Apple Goes Back To EPEAT 225
An anonymous reader writes with a followup to news from last weekend that Apple had turned its back on the EPEAT hardware certification standard. After hearing criticism from customers, the media, and governmental organizations that Apple wasn't being environmentally friendly, the company's Hardware Engineering VP, Bob Mansfield, wrote today that its earlier decision was a mistake, and all of Apple's eligible products are back on EPEAT. (EPEAT welcomed Apple back with open arms.) Mansfield repeated an earlier statement from Apple that EPEAT does not measure all the ways in which the company's products are environmentally friendly. Mansfield said, "For example, Apple led the industry in removing harmful toxins such as brominated flame retardants (BFRs) and polyvinyl chloride (PVC). We are the only company to comprehensively report greenhouse gas emissions for every product we make, taking into account the entire product lifecycle. And we’ve removed plastics wherever possible, in favor of materials that are more highly recyclable, more durable, more efficient and longer lasting. Perhaps most importantly, we make the most energy-efficient computers in the world and our entire product line exceeds the stringent ENERGY STAR 5.2 government standard. No one else in our industry can make that claim."
And another thing (Score:5, Funny)
Mansfield went on to state that Apple would use only genuine Congalese tantalum, African conflict diamonds, rainforest teak, and Iranian oil based lubricants; and furthermore the iOS developers would smoke only Tibetan opium. "No one else in our industry can afford to make those claims, bitches!" he cackled.
At press time, the reporters were too mellow from the complimentary Afghan bud to harsh his groove. Steve Jobs could not be reached for comment.
Re:And another thing (Score:5, Funny)
...Steve Jobs could not be reached for comment.
Now, that's what I call digging for a story.
Re:And another thing (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, a grave situation to be in for sure....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Apple and their morals. Saying that a brominated flame retarded ant is a harmful toxin! They're just special, no need to drag their name through the mud.
Me thinks someone was typing from their phone, because I really don't know what a 'brominated flame retarded ant' is, though maybe it is a species of ant that I wasn't aware about?
Brilliant PR move (Score:5, Interesting)
1. Tell everyone you're leaving an environmental program
2. Issue press release saying you're not leaving
3. Use this chance to tell reporters that your products are more environmentally friendly than the competition
I have to admit it's a clever strategy.
Re:Brilliant PR move (Score:5, Funny)
Lather, rinse, EPEAT.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm wondering if there's been some behind-the-scenes wrangling with EPEAT. The organization had already stated that a number of its evaluation processes are out of date, and they don't address the hottest sectors (phones, tablets) at all. Perhaps there's been some additional promises to move on that - and maybe in a way that'll let Apple claim additional PR points, such as "the iPad 4 is the only EPEAT-certified tablet on the market".
Re:Brilliant PR move (Score:5, Informative)
Or maybe not so brilliant.
We've recently heard from many loyal Apple customers who were disappointed to learn that we had removed our products from the EPEAT rating system. I recognize that this was a mistake. Starting today, all eligible Apple products are back on EPEAT.
A Letter From Bob Mansfield [apple.com]
The mistake was in ignoring the needs and values of institutional, enterprise, and governmental markets where Apple had been finally making some headway.
Organizations which have policies to require EPEAT compliance include Ford Motor Co., KPMG and Kaiser Permanente, in the private sector, as well as several universities and federal, state and municipal agencies. The U.S. government requires that 95% of the electronics purchased by its agencies be certified by EPEAT.
According to the DOE, environmental benefits of EPEAT purchasing in FY11 included an energy savings of 50 million kilowatt hours and a projected cost savings of $4.8 million.
[David Daoud, research director, PCs and Green IT, at IDC] said Apple is bound to find some resistance from buyers who aren't happy about the decision, but believes it needs only to have "a PR discussion" as to "why they're not being environmental. If you're Apple you have to look at the implications of certifying every single product. As much as I'd love to say it's a bad move, the financial guys are looking at it differently."
EPEAT Customers React to Apple's Withdrawal [informationweek.com]
PR was not enough.
Re:Brilliant PR move (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
If Apple takes them all back for recycling, doesn't that work?
