Apple Exits "Green Hardware" Certification Program 405
westlake writes "CNET reports that Apple is turning its back on the EPA supported EPEAT hardware certification program. One of the problems EPEAT sees are barriers to recycling. Batteries and screens glued into place — that sort of thing. There is a price for Apple in this: CIO Journal notes that the U.S. government requires that 95 percent of its electronics bear the EPEAT seal of approval; large companies such as Ford and Kaiser Permanente require their CIOs to buy from EPEAT-certified firms; and many of the largest universities in the U.S. prefer to buy EPEAT-friendly gear."
No Surprise There (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:No Surprise There (Score:5, Insightful)
Bend the rules? What for? The 5% brass gets their iShiny, and for the rest of the company we now have a really good reason why they can't have an iShiny.
It's so win-win.
Re:No Surprise There (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:No Surprise There (Score:4, Interesting)
If the public doesn't change their buying in response to Apple's move, then all the other vendors may decide that EPEAT certification isn't necessary for them to sell products.
Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi.
(link [wikipedia.org])
Re:No Surprise There (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean...is there anyone out there that uses 'green' as a deciding factor between models they are considering??
Re:No Surprise There (Score:5, Interesting)
I have a friend who founded a computer sales and service company with precisely that goal. It's still fairly small and operates in a local market, but he started with very little working capital beyond his vehicle and personal know-how in a market already well-saturated by established competitors (including two Geek Squad dispatches).
So yes, there are at least some people out there who make environmental considerations (including power use and heat generation) with regard to their computer equipment.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not so much "green" in the classic sense, but I do consider two localized environmental issues: heat dissipation and noise. I have chosen more expensive with less horsepower specifically because my requirements include low heat dissipation and low noise, and I can buy any retail PC on the market I want. My Quad Core iMac is dissipates a comfortable amount of heat and is very quiet vs comparable mobile and all-in-one desktop systems, so it's worth owning. Plus, it doesn't have distracting features like flash
Re:No Surprise There (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm impressed how far Apple apologists are willing to go to apologize for the bad acting of their idol.
Re:No Surprise There (Score:5, Informative)
Ok...so, does anybody really look for some kind of 'green' label before purchasing a computer?
I mean...is there anyone out there that uses 'green' as a deciding factor between models they are considering??
Yes.
Not me personally, but as stated in TFA for many large organisations it's an absolute requirement. Without the cert the hardware simply isn't eligible for consideration.
Re:No Surprise There (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:No Surprise There (Score:5, Interesting)
Profit > The Environment
For Apple, sure. But for the iPhone-MacBook-iPad-owning-environmentalists this presents a dilemma (which I think will be hilarious to watch).
Re:No Surprise There (Score:5, Informative)
That's been hilarious for quite some time now.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Like all the Occupy protesters that have ipads and iphones...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Lower interest rates don't contribute to the local economy? Why anyone would use a bank over a credit union is beyond me.
Re: (Score:3)
Really? Bankrate.com lists the national average mortgage rate at 3.87% w/ a 30 year fixed, conforming loan. Patelco's [patelco.org] current rate is 3.75% (3.822% APR) w/ no points. Chase [chase.com] is listing a 3.75% fixed, 30 year loan w/ 1.125 points at a 3.842% APR. NYU Credit Union [nyufcu.com] is offering a 30 year, fixed, no points loan at 3.625% (3.650% APR).
So, yeah, credit unions can still be competitive... that's the reason why banks have fought tooth and nail to ensure that there are as many restrictions on membership as possible.
Re:No Surprise There (Score:4, Insightful)
I wasn't aware that employees of credit unions are exempt from paying taxes... By providing local employment, that sure seems like providing something to the local economy. I also wasn't aware that if a credit union is building a branch office or remodeling, they get the work done for free. I guess they also get electricity, water, internet, etc for free, thus not contributing to local economy? Shocking stuff to discover...
Credit unions are also not-for-profit organizations, so it isn't quite an apples to apples comparison. Banks exist to create a profit. Credit unions do not.
Re:No Surprise There (Score:5, Informative)
Credit unions are exempt from federal income tax (though they pay lots of employment, property and sales tax) because they are not-for-profit and thus exempt from federal corporate income tax. A corporation that does not make a profit has no income on which to pay federal corporate income tax.
