackonicko, I think it was, said, you can't really expect people to empathise with the views of someone who they don't understand and who refuses to shed any light on the situation.

I'm not saying the question was not valid but naive really doesn't cover asking such a question and not expecting this sort of a furore.

The thread was moved in here (The Lounge) and left open only because it seemed like an opportunity to promote worthwhile discussion of the issue itself. As long as it doesn't get too political or inflammatory, there's no reason that we can't discuss an issue that people may not necessarily be aware of.And that's an excellent spirit with which to run such a forum.
It's not the 'easy path' but it's undoubtedly the better one.

...and who knows, but perhaps promoting awareness of this issue is the ultimate goal of Product(RED) in the end anyway. Whether one supports the charity or not, it's hard to suggest that being aware of what is going around in the world around us is a bad thing.Well, without wishing to be glib, I hope not - I hope that the goal of Product(RED) is to make strides towards eradicating AIDS. I'm not saying that doesn't involve raising awareness but it requires practical measures too.
I mean, if it's just raising awareness that they're after, then why do they want our money? What are they doing with it?

...and who knows, but perhaps promoting awareness of this issue is the ultimate goal of Product(RED) in the end anyway.That makes as much sense as anything I've heard. Selling some limited number of products with the hook that a small amount of money will be donated for charity doesn't really result in a lot of charity dollars, but it does sell a lot of crap that people might not have otherwise bought.

I used to always try to get gifts when contributing to my local PBS station (which, from their assiduous pledge drives, appears to be starving and threadbare). After awhile I realized I wasn't 'donating' so much as buying junk and giving them a small chunk. Now I just send 'em money and a request to keep the HDTV coming.

Actually my biggest criteria now is that they'll just take the money and leave me alone. I'm not sure which donation did it, but one of them sold/gave away my personal info, and for awhile I was constantly getting solicitations from foundations I'd never even heard of.

M>M transmission is much higher than F>M and M>F, unless the heterosexuals are also members of another high risk group (eg IV drug users).

Proportionally, homosexuals are at higher risk.

If that was not deliberate, I think naive is being kinder than the OP deserves.
Well, you know by now that I'm always one to give folks the benefit of the doubt... (After all, I'm still putting up with you, aren't I :D ).

To be fair, I suspect the OP is probably young enough that he lacks the benefit of the experience or wisdom required to frame such a question in as tactfully a manner as you or I may have. :)

This isn't 'queer-bashing' it's simple fact...
While I agree with most of your points as to why this is the case, it is for these reasons that I think awareness needs to be increased. The impressions that are prevalent out there about this issue are exactly those you describe, and I for one hate to see people developing impressions on the basis of a lack of knowledge or education on a subject.

People frequently exist in a far smaller world than they should...

To be fair, I suspect the OP is probably young enough that he lacks the benefit of the experience or wisdom required to frame such a question in as tactfully a manner as you or I may have. :)
Young and already with such strong (alleged) view? Dunn know if that's a good or bad thing... :)

No-one would have guessed.

So what's the problem with Product Red?

No, he's opposed to buying a RED iPod.

Note I said RED not Red....

Honestly, I couldn't care less where the money goes - the hands of the people who manage Product (RED) or actually kids in Africa. That's beyond my control. Whoever says the red iPod doesn't match the hue of the other nanos...that's ridiculous. They look fine to me. Are you colorblind?

I can't really see how personal reasons can affect you and purchasing an iPod so badly.

That A) wasn't funny, and B) was totally misguided as to the principles of Project (RED).

Actually, I found it humorous as well, and it would be by far more practical then donating $10 to God knows what. What are they actually doing with the $10 you donate? Sorry if it's sheer ignorance or me being misinformed, but sending condoms or some sort of contraception seems much more practical than a blind donation. But hey, if it makes you feel better about yourself and your self-esteem gets a boost because you feel charitable, then go right ahead.

You're wrong.
It wouldn't be more practical.

