Apple made $18 billion in profits last quarter. For half of that, they could have saved <i>2.7 million people</i> from dying of malaria. In one quarter alone.[1] Apple&#x27;s customers spent about $45 billion on iPhones last quarter. If they had gotten Android phones for half the price (which still provide essential information and communications), they could have saved <i>5 million children</i> by investing in children&#x27;s health programs.[2]<p>If it&#x27;s reprehensible to have the means to save a life and not do so, then Apple and its customers are reprehensible. This is the natural consequence of your reasoning. The only distinction you can make between Gilead and Apple is that Gilead invented the means of saving lives, while Apple would have to pay someone else to do so. But how on earth does that <i>count against</i> Gilead? Why is Gilead evil for making profits when they could save lives by giving away Sovaldi, when Apple could just as easily save lives by buying Sovaldi for those who need it?<p>[1] It costs about $3,300 to save a life from malaria: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.techinsider.io&#x2F;the-worlds-best-charity-can-save-a-life-for-333706-and-thats-a-steal-2015-7" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.techinsider.io&#x2F;the-worlds-best-charity-can-save-a...</a>.<p>[2] It costs $4,200 to save a child by investing in childhood health: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.sciencedaily.com&#x2F;releases&#x2F;2015&#x2F;07&#x2F;150703072652.htm" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.sciencedaily.com&#x2F;releases&#x2F;2015&#x2F;07&#x2F;150703072652.h...</a>.