No, it doesn't work, because it still means you are going to replace the unit just because the battery got weak,or pay Apple exorbitant extended warranty or out of warranty charges.
The cost to replace the battery depends on the device and ranges from ~$50 to ~$200, from iPods/iPhones up to the Macbook Pro Retina, which isn't unreasonable considering the size of the built in batteries on the newest laptops. The cost for the older Macbook batteries that were replaceable is about $130 anyway. Hardly exorbitant.
Re:Brilliant PR move (Score:4, Insightful)
In what universe is two hundred dollars to replace a battery not exhorbitant?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Except what they where going to do was make battery replaces impossible. Or more accurate, reassembly after the battery replacement impossible.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You spin it as allowing end users to replace the batteries, the batteries end up in the landfill.
After all, you buy a replacement from iFixit, but iFixit doesn't tak
Re: (Score:2)
Yea, the PR department is really good at Making statements that Relate to the Public.
EPEAT caves (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the /. summary has this a bit backwards. Just read the letter from EPEAT:
This was a messy situation and I think EPEAT did the right thing here in moving forward on recycling standards for computers and smartphones with closed cases and non removable batteries. So I'm happy that we are going to end up with better standards for recycling and at the same time Apple doesn't break with the environmental groups. This is a win-win in terms of policy that probably wouldn't have happened if Apple hadn't publicly stormed off. But /. shouldn't be writing this up as Apple caving to criticism. Their policies on recycling (i.e. the need for an expert recycler like http://www.werecycle.com/ [werecycle.com] ) haven't changed its EPEAT that is altering policy.
Indeed, but no one "caved"... (Score:2, Insightful)
Apple helped create the EPEAT standards alongside the other stakeholders who helped define it.
Apple even has a contract to recycle products from ANY manufacturer [srsapp.com], for free, with free shipping fees and boxes provided. What other vendor does this? Who puts their money where their mouth is on the environment?
Apple's products, in real, practical terms, are MORE recyclable, in terms of recyclable content contained therein, and the ability to actually recycle them — albeit by using Apple's programs for thin
Re: (Score:2)
I think the reason that GreenPeace targets Apple is that Apple is probably the only computer manufacturer that would care much what Greenpeace things. Apple's brand and their marketing appeal to:
High Openness (which is an effective proxy for liberal)
Low Dogmatism (i.e. non religious, which tilts liberal)
Low Modesty (which is going to correlate strongly with socially liberal)
High Perfectionism
Sense of Superiority (proxy for economically advantaged)
Greenpeace can hurt Apple's air of cool. Greenpeace can't h
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. They are designed to appeal to low dogmatism.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oAB83Z1ydE [youtube.com] = think different
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XeANoNL0qo [youtube.com] = rejects her parents advice and does what she thinks is right because its cooler
or even the latest ad http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP1YAatv1Mc [youtube.com] focuses on hipness and whims like I'm not going to clean up I want to eat tomato soup and dance.
Its hard to think of many companies not selling rock music or skateboarding or something like that with the same irr
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Apple hasn't run print ads for a very long time. What are you talking about?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And their website is dogmatic as contrasted with other company's websites that tend to hem and haw indecisively about their products?
So what comes down to is you don't really have an example or a point.
Most interesting thing: Retina MBPro is EPEAT Gold (Score:2)
One thing I missed when I replied to your comment initially, that is most interesting:
The Retina MacBook Pro is EPEAT Gold in the US and Canada. [apple.com]
Re: EPEAT caves (Score:3, Insightful)
If you actually care about the environment more than you hate Apple, you'd realize that Apple is more green in terms of how it makes (AND recycles) its products than any other major electronics manufacturer. Environmental groups just like to eviscerate Apple for PR [datacenterknowledge.com], even though it's one of the most transparent and aggressive on protecting the environment and green tech.
The funniest thing? In a few years we'll see every other vendor following Apple's lead, as they always do [marco.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2978073&cid=40642507 [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
anyone that uses the the "Citation Needed" meme need to be buggered with a pitchfork.
Re: (Score:2)
[citation needed]
*ducks*
Re: EPEAT caves (Score:4, Insightful)
It's probably a fair point that Apple gets a lot of unfair criticism because they disclose quite a lot, and they are individually one of the bigger and more profitable outfits. But that doesn't make them saints.