This is the reason that the boards of directors of credit unions are all volunteers and are member owned.
The members of a credit union pay taxes on their income from the credit union, just like anyone else.
Banks on the other hand, are entirely for profit, and thus pay taxes on their income because they are not required to re-invest all of their income in ways that benefit the members directly. A credit union does not have customers, it has members.
I hope that cleared things up a bit. I'd hate for you to make those assertions where people know who you are and can therefore peg you as a dope. A little bit of information inoculates you from that embarrassment.
Re:No Surprise There (Score:5, Insightful)
...spoilt brats who don't give a crap about anything unless it is fashionable
You worked yourself into a lather about someone else's choice of product, to the point of creating a caricature to beat up. Be happy with your own choices and don't obsess over people who make a different choice.
Re: (Score:2)
Whether she's being hip or not, the products do integrate very well, run very stable, etc. She has lots of other things to do, and gets to not worry about messing with her phone/computer/etc.
Re:No Surprise There (Score:4, Funny)
My wife isn't me, either, but my girlfriend is.
Re:No Surprise There (Score:4, Insightful)
blah blah blah... who would appoint themselves as philosopher kings to manage other people's lives and choices through government decree.
You must really hate those republicans.
Re:No Surprise There (Score:5, Funny)
Man, that's some quality blather, right there.
You have got to lay off the talk radio, friend. I didn't know it was possible to fit so much nonsense in one paragraph. If it had gone on another few sentences, you might have created a nonsense singularity that you'd never be able to escape.
Re:No Surprise There (Score:5, Insightful)
I've covered the Occupy movement and have heard from many Occupy protesters. I have seen that segment that advocates an end to capitalism, but they were definitely the fringe, just like the others who were advocating for marijuana legalization. There's also that anti-war contingency. Mostly the Occupy movement has been advocating for increased transparency in government, increased fairness for middle class via legislation that serves the desire of the populist middle class vs the elitist super-rich. There is the national healthcare issue, which I think you're talking about with the forcing everyone to make the same choices, but otherwise what other position has the Occupy movement tried to force on the entire country? And really, does the Occupy movement stand out from any other organized movement that's attempted to get everyone on the same page socially? The Tea Party is doing the exact same thing, and oddly enough, under the Tea Party banner are a lot of segmented positions that are in line with the Occupy movement such as pro-legalization of drugs, lower taxes, anti-war, greater transparency between government and business.
Re:No Surprise There (Score:5, Informative)
just like the others who were advocating for marijuana legalization.
Controlled marijuana legalization, i.e. that it becomes an FDA approved drug for cancer and glaucoma is polling over 70%. That isn't a fringe. http://www.people-press.org/2010/04/01/public-support-for-legalizing-medical-marijuana/ [people-press.org] And from the same article in terms of recreational it is up to 41%. Again not a fringe position.
Re:No Surprise There (Score:4, Insightful)
The new Apple batteries which are glued in to the machines can't be replaced, full-stop. When removed, they rupture. Surely the government should act responsibly, no?
Apple offers battery replacement for these batteries for $199. Now we apply Occam's razor to the question: Is it more likely that Apple designed the batteries and at the same time designed a way how Apple can replace them without rupturing, or is it more likely that this never occured to Apple, and when the battery ruptures and spills its content inside the MacBook, they give you a new laptop for $199?
Re:No Surprise There (Score:5, Insightful)
I appreciate your use of Occam's razor, and I agree with the argument. Of course Apple can take them apart they say that 100 different places on their website.
I'd just like to comment that http://www.werecycle.com/ [werecycle.com] is Apple's designated recycler and they've stated they know how to take apart the rMBP properly. Its a question of the right equipment and know how but it is not impossible. That doesn't meet EPA standards since EPA standards require that something be able to be broken down without specialized equipment.
So the facts and the logic line up.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
For the iPhone-MacBook-iPad-owning-environmentalists this presents a dilemma (which I think will be hilarious to watch).
Why? Where's the dilemma? The only issue is that the Apple products can't be easily disassembled. It's not that Apple is using environmentally damaging materials in the manufacture of their products.
