Some people might criticise these numbers, particularly the 70% male ratio. However, to really determine whether a company is being as diverse and open to equality as possible, the same measurements should be applied to the applicants as well as the employees.<p>If seven out of ten applicants are male then the 70% male ratio doesn't indicate a bias. It might mean that the company isn't as attractive to female applicants, but then again, neither is the discipline behind many of their products (at the moment.)
It's often companies with retail outlets that are willing to provide this data - I suspect a lot of the diversity comes from the people that work at retail Apple stores.<p>In a way, it is similar to how the government operates - the diversity of people who call the shots is very different than the diversity of people in DMV or SSA offices, but overall it gives the impression that things are diverse.
What is the meaning of "white" in that pie chart? Does a pale-skinned person from Jordan or Lebanon count as white? If not, then what category? "Other"?<p>What is "hispanic"? Is a white person of Spanish descent "hispanic" or "white"? Wikipedia says that this is "is an ethnonym that denotes a relationship to Spain".<p>So a Greek or Turk would count as "white", but a Spaniard as "hispanic"? Pop quiz: Ricardo Montalbán: white or hispanic?<p>The pie chart seems to be mixing "ethnonyms" with skin colors.<p>Then there is "Asian"; what exactly is that, and does it lump together the people of Indians and of Korea?<p>About "white": suppose that 70% of applicants are white, but they are largely Slavic, from central and eastern Europe; and suppose that the 70% of the employed whites are Germanic whites. Nope, no discrimination there!<p>Maybe the "white" category is so large because it includes many ethnic groups: someone from Iceland could qualify, as well as someone from Israel.<p>Since the Arabic and East Indian people are "caucasoid", any pale-skinned people from those regions can represent themselves as white. A person with albinism of Indian descent is very difficult to distinguish from a European, if at all. (Do a Google image search for "indian albino").
People need to learn the difference between descriptive and prescriptive ideas. Observating that Apple isn't diverse in a certain way is not the same as saying Apple is the problem. In fact I don't think most people believe that Apple's hiring practices, or any tech company's in particular, is the real issue for any metric.
Data like this suggests that a common argument employed by diversity activists is false. Specifically, if companies like Apple and Facebook manage to create products that are wildly popular with women, it suggests that it isn't necessary to have female employees to make products for women.<p>(Repeat for race/nationality - I don't think a single African person works for Whatsapp. I've also never met an African woman in the past year who doesn't use it daily.)
I'll never understand why anyone would care about the absolute numbers. Look at the relative numbers (relative to applications) and try to find any kind of bias (including preferential treatment for minorities). No bias? Great. Some bias? Not great. Pretty simple really.<p>Another thing I don't get about absolute numbers is that it seems desirable to have an outcome proportional to society (eg. 0.2% "Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander"). Given the fact that we're all equal; I don't see why that would be any better/worse/whatever.