Making devices harder to repair is/was a step backwards. Even if everything they had done to that point was a good idea (which by no means is it), it was still a bad idea to make devices into a metal box of glue and solder.
Besides that, the reason you do business in china is that it's cheap, and it's cheap because they have lax labour and environmental laws, and are happy to pay people shitty wages. In the long run that's the only way china will develop into having decent wages, so fair enough, it's going to happen, and Apple is there to take advantage of that, just like everyone else. No one with any sort of soul is particularly pleased with this arrangement, including I'm sure a huge portion of apple or their competitions staff, but they're still doing it.
Re: EPEAT caves (Score:5, Informative)
Apple is more green in terms of how it makes (AND recycles) its products than any other major electronics manufacturer.
Given that Apple's credibility has dropped straight through zero into the negative zone, I for one won't be taking that claim at face value.
How do you figure, "Apple's credibility has dropped straight through zero into the negative zone"?
http://www.apple.com/environment/ [apple.com]
http://www.apple.com/environment/faq.html [apple.com]
http://www.apple.com/environment/renewable-energy/ [apple.com]
http://images.apple.com/environment/reports/ [apple.com]
http://images.apple.com/environment/progress/ [apple.com]
http://www.apple.com/supplierresponsibility/reports.html [apple.com]
Find any other vendor with this level of commitment, or even this level of detail on what they're doing with their products on the environment front.
Re: EPEAT caves (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's humorous that someone would mod that Insightful, as if a random slashdot commenter trolling a thread saying "Apple has negative credibility" automatically makes it true, the implication being that Apple is lying in all of its environmental reports, when there is no proof or even rumor of that being the case.
Re: (Score:2)
Cool story, bro. (I'm guessing you mean iPhone 4...)
Oh, you mean the antenna that in actual, practical use is functionally no worse than (and actually better in some cases) than antenna attenuation on other handsets, and which continued the same design on the iPhone 4S, and has resulted in the iPhone having far more share than any other handset manufacturer, which at 34% share is double the handset maker with the second largest share (Samsung)?
What are the other "fiasco after fiasco" to which you're referri
Re: (Score:2)
"Oh, you mean the antenna that in actual, practical use is functionally no worse than"
if that was true, SJ wouldn't have told people to use the other hand, and they wouldn't have redesigned the antenna.
Apple has always been greener, but only recently transparent about it; mostly do to those green peace assholes.
Dell also recycles any equipment, and all you have to do is drop it off at goodwill; which really makes sense. If it'sstill usable, they can get it into the hands of some with lower incomes, for reus
Re: (Score:2)
Apple has supplied us with an impressive string of fiascos lately. Do you really want me to enumerate? OK, here we go: #1: kicked in the door of a journalist. Ready for more?
Oh, wow...you mean two years ago when the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office (not Apple) went to retrieve stolen (yes, stolen) property purchased for $5000 by Gizmodo?
That fiasco?
(Reference for those following, so they can see the facts: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/03/business/media/03carr.html [nytimes.com] )
Is that what makes Apple the most valuable company in the world [ycharts.com]?
I love the fact that you're clearly trolling by just randomly peppering falsehoods (and at best, contextless half-truths, like with this post)
Re: (Score:2)
No it was not stolen.
Using your corporate influence to get the police to do you're bidding without due cause isn't better, btw.
Also, APPLE already HAD THE PHONE BACK when the sent in the police so apple could sift through private computers.
Did you even read the article you linked to?
REACT is a government enforcement arm of apple. The let apple employees run the show on the raid, and search a private residence.
All this after Apple initially refused to take the phone back.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow...a USENIX wiki article...that says — what, exactly?
Where is the proof (or, actually ANY reference) to astroturfing or bribes to journalism in anything linked there? What's especially humorous is that the linked articles talk about how the New York Times — not Apple — is the one that might be running afoul of advertising guidelines (but there isn't even any proof of that, either). ;-)
(Again, I know you won't respond to this, just like you haven't directly, or even tangentially, respond
Good troll! (Score:5, Informative)
Too bad the truth is that Apple recycles any of their products for free [apple.com], and any other manufacturer's products [srsapp.com], also for free, and it's all zero-landfill, meaning that image is completely, 100%, provably false.
