Unlike Steve Jobs, Mac Users Are The Most Charitable Of All

When counting up donations by users of different computer and email platforms, some stark trends emerge. If you're a Gmail-using, Safari-browsing smartphone addict with a penchant for Macs, you're probably pretty charitable--more charitable, at least, than your Hotmail-using counterparts who surf the Internet on Internet Explorer from their Windows machine.


Fast Company













Share on Tumblr

Unlike Steve Jobs, Mac Users Are The Most Charitable Of All

Unlike Steve Jobs, Mac Users Are The Most Charitable Of All Image:

By Ariel Schwartz

When counting up donations by users of different computer and email platforms, some stark trends emerge.

If you're a Gmail-using, Safari-browsing smartphone addict with a penchant for Macs, you're probably pretty charitable--more charitable, at least, than your Hotmail-using counterparts who surf the Internet on Internet Explorer from their Windows machine. That's according to Qgiv, an online donation processing company that analyzed more than 320,000 donations across 165,000 users to come up with giving trends over the past few years. Here are some of the highlights of the research:

  • Out of all the big, free branded email services, Gmail users are the most charitable, giving an average of $143 per donation. In comparison, AOL users give $138, Hotmail users give $128, and Yahoo users give $120.
  • But there is evidence that Gmail lovers are becoming more miserly, however. While the service has the highest donation average, it has experienced the largest year over year drop in average donations. Donations have also dropped overall, with users of all the free email services donating less than they did in 2010--though the numbers have picked up since 2011.
  • People tend to be more charitable at work. People who use a unique domain name--corporate or personal--average $165 per donation, or 13% more than Gmail users.
  • People using mobile browsers donate more on average ($156.59) than those using computers ($144.66). Safari users also donate more than Firefox, Chrome, and Internet Explorer users.
  • Mac users donate significantly more ($181.51) than Windows ($137.30) and Linux users ($116.54). Bill Gates may be a philanthropic legend at this point, but the less openly generous Steve Jobs apparently has more charitable fans.

We can't say for certain what's behind these trends. But it probably has something to do with differences in disposable income and willingness to part with it. Travel site Orbitz found, for example, that Mac users are 40% more likely to book a room at a four- or five-star hotel than Windows users, and they're game to spend up to 30% more each night. At the same time, smartphone users often pay upwards of $100 per month for access to data services, so they too may have a bit of extra spare income. We can't account for the differences between free email services. But we do know this: In addition to being generous, Gmail users also are good at conserving energy.




Fast Company Copyright 2012 by Fast Company. Reprinted with permission.


Comments

Add Comment
Leave this field empty

Add a Comment

You must sign in or register as a ScientificAmerican.com member to submit a comment.
Click one of the buttons below to register using an existing Social Account.

More from Scientific American

See what we're tweeting about

Scientific American Editors

More »

Free Newsletters


Get the best from Scientific American in your inbox

Solve Innovation Challenges

Powered By: Innocentive

  SA Digital
  SA Digital

Science Jobs of the Week

Email this Article

Unlike Steve Jobs, Mac Users Are The Most Charitable Of All

X
Scientific American Magazine

Subscribe Today

Save 66% off the cover price and get a free gift!

Learn More >>

X

Please Log In

Forgot: Password

X

Account Linking

Welcome, . Do you have an existing ScientificAmerican.com account?

Yes, please link my existing account with for quick, secure access.



Forgot Password?

No, I would like to create a new account with my profile information.

Create Account
X

Report Abuse

Are you sure?

X

Institutional Access

It has been identified that the institution you are trying to access this article from has institutional site license access to Scientific American on nature.com. To access this article in its entirety through site license access, click below.

Site license access
X

Error

X

Share this Article

X