A large part of what charities like this do is educate people.
AIDS is a huge problem in Africa because people there are misinformed. Just handing them a box of condoms doesn't help or solve anything.
I beg to differ. Why don't you survey everyone who buys a Red iPod nano and have them tell me where the money goes, what's the situation in Africa, or even what AIDS is. Giving them a box of condoms helps the problem DIRECTLY. Do you have any idea of how many people contract AIDS because of the lack of contraceptives? Just knowing about contraceptives isn't going to help. Just knowing about the problem isn't going to help anything. Just blindly donating isn't going to do much either. Product Red is a good first step, but people have to realize the problem with AIDS isn't going to end with them buying a red iPod nano.

Congratulations, you've managed to grasp the wrong end of the stick with both hands.
I'm not talking about educating the people who buy the Nanos, I'm talking about educating the people in Africa. Well, there was some ambiguity in your original statement so I had to satisfy both ends.

Give them condoms with directions. It's not like they'll use them as socks or anything.

Can anyone answer where the $10 that is mysteriously donated goes to? I have nothing against buying a red iPod, Product (RED) or otherwise. I'm just playing devil's advocate here.

Sorry, I just assumed that was how people would interpret it.
I'm sorry I'm not British.

Even if they know how to put a condom on, there's no saying they will. The education element of what AIDS charities do is as much combating the myths surrounding AIDS as it is telling people how to use contraceptives - there's no point telling people how to do something if they're not inclined to do it.
Hey - if you don't start somewhere, they'll never use contraceptives.

Yes, you do.
And, IMO, the logical first step is to persuade them that they need to use contraceptives - if you can't do that then the rest of it is a waste of time.
In the time it takes to persuade them, how many people will die or get infected? Why not take action now?

It doesn't take that long. You can integrate the two steps into one. Hand it to them and tell them what it's for.

It doesn't take that long. You can integrate the two steps into one. Hand it to them and tell them what it's for.

i think if it was that easy aids would be on the decrease not the other way around. some villages created piles of these donated contraceptives and set them on fire, they really dont have a clue. First of all they dont even know the basic facts about aids pandemics and how they spread. I feel another problem is that the majoirty of these primitive african villages are highly catholic, so on the one hand they are told by their parish priests that they shouldn't use contraception and then there are these relief workers telling them they should be using them, who do you think they're going to believe?

Education is needed. I'm not sure how & who can take on such a large task to make a huge difference. $10 from an ipod sale, although collectively it's going to add up, will probably not make all that much difference either, but hopefully it will make some small difference.

True, but it's not just apple that's in the project. There's the gap clothing, red moto razr, and other products

Yeah, I see what you mean. It sometmes seems like nothing is getting anywhere even though we have all these campaigns

I feel another problem is that the majoirty of these primitive african villages are highly catholic, so on the one hand they are told by their parish priests that they shouldn't use contraception and then there are these relief workers telling them they should be using them, who do you think they're going to believe?Are they Catholic?

I don't know about Africa as a whole but I do know that in Nigeria, which is one of the more religious (well more Christian) countries, they're mostly Anglican or something like that (ie protestant).
There was some huge row in which two large churches/congregations in the US split from the main body of the church and now follow some Nigerian bishop as his views on homosexuality are more 'acceptable' to them (ie more backward).

Sorry, I'm nit-picking.

I heard Bono mention in a very old interview that they raised 25 million from Live Aid, and he more or less thought it would make a huge difference, then was informed their interest alone for debts was around the same.Well, for a start, I think this speaks volumes about celebrities who push good causes without bothering to actually inform themselves first.
I'm not criticising Bono for wanting to help but surely he should've known that 25 million was a drop in the ocean.

Anyway, Project (red) is different. It's not about dealing with 3rd world debt, it's fighting AIDS.
25 million wouldn't cover 3rd world debt but it pays for a lot of condoms, education, AIDS medicines.

Well, for a start, I think this speaks volumes about celebrities who push good causes without bothering to actually inform themselves first.
I'm not criticising Bono for wanting to help but surely he should've known that 25 million was a drop in the ocean.

Anyway, Project (red) is different. It's not about dealing with 3rd world debt, it's fighting AIDS.
25 million wouldn't cover 3rd world debt but it pays for a lot of condoms, education, AIDS medicines.

As I mentioned, in an old interview. Obviously since that interview Bono has educated himself more, and to show how old the interview was, I include an exert from wiki. The interview was part of "The Making Of Live Aid". It was most likely halfway through fund raising and he was probably only asked if he'd give his time to perform. I don't think anyone could accuse Bono of not paying his dues and educating himself about world issues now, almost to an annoying overkill. Live Aid was for famine relief, not world debt, but I think his comment was to put into prospective how the amount raised may have seemed high, but in the real world it wasn't.

