The way Android and IOS have revolutionized entire industries and changed the way millions of people live their lives proves you wrong.
I fail to see how that proves me wrong. The fact of the matter is that this company making money and selling their product contributes to society is false. I did not say that it does not change society and provides a different platform for others to contribute to society. But like I said I might be confused by the definition of contribution which comes at no cost. What cost did the Android and IOS have on the society? Did the companies that developed these products give them to society at no cost, set up the infrastructure to use these products at no cost to society? If I recall correctly, one can obtain the Android OS for free at no cost, and so by my definition that is a contribution, thus your statement doesn't prove me wrong.
I for one have not used an Android or IOS don't have the money to afford that kind of phone. Is my life affected by these products, of course. Same as my life will be affected if a mine was built next to the only major water supply in the world fails to keep the poisons from entering the water. That is a great contribution of the company as it came at no cost to society... but then what do you imply is cost at this point. I was careful to point out that the cost to society must be negligible in order for it to be a contribution. I don't go to the store and say what a great contribution that lawnmower company made to me. I say instead that lawnmower company provided a great product for me to purchase. It was not a contribution to me, it was a contribution to who? who was able to have the item at no cost?
Do you think the modern computer or modern medicine, to take two broad examples which have improved billions of lives, reached their current state because of a desire to improve the local community?
The modern computer did reach their current state to improve the local community. Otherwise what is the impetus for the sale of the item, if it does not improve something why would someone purchase the product? Watch the "God's must be Crazy" and tell me what a modern computer would be to that society, to summarize it would be useless, because they don't know anything about it, nor how to use it. Thus, these companies are forced to contribute to society by educating the populous (much of what Apple did in a lot of public schools).
Medicine on the other hand has a lot of contributions, but who bore the cost of these "contributions" and can you get all this information for free?
For the business side, If they made a drug that only 10 people could afford, then is that a contribution to society, suppose that it cures any ailment without consequence. Under that circumstance, what is the contribution to society?
I am simply curious on what the definition of contribution being used is here. I noticed that you used contribution to society that a business who developed the original framework contributed to society by have other companies contribute to society. That is not the same as the first company directly contributing to society. That would imply that any work done as a derived work of another is that others contribution, but not the one who made the final result. That is akin to suggesting that the car is a contribution of the oil companies.