GP never implied that it was "useless" at all. Your question (to use some more Latin) is a total non-sequitur.
>there would be a twin top comment lamenting Apple's lack of domestic spending.
Yes, different people have different opinions.
The announcement uses the word investment 17 times. Reading that as a charity pitch requires a few logical leaps.
Companies announce foreign direct investment all the time. Nobody thinks they're trying to look like a charity.
>The accelerated commitment will fund a new North Carolina campus and *job-creating investments* in innovative fields like silicon engineering and 5G technology
other pull quotes from the article
>Apple is doubling down on our commitment to US innovation and manufacturing with a generational investment reaching *communities across all 50 states*
>Apple is the largest taxpayer in the US and has paid almost $45 billion in domestic corporate income taxes over the past five years alone.
> designed to prepare students for careers in hardware engineering and silicon chip design — to engineering programs at *Historically Black Colleges and Universities* across the country.
>bringing *clean energy and high-paying jobs to local communities across the country*.
If someone wants to see that as charity, it speaks more to them than anything else. (And claiming your patronage was an act of charity would be rightfully seen as a diminishment of said business.)
Again, a non-sequitur. Even if they read "investment" as "tea party" 17 times, they still never said or implied that it was useless.
The Apple article is obviously trying to paint the investments as acts of goodwill. Not many people would expect anything else, it's just good PR. "Charity" might be an exaggeration, but can't you see why it could rub people the wrong way?