The environmentalist wackos can buy Apple gear and then, when it's useful life is over, give it to Apple for free environmentally responsible disposal / recycling.
Re: (Score:3)
The only issue is that the Apple products can't be easily disassembled.
Unrepairability.
Re: (Score:2)
Not that I'm defending apple, but they are repairable (by apple and for some definitions) and the Al chassis is recyclable.
That said as much as i would like the high res screen on the new 15" macbook, the soldered on ram and the petalobe screws are an instant deal killer.
Re:No Surprise There (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No Surprise There (Score:5, Interesting)
Unrepairability.
Which may or not be a word...
But anyway, how many non-Apple products are 'repaired'? Rather depends on your definition of repair - replacing a battery could be considered repair and certainly Apple falls short compared to some other manufacturers. However, so far, replacing an iPhone battery has not exactly been a technical challenge for all but the most mechanically declined. It remains to be seen if the newer MacBooks with the glued in battery will really challenge anyone. I suspect it wont.
While I think Apple can be taken to task for gluing a battery in rather than putting some clips on it, it's a small issue overall. I don't think it all counts towards whether or not a device is recyclable since it isn't hard to pry the battery or display out if you aren't looking to retain function.
And if you use a slightly more reasonable definition of 'repair' - replace a bad screen or other component - who actually does that these days? The person interested in such things is definitely an edge case (or nut case). The average consumer and the average store is going to toss a defective device and pick up a new shiny.
Re: (Score:3)
Thanks to Apple's brilliant design of the iPhone which has a glass front and back, the most common repair of the iPhone is to replace broken glass front or back. Parts and instructions are readily available and while it is not for the klutzy or timid, it can be done.
Who would have thought that just dropping a phone would break the glass case?... certainly not Apple... or perhaps they planned it that way.
That explains why everyone hates iPhones (Score:4, Insightful)
and thus why Apple is going out of business. If only they made rickety plastic phones...
Have you ever dropped an iPhone? I have, a couple times. From 4 feet high onto asphalt--not a scratch.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I have also dropped an iPhone 4. From around 4 feet onto asphalt. Landed flat on its face and got a point loading shock. The screen was quite effectively destroyed.
Changing the screen was an involved operation, but not all that complex, as such. Just needed some time and effort. The screen wasn't too expensive (ordered from China) at around U$100 delivered, and getting the glued battery out only required being careful. No biggie. I then proceeded to fix more phones for others.
It's not an operation that ever
Re: (Score:3)
It's enough of a barrier that many people would rather buy a new product than repair the old one.
Re: (Score:3)
The issue isn't about what you do, but that Apple products in general have problems with recycling. A replaceable battery would mean many more customers would keep a product instead of buying a replacement in frustration. Apple of course wants everyone to buy a new iThing every few months but it's a bad idea ecologically. These things can never be fully recycled; only a handful are refurbished and the rest have a couple parts recycled only.
Re: (Score:3)
Reparability means that it is not so damaged that it cannot be repaired: it connotes something about the level of damage of the object.
"Unrepairability" may be a useful neologism to distinguish those products that are designed to restrict just who can repair them.
Re: (Score:3)
It is not a question of trust. The EPA guideline requires that a computer be decomposable without specialized equipment. The rMBP can be recycled but (Apple's recycler knows how to do it http://www.werecycle.com/ [werecycle.com]). But.. it does require specialized equipment. Hence Apple doesn't comply with the guidelines and doesn't get the cert.
No one is lying here. No one is cheating. There is no great dilemma.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
It is an exercise for the reader to figure out how exactly they are different.
Re:No Surprise There (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't know about that. My MacBook Pro has lasted three years without any problems and will probably last three more. Since my computing needs are fairly simple I don't see much reason to upgrade just for better specs. I do plan on replacing the spinning drive with an SSD and maybe putting a large HDD where the optical drive currently is. So by buying a MacBook Pro instead of a "cheaper" laptop I probably saved money (and the environment) since it will have to be replaced less often. Other brands of laptops last a couple years at most. It's not unheard of for a Mac notebook to last 5+ years and still enjoy daily use by its owner. Making products that last as long as possible does more for the environment than any specific "green" manufacturing process.