But again, I know you're trolling — I'm just replying so others following this threat won't have any chance of being duped by any of your posts.
Re: (Score:2)
Again with the falsehoods, because:
1. People don't have to throw away an Apple computer any more than they would any other computer, since Apple does free zero-landfill recycling.
2. Please describe how any Apple computer is not upgradeable in any real way that would impact more than a small sliver of computer users.
3. Further, given that Apple makes a variety of products with varying degrees of expandability, describe how, e.g., an iMac, being less expandable than, e.g., a Mac Pro is any different from the
Re: (Score:2)
The damage that was done is permanent.
Says who? EPEAT is welcoming them back. The liberal bloggers who already have the story, are happy to have Apple back in their camp. For example the Huffington Post headline was, "Apple Gets Its 'Green' Back." Liberals love the EPA and love Apple. Why would they want to see this fight continue?
Re:EPEAT caves (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh yeah, Apple caved.
That must be why the Retina MacBook Pro — you know, the reason why Apple pulled out of EPEAT? — is now EPEAT Gold certified. [apple.com]
I'm sure your reply will ignore that simple, clear fact. I do applaud your trolling in this thread, though! It's entertaining!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, that's exactly what happened. The Retina MacBook Pro is EPEAT Gold certified. [apple.com] EPEAT's standards have NOTHING to do with "repairability". It has to do with the products being able to be easily disassembled by conventional tools so that the constituent parts can be recycled by any recycler. It's a baseline standard. But Apple recycles all of its products for free, and does not send anything to the landfill. Nothing.
And the simple truth, which you deny because you are either a troll or hate Apple, or
Geeks Troll for other reasons (Score:2)
Reality is that geeks are upset they can't mess with the inside of the closed devices- not that changing storage or batteries was really much freedom to begin with. The batteries always were extremely difficult to impossible to source outside of Apple since they have always been custom made (past attempts at industry standard batteries always failed.)
I don't like having a closed device either but I frankly do not care if I can't upgrade the storage or change batteries if they do not extort huge sums from me
epeat? (Score:5, Funny)
How much did Apple pay EPEAT? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder what kind of back deals finally convinced EPEAT to give Apple the seal of approval.
They didn't give them the seal of approval. Apple still has many products that met the EPEAT certification requirements. However, the newer products with glued batteries and screen components do not. Those products still do not meet the EPEAT requirements and are not certified. Apple withdrew *all* of their products from the certificated list and stated they would no longer pursue the certification. Based on the response from their customers, they have decided to reapply the certification for their existin
Re:How much did Apple pay EPEAT? (Score:5, Informative)
Apple still has many products that met the EPEAT certification requirements. However, the newer products with glued batteries and screen components do not.
The MacBook Pro with Retina Display has an EPEAT Gold rating - so no, that's not it.
If you're talking about phones and tablets... currently EPEAT doesn't rate them - at all - for any manufacturer.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple still has many products that met the EPEAT certification requirements. However, the newer products with glued batteries and screen components do not.
The MacBook Pro with Retina Display has an EPEAT Gold rating - so no, that's not it.
If you're talking about phones and tablets... currently EPEAT doesn't rate them - at all - for any manufacturer.
I was under the impression that the glue used on the battery and screen would cause issues with regard to recycling the battery and screen components in a standard way would prevent certification.
Re: (Score:2)
I was under the impression that the glue used on the battery and screen would cause issues with regard to recycling the battery and screen components in a standard way would prevent certification.
It certainly prevents a user from doing his/her own recycling. But I'm guessing since Apple will take the laptops back and recycle them, they don't get dinged.
However I would like to see some light shed on Apple's recycling program, just to make sure all the bits are above-board. I am not meaning to denigrate Apple - I use their hardware. But given that we can't recycle these things ourselves, I want to know they're doing it properly... and I'd want the same level of oversight given to any other manufacture
Re: (Score:2)
Public admission of being wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
I commend Apple for saying in public "we were wrong".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, we need more of this. Everyone's wrong sometime, and it's important to step up and admit it.