The concert was conceived as a follow-up to another Geldof/Ure project, the successful charity single "Do They Know It's Christmas?", performed by a collection of British and Irish music acts billed as 'Band Aid' and released the previous winter.

The concert grew in scope, as more acts were added on both sides of the Atlantic. As a charity fundraiser, the concert far exceeded its goals: on a television programme in 2001, one of the organisers stated that while initially it had been hoped that Live Aid would raise 1 million ($1.89 million), the final figure was 150 million (approx. $283.6 million). Partly in recognition of the Live Aid effort, Geldof received an honorary knighthood. Music promoter Harvey Goldsmith was also instrumental in bringing the plans of Geldof and Ure to fruition.

this is still going on?

Indeed it is. And yet you still haven't put in your 2 cents.

Cuz I don't care.. This topic isn't even interesting to me.. you guys are rambling about celebrities and whatnot

this is a freaking iPod forum

This is just an example of how somebody really has little to no control about the direction a thread takes once it has started... Sometimes watching the way these things evolve is interesting, and the Internet continues to be a fascinating social experiment.

I'm not particularly surprised that AmazingDM has lost interest... His question was about whether or not the Red Nano would ever be available apart from Product(RED), and if he had wanted to get into the politics of the situation, I'm sure he would have expressed his opinions more vocally.

In the meantime, the rest can have a productive discussion on a topic that interests them. iLounge may be a forum about iPods to the average passer-by, but it's also a community to those who have been around here for a while.

Cuz I don't care.. This topic isn't even interesting to me.. you guys are rambling about celebrities and whatnot

this is a freaking iPod forum

First question I have for you -- Why would you start the thread to begin with?

Second question -- If it isn't interesting to you then how come you stated a few pages back that you were enjoying our theories?

I think that you started this thread to see what kind of reaction you got from us and now that we aren't discussing why you don't support the cause, it's not interesting to you anymore.

Yes this is an iPod forum, but we are talking about a subject concerning iPods and Product(RED). As an added bonus, we're discussing all of this in the Lounge.

Yeah, but we're in the lounge...

If you don't even take your topic seriously, why'd you start it to begin with?

This is at least more fascinating than this (http://forums.ilounge.com/showthread.php?t=191620). (My apologies to the starter of that thread. No offense)

I'm not the one who moved it, I started it in the iPod Nano forum. I started it because it was ABOUT iPods.

And it was moved to the lounge because the discussion was about the charity link, not the Nano itself.

You may have intended to talk about the Nano but the way in which you phrased your original post invited the discussion to head off at a tangent.

Also, as has been said before, if you honestly believed that what you originally posted wouldn't spiral off into a discussion about the relative merits of different forms of charity and why you don't want to support Project (red), then 'naive' doesn't even begin to cover it.

He may not have been looking for it but it surely would've crossed his mind that this would happen, that's all I'm saying.

Here (http://journalperu.com/?p=473) is a good read on the topic.

A newspaper named him the Holy Bono, the Queen knighted him, he made and still makes millions with his band U2, but when it comes to organizing and leading a charity campaign, he may have miscalculated: his charity-label Red cost almost 100 million dollars, according to a report - but collected just 18 million for its good purpose.

http://members.cox.net/bloodattonment/RED.jpg

Sad, really.

The sad truth is people are dying of things we can cure but nobody funds.
U sound knowledgeable and yet... what do u think the Bill Gates (90 Billions) foundation is doing? or Clinton's Global Initiative? U have a choice where ur money goes.

I would be more for a company to come forward and say "Look we have a problem and we can fix it." instead of just throwing money at a problem. AIDS is a hot topic but really we spend billions a year on it. A cure or prevention isn't going to come any quicker because you bought an iPod. So I am saying the money could be better spent saving the 1 million people who die of malaria since at least we can cure that and the cure isn't expensive.

Personally I am ashamed of the fact that America spends so much on AIDS but yet lets people die of things we in America have a cure for. Makes me wonder if America had a vaccination for AIDS would we release a yellow iPod that gives money to the Livestrong foundation to help find a cure for Cancer and forget about AIDS in Africa because that is what we did with Malaria and Polio.