This is still an unfortunate move and I am sad that all those iPads are going to end up in landfills because the battery only holds a charge for a set number of cycles and can't be easily replaced. By the time the battery finally stops holding a charge it'll be "too old" to repair, so people will just get a new tablet. It's not just Apple that does this. Almost all the tablets on the market today are sealed boxes.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Do you mean the environmentalists who promote clean air but smoke cigarettes?
I'm not a smoker, but cigarettes are carbon neutral. The tobacco plants pull the CO2 from the atmosphere, and what's used for producing filters and packaging is more than offset by the majority of the plants not being burnt at all.
Brewing a cup of white tea (or whatever is in these days) probably pollutes the atmosphere more than packs of cigarettes.
Re:No Surprise There (Score:4, Interesting)
You are of course ignoring the myriad of industrial processes involved in growing tobacco (fossil fuels being burned for transport, fossil fuel based fertilisers, etc) and the manufacture of cigarettes; not to mention the industrial scale energy use involved in the healthcare required to keep smokers alive. The parts of the plant that are not burned typically rot and release methane which is 24 times more potent a greenhouse gas than is CO2. Also it's wrong to assume that the burning of a cigarette releases pure CO2, it does not. Cigarettes don't burn very efficiently and the papers themselves are ingrained with gunpowder to assist the burning process. That releases all manner of GHGs, beyond the CO2 originally absorbed by the plant.
Energy == $$ (Score:5, Insightful)
Total Environmental cost = manufacturing impact + use impact - recylcing recovery
typically
recylcing recovery << manufacturing impact
all else being equal you'd like to increase recycling recovery but when there is a trade-off in that that increases the manufacturing or use cost it doesn't balance out.
The hangup is the "easy disassembly" requirement whereas electronics is going to more and more unibody assembly. EPEAT probably is going to have to give on this or be replaced if that is the trend. Since most of the environmental impact happens in manufacture and there isn't a big gain for the environment in recycling It's not necessarily environmentally unfriendly to manufacture a device that is more economical to make and to use. Generally the cheaper something is the less total energy and resources were required to make it. The exception to that is when there is a large exogenous cost not paid by the maker (e.g. say some manufacturer dumping mercury into a river but not having to pay for the consequences). Apple has not said it is planning to shortchange that part of it's environmental policies.
Re: (Score:2)
The word "cost" is used with two different meanings; a cost that is expressed in US$ and a cost that is environmental damage.
You seem to be using these two conflicting meanings as if they were the equal.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Energy == $$ (Score:4, Insightful)
EPEAT probably is going to have to give on this or be replaced if that is the trend.
Right, because when environmental standards become inconvenient for big companies to adhere to then the standards need to change. We certainly can't expect companies to lessen their impact on the environment in order to meet these standards, can we?
What exactly is the point of having these standards if we just change them every time some big company decides it will be profitable?
Re:Energy == $$ (Score:5, Funny)
For what this thing costs I'm going to have to use it until it biodegrades!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
No, an iPhone isn't a computer, it's a smartphone. Just because it has a CPU in it doesn't make it equivalent to what I have on my desktop - my washing machine has an M68000 processor, doesn't make it a computer.
And I provided all the context in my post needed to show I wasn't talking about phones.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're complaining that my washing machine only allows me to execute the programs that its maker decided were "good" for me?
How's that different from the iToys?
Re: (Score:2)
You're complaining that my washing machine only allows me to execute the programs that its maker decided were "good" for me?
No, he's stating (without any indication that he thinks this is a Bad Thing, i.e. no "complaint") that the washing machine comes only with specialized software to control it, without any mechanism to support third-party software.
How's that different from the iToys?
Because the iPhone, iPad, and iPod touch do have a mechanism to support third-party software. Unlike some other smartphones/tablets, the only such mechanism available without jailbreaking the machine uses the vendor's store, and the vendor controls what software is allowed in the s
Re: (Score:2)
So, I guess what we can take away from this is: "We have to get a Linux distro for washing machines"
Well, guess it's time to rip apart the ol' maytag!
Re: (Score:2)
So, I guess what we can take away from this is: "We have to get a Linux distro for washing machines"
Electrolix?
Re:Energy == $$ (Score:5, Funny)
He could install a spreadsheet program and use it for money laundering/
Re: (Score:3)
I am not convinced that is the case. I know lots of people who refresh their iphone as soon as a new version come on the market.
Since this thread was founded on anecdotalism I'd like to chime in: I have a coupla friends who follow the iPhones and do the upgrades, but they also sell their previous phone to pay for it. Those phones have presumably gone on to live full lives in somebody else's hands. Also, in my case, I did do an immediate upgrade, but my old phone now lives its life as a mini-tablet sitting next to the couch where it enjoys constant use. The big plus? If my phone breaks, I have a backup ready to go. My old phon
Re: (Score:2)
Re:No Surprise There (Score:5, Interesting)
Profit > The Environment
Apple's move is driven by a design / certification dichotomy, not a profit / environment dichotomy.
Whether a given device is EPEAT certified says absolutely nothing about whether it is actually more or less likely to be recycled or whether it is more or less a burden on the environment. All is says is that the device can be relatively easily disassembled for recycling by unskilled labor without special equipment.
If Apple is willing to take all old devices for free environmentally responsible disposal / recycling (and I believe they are), then the EPEAT certification is of no great value to the environment in the case of Apple's devices.
Re: (Score:3)
I love it, Apple cultists now forced to claim green is evil. Next users will be evil.
Apple doesn't give a crap about business anyway (Score:5, Insightful)
No xserves, Lion Server is a piece of shit, ARD is a $90 add-on, took 3 years for a corporate iOS configuration tool, 5 for a competent one, Final Cut X rivals Windows Movie Composer, Mac Pros are $4,000 for almost 3 year old hardware, and with 10.8 tethering every machine to the App Store there are no "unregistered" machines...
They're pro-sumer devices anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
my company still won't approve any iPhones or iPads for corporate use because of the weak security features (so the IT guys say), Apple really doesn't 't give a crap about businesses and hence Blackberry stays in business....
Re:Apple doesn't give a crap about business anyway (Score:5, Interesting)
my company still won't approve any iPhones or iPads for corporate use because of the weak security features (so the IT guys say), Apple really doesn't 't give a crap about businesses and hence Blackberry stays in business....
This sounds like bullshit since Apple has full-disk encryption + per app data encryption (with various flexibility options) + s/mime for email. Even iMessage and APNs uses TLS. So what else does an IT Department need?
Re:Apple doesn't give a crap about business anyway (Score:5, Insightful)
The windows logo.
Re: (Score:2)
It all depends on what security features are called "weak". On one hand, the device has full disk encryption, supports Exchange policies and profiles and Apple even has a tool to add additional protection.
One can argue this a lot. However, given the choice between SSL/TLS or depending on BES/BIS, I'll take the former any day of the week.
Re:Apple doesn't give a crap about business anyway (Score:5, Funny)
my company still won't approve any iPhones or iPads for corporate use because of the weak security features (so the IT guys say), Apple really doesn't 't give a crap about businesses and hence Blackberry stays in business....
Since this was true three years ago, the good news is that your IT folks may only be about three years out of date with technology, thus placing them in the top 20% of corporate IT folks. Hey, I like to be optimistic!
MBP with Retina display obviously not recyclable. (Score:2)
It was obvious from the teardowns that the MPB with Retina Display was designed in a way that made enviromentally-friendly disposal impossible. So that's how Apple were planning on solving the problem - redefining what it means to be environmentally-friendly!
EPEAT = Ugly? (Score:4, Interesting)
It seems that some of the EPEAT requirements lead to bulkier designs and quite possibly extra parts needed to hold it all together. It seems inevitable that this would violate the design principles Apple has been using for the last decade-plus, at least with portable products. If there's a way to shave a millimeter or a gram here and there, Apple will find a way to do it. It's one way they achieve product differentiation from the competition. Unfortunately, doing so means gluing things together and wedging things up tight in ways that don't want to be disassembled.
I'm a bit surprised Apple isn't outright saying "EPEAT compliance means making our products ugly, and you don't want THAT, do you?"