What's with the whole uprisal about people hating the red nano because it's associated to Bono's charity?

I'd hate to burst your bubble, but this topic is already being discussed over hurr (http://forums.ilounge.com/showthread.php?t=190976). I hope you find that thread informative and helpful for your needs.

so basically we should stop donating money to aids, make a non-charitable red ipod nano and start donating to random OTHER charities:shake:

If we don't have enough resources to solve all of the problems, doesn't it make sense to first remove the easier problems (the diseases we can cure) while preventing the spread of AIDS, and then refocus on AIDS once the other diseases are eradicated? AIDS can't be cured right now, but preventing its spread just requires education and some basic precautions. Why it is still a growing problem is beyond me.

yeah i agree with mjmoonwalker

You can't say definitively whether or not he's right or not. In the future, don't confuse your opinion with fact.

Well it's a fact that we are not looking at where the money really is going and how much is really going to people in need. So really we can't be 100% sure that we are not over paying people for field work in Africa or even that they are not selling the AIDS drugs we are supposed to be giving out for free for a profit. So really a watch dog group needs to be formed to make sure the money is really going to people in need.

Second off we would need a single body looking for a cure and sharing information. Right now a company can get funding without knowing if the research they are doing has already been done. The cure is going to be worth trillions of dollars if it is found and no company wants to share the profits unless we somehow can change that a lot of money will be wasted.

At least with things we have a cure for it's easier to make sure that the money is spent helping people in need since more control can go over getting out the shots and information about it and no company is trying to make as much profit as possible from competition.

I'd like to know why it's a private company's responsibility to cure AIDS in Africa? How can you (not anybody, just people in general) hold Apple responsible for not doing as much as they "could" to help foreign counties?

Ridiculous.

I'd like to know why it's a private company's responsibility to cure AIDS in Africa? How can you (not anybody, just people in general) hold Apple responsible for not doing as much as they "could" to help foreign counties?

Ridiculous.
I dare say some people buy product 'cuz of the "image" that goes with it? and once they find out the company they bought from is less than saintly (surprise!) they are dissappointed.

Did you read the post at all? Apparently not. :shake::shake::shake::shake::shake::shake::shake:: shake::shake::shake::shake::shake::shake::shake::s hake:

I agree - AIDS is overused in the media as a feel-good marketing scheme, but it is still a pretty big disease that's overshadowing others that are easily curable. I don't think it's safe to say whether one disease has more importance over another.

if aids really is overused we could donate to the other charities without buying an ipod with it

yet people still buy red nanos, either way it's better then buying a non-charitable nano

EDIT: note the fact that anyone has yet to mention an "other" disease

What have you personally done to solve any of the worlds issues? This Product(RED) campaign helps people who ordinarily would turn there heads and walk the other way a reason to give some attention to a major world issue all in the name of a good cause. Who are you to pick and choose how issues are prioritized. If you want to raise and fund for alternative charities and steer clear of anything bearing Product(RED) by all means use your vast resources to do so, but don't knock others (person or company) for their focus if it doesn't coincide with your own.

What have you personally done to solve any of the worlds issues? This Product(RED) campaign helps people who ordinarily would turn there heads and walk the other way a reason to give some attention to a major world issue all in the name of a good cause. Who are you to pick and choose how issues are prioritized. If you want to raise and fund for alternative charities and steer clear of anything bearing Product(RED) by all means use your vast resources to do so, but don't knock others (person or company) for their focus if it doesn't coincide with your own.

What I did to solve the problems of the world is make a thread on a forum on the internet to bring to light how money could be spent to fund causes that are normally ignored. Which is about as much as Bono does only I am not doing it to fuel my need to be seen as a rock star that cares about world issues while making millions off of tee shirt sells and moving to countries where I can pay as little in taxes as possible.

So far over 2000 views for the thread so I would say I probably helped change some views on how money could be better spent to help save lifes. The facts are everyone in America knows what AIDS is and how they can prevent getting AIDS by using a condom and yet people in America are still getting AIDS at an alarming rate. So based on that fact we can assume the results of education in Africa would lead to the same results so why not spend the money on things we can cure?