Re:EPEAT = Ugly? (Score:5, Insightful)
Glue is not a replacement for proper engineering
Re:EPEAT = Ugly? (Score:4, Interesting)
as someone who has disassembled many of apple's glued-together-displays, i can say without a doubt that there is room inside for fasteners or magnets (like those used in the iMacs). Glue is just a way to keep the cost of repair high enough that replacement SEEMS like a better option for the user when the time comes.
Re:EPEAT = Ugly? (Score:5, Insightful)
You are over thinking it and/or biased. Apple uses glue because it is faster to manufacture and it frees you from certain structural constraints. I don't like that from a repair standpoint but I understand why they do it.
The MacBook Retina has soldered memory because that allows the case to be smaller and the structure doesn't need accomadation for an access panel. It also simplifies the trace routing since you don't need to deal with a memory slot. I would also bet that 90% of their users never upgrade the memory in their laptops, so why compromise just for the 10%? I don't like this choice but it isn't some arbitrary scheme to scam people.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not to scam people?
So I pay $1700 for a MacbookPro and in 2 years when the battery needs to be charged after only an hour I have to throw the whole damn thing away!
F*ck you Apple.
If that is not a scam I do not know what is. Batteries die and so do SSDs. My phone is a year old and I can tell the battery is dying and needs to be replaced. Apple is making money hoping I would be retarded enough to pay them $3400 in a 4 year time frame for profit reasons. Or I can buy a $900 laptop and replace the battery in 2
Re:EPEAT = Ugly? (Score:5, Informative)
Well you could throw it away (tell me which dumpster you leave it in please, or you could pay $129-$199 for Apple to replace the battery for you so that it's brand new again.
http://www.apple.com/support/macbookpro/service/battery/ [apple.com]
Doesn't seem like that pice is entirely out to lunch unless you shop the cheap 3rd party batteries for laptops. The OEM ones I've seen are generally around $100 anyway. Your call.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes and no. In some cases, glue is most certainly a part of proper engineering.
Anyone who says otherwise knows nothing about the history of fine woodworking, among other things.
Re: (Score:2)
He specifically said proper engineering. Gluing stuff together because you do not want people to be able to service their own devices, or because you are too cheap to pay for proper clasps/screws in the design, or because you can just get away with it and don't care, is not really proper engineering.
Re:EPEAT = Ugly? (Score:5, Interesting)
Meeting price points is part of engineering... shrinking the form factor a few mm each iteration is part of engineering. Apple cares about those things more than your ability to replace a battery with a screwdriver. Lets not pretend they're poorly engineered, they're engineered exceedingly well for their specs. Samsung would love to have an exact copy, I promise you.
Except phones and tablets (Score:5, Informative)
an increasing part of its product mix is made up of iPhones and iPads, which are not currently certifiable under EPEAT.
Opportunity for Google/Motorola (Score:3)
This is serious (Score:2)
On the face of it, EPEAT directly conflicts with the Apple business plan. This is going to be interesting.
Good move, Apple! (Score:5, Insightful)
Where I work we buy a lot of Mac laptops, but all must be EPEAT-compliant (or a variance must be granted, which isn't likely for that many machines.) I sense a lot of disgruntlement coming.
Good move, Apple - you may have just saved Steve Ballmer's job.
Re:Good move, Apple! (Score:5, Funny)
Good move, Apple - you may have just saved Steve Ballmer's job.
Given Ballmer's performance, helping him save his job may be the smartest move Apple could make.
EPEAT is obsolete in this area (Score:5, Insightful)
EPEAT is only valuable in assessing products that don't have dedicated recycling programs in place. I.e. It's useful for assessing the general case, but fails to take into account any special considerations pertaining to particular products.
For instance, Apple has had a recycling program available for years that is available as a free service to any of their customers. Given that Apple is promising to recycle your devices (including non-Apple ones) for you regardless of how difficult it is to do so, the ease of recycling them should be a non-factor to anyone but Apple, rendering the difficulty of recycling a meaningless measurement for outside consideration. And the fact that they've provided a decent incentive to use their service rather than go to a general purpose recycler has provided a good reason for it to be widely used. Most of the Apple folks I know are aware of the recycling program, even if they haven't had a reason to use it yet.
Specifically, to use it, you just tell them what you have, and they'll send you pre-paid packaging for your device. In the case of computers (including non-Apple ones) or iOS devices, they'll give you a gift card for the fair market value of your device, and they give you 10% off a new iPod if you bring your old one into a retail location for recycling. They also take non-Apple mobile phones free of charge and with pre-paid shipping, though they don't offer any gift cards or discounts.
To me, at least in this one narrow area, that all renders EPEAT's assessment obsolete, since it's failed to keep up with the times. It needs some way to account for such programs.
Re:EPEAT is obsolete in this area (Score:4, Insightful)
For instance, Apple has had a recycling program available for years that is available as a free service to any of their customers. Given that Apple is promising to recycle your devices (including non-Apple ones) for you regardless of how difficult it is to do so, the ease of recycling them should be a non-factor to anyone but Apple, rendering the difficulty of recycling a meaningless measurement for outside consideration.
Apparently Apple dump the problem of recycling their devices onto a third-party contractor, which gives them a lot of plausible deniability. I'd be interested to see an investigation into what actually happens to Apple hardware once it's handed over for recycling - even if Apple has said that the hardware that's handed over is recycled, that doesn't necessarily mean that it's actually economically feasible for its recycling subcontractors to do so.
Re: (Score:3)
Apparently Apple dump the problem of recycling their devices onto a third-party contractor, which gives them a lot of plausible deniability. I'd be interested to see an investigation into what actually happens to Apple hardware once it's handed over for recycling - even if Apple has said that the hardware that's handed over is recycled, that doesn't necessarily mean that it's actually economically feasible for its recycling subcontractors to do so.
Using a third-party contractor doesn't give Apple any plausible deniablity. They have full responsibility. But in the end, what you are saying is that Apple is evil because you didn't visit the place where the recycling happened.
However, this discussion here is about EPEAT, and their requirement that products must be capable of being taken apart with bare hands or with commonly available tools. That is a requirement because all the crap that is shipped to third world countries, where someone with no rega
Re: (Score:2)
EPEAT covers more than recycling - it also covers materials incorporated into the product.
Apple's recycling program only makes sense if there is no other recycling program available. Otherwise, it becomes a liability. Imagine having a recyling bin that accepts all types of cans ... oh wait, except Miller cans, for these you have to order a box and send them back separately.
Re:EPEAT is obsolete in this area (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple's recycling program only makes sense if there is no other recycling program available. Otherwise, it becomes a liability.
To who? Not to Apple. Not to its customers.
I'm an Apple customer. My country has a national recycling program for, a.o., electronics in place: shops are required to take back old electronic products and have them recycled, or you can bring them to recycling parks. If Apple products require special handling, that will make this program more expensive. Of course, this program is obviously a communist hippie nazi socialist terrorist conspiracy, so they deserve no better. Well, the actual reason for the program is simply that we don't have room for extra landfills anymore so we started recycling like crazy out of necessity, but never mind.
But you already tackled the above:
That's a problem with a one-size-fits-all program, not one specialized for Apple products.
If disassembling Apple products requires more care and energy, that makes the recycling process as a whole less efficient. The whole point of recycling is to produce less waste (both in terms of raw materials and consumed energy). Since as of yet every single person inhabits the same world as the one supplying the materials and energy of which Apple products are made, their behaviour in fact affects everyone. Oops, there the whole communist hippie etc stuff rears its ugly head again.
Re: (Score:3)
To me, at least in this one narrow area, that all renders EPEAT's assessment obsolete, since it's failed to keep up with the times. It needs some way to account for such programs.
I want to make one thing clear:
Recycling is not the only issue.
EPEAT evaluates how much a given product impacts the environment, taking into account its recyclability, upgradeability, manufacturing processes, and energy consumption. Apple had previously touted EPEAT certification as a high point, with the company's most recent iMacs having received the organization's highest rating, EPEAT Gold.
Apple pulls its products from EPEAT 'green' certification registry [theverge.com]
Since I submitted this story, CNET has embedded a link to its video review of the Mac Book Retina. It is a beautiful machine. But it cannot be serviced or upgraded in any meaningful way.
What's so problematic about glue? (Score:2)
If you're just disassembling used electronics to recycle the parts, don't you just use a heat gun? That doesn't seem like it would require any special skills.
Not a profit vs environment issue (Score:2)
The issue here has nothing to do with environmentalism or profitability. It is about building better, more rugged equipment. If the hardware certification program is outdated in its specifications then it makes sense to leave and move on, which is what Apple is doing.
I predict that the program will update itself to account for this and Apple will rejoin, after the changes are there.
Re: (Score:3)
I predict that the program will update itself to account for this and Apple will rejoin, after the changes are there.
I counter-predict that Apple will be forced into an embarrassing climb-down and lose a lot of sales before they realize they need to do that.
Apple no longer a green company? (Score:2)
Progression of technology (Score:5, Interesting)
Posting as AC because I'm an Apple service tech in my day job.
There's been internal jokes about the majority of the Retina MacBook Pro being a disposable computer. It's a very nice system and the display is gorgeous, but the way Apple constructed these machines is a bit perturbing. We can't even remove the battery pack- what iFixit reported is 100% true. The batteries are literally fused to the top of the unibody chassis, there's no magical Apple tool for prying the cells off the aluminum.
When you pay $199 for a replacement battery, the service procedure for actually swapping out the cells is stupendously involved. Everything must be stripped from the chassis- the logic board, port boards, and display all have to be removed. What you're getting for $199 actually includes a new keyboard, trackpad, battery, and upper chassis- because it's all one unserviceable part (much in the same way that the display and iSight is considered a single P/N).
A lot of people are wondering why they've done this- when a few screws and half a millimetre on the thickness would have allowed us to remove and swap the batteries in under 5 minutes. Heck, they could have built the batteries onto the bottom panel instead, that way battery swaps don't require removing the logic board. But they didn't.
The only logical reason that anyone can come to is that this is simply a progression of technology. We are rapidly moving towards integrated devices that are completely unserviceable, essentially disposable, and as cram packed with technology as physically possible. Nobody has any doubt that if Apple could build everything onto a flexible circuit board adhered to the back of an LCD panel, then essentially immerse the entire thing in varying forms of resin to create a completely solid and totally sealed device- they would. Because that's where we're headed.
The iPad 2 and iPad 3 have already taken the first steps towards this. They are sealed, we have no service procedures for doing anything to the devices. If it breaks or is defective, the customer gets a new one.
Apple would just love to have all their hardware like this, because then us Apple techs become irrelevant and redundant. Any old monkey can plug a device into an automated suite of software testing tools and wait for the big green "PASSED" or red "FAIL" text, then take the appropriate direction to replace that hardware. All you need then is a system to handle defective hardware and make it go away- who cares about repairing it, the device is busted and it can't even be repaired anyways.
-AC
Re: (Score:3)
And what is the penalty for not following the requirements and buying whatever you feel like buying?
Soon it will be a federal penalty... errr tax...errr something.. .
Re: (Score:2)
US regulators are pretty light on the fines, so might end up being cheaper and more productive to ignore and pay the fine.
I believe that the fines for showing Janet Jackson's nipple during the Super Bowl were many times worse than the fines for dumping toxic waste into a river for a decade. As always, we Americans have our priorities straight! :-(
Re: (Score:2)
as long as they ship their products to europe it has to adhear to the much much stricter european ROHS...
Apples and Oranges: It's a completely different type of standard.
Apple isn't pulling out of EPEAT so they can use hazardous or environmentally damaging materials in the manufacture of their products. They are pulling out of EPEAT so they can glue stuff together instead of using screws.
Re: (Score:2)
Otherwise known as "Granny Smith". (c) (tm) (R)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Besides some nuclear war will probably destroy the earth long before a bunch of retina displays pile up somewhere. I used to want to "contribute to humanity" to give my life meaning then I realized what's the point when 100 or 1000 years out eventually a nuclear armageddon is going to pop off and it'll all be for nothing. I'm with you bro, i'm not sacrificing my one and only life so some theoretical future person can be happy. This is MY life and if you don't like my retina Macbook you can kiss my motherfuc