I was wrong earlier.
It was when I'd previously said "I was wrong", but it turned out I was right. So, I admit it - I was right all along; but in not realizing that immediately, I was wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, wait, there you are! So sorry and please enjoy your free bumper.
Re: (Score:2)
yeah a fix to cover up the stylish iPhone people bought.
People are angry because Apple insulted everyone who reported it. The insulted pretty much every Apple users intelligence.
The should have taken it back or replaced it with a properly working phone.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple recycling (Score:2)
Words are cheap, what are they doing about it?
For one thing, Apple is providing a recycling program for its own hardware, provided you happen to live within reasonable driving distance of an Apple Retail Store.
Re: (Score:2)
I commend Apple for saying in public "we were wrong".
Apple didn't have any choice, big customers were walking away in droves. The only way to get Apple's attention is a good switch kick in the wallet.
I am truly surprised (Score:2)
Few things surprise me, but this one does. But it goes to show that without Steve Jobs, Apple doesn't have quite the strength of backbone that it once had. We may see many more examples of bending over backward before long.
Re: (Score:2)
If SJ was still around, they never would have left EPEAT.
Awesome! (Score:2)
Nothing to see, move along (Score:3)
Nothing has actually changed except that Apple will go back to identifying products that are EPEAT compliant as such, which lets Apple sell those products to organizations that require that certification. The retina MBP is not one of these; Apple hasn't said anything about modifying its construction, and doubtless doesn't intend to. As a high end laptop sold more to individuals to organizations, its sales are not all that dependent upon EPEAT certification anyway. EPEAT has has indicated willingness to cons
Welcome to the new Apple (Score:2)
If Steve Jobs was around and decided that Apple should not be part of EPEAT, then Apple would remain off EPEAT for good regardless of consumer opinion or corporate backlash. Instead the new Apple appears to pander to the same.
Apple lost its balls with Steve.
Microsoft is the definitive champion of a business model involving brash announcements, gathering of opinion, and eventual backpedaling, hopefully Tim Cooke is not looking to take over that title.
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft is the definitive champion of a business model involving brash announcements, gathering of opinion, and eventual backpedaling, hopefully Tim Cooke is not looking to take over that title.
Cook won't take over that title but he will give Ballmer a good run for it. See, Tim Cook can't bellow.
Re: (Score:3)
If Steve Jobs was around and decided that Apple should not be part of EPEAT, then Apple would remain off EPEAT for good regardless of consumer opinion or corporate backlash. Instead the new Apple appears to pander to the same.
Apple lost its balls with Steve.
Microsoft is the definitive champion of a business model involving brash announcements, gathering of opinion, and eventual backpedaling, hopefully Tim Cooke is not looking to take over that title.
I think you have a short memory. The Apple community has always been very vocal about stuff they don't like and having Apple backpedal. Way back when "Apple is dying" days, there would be an update, or a change and the Apple community would be up in arms across all the Apple fan sites. A week or two later there would be a "Sorry, didn't know you wanted that. There we put it back." announcement.
transalation incoming... (Score:4, Interesting)
we thought we could get away with it. our intentions weren't a mistake. Thinking there wouldn't be as much of an outcry was actually the mistake.
Re: (Score:3)
...and we'll go back to doing exactly the same thing we were doing before, selling our products that are EPEAT compliant to organizations that require that certification, and selling non-compliant products without it--with the understanding that EPEAT will work with us to develop a policy that certifies all of our devices based upon our recycling program, instead of how they are constructed.
Ok, what about disassembly? (Score:3)
That is why Apple ditched EPEAT in the first place. Being able to disassemble toxic components "with common tools" [cnet.com] is a requirement of EPEAT compatibility. Did EPEAT just magically excuse Apple from this?
FTFA linked in TFA: "EPEAT requirements hold that electronics must be easy to disassemble, so their components can be recycled. The iPhone, the iPad, and the new MacBook Pro with Retina display don't pass muster..."
Re: (Score:3)
I've not understood this argument. If you're disassembling to recycle damage isn't a concern. All of the glued components come apart with a $10 heat gun no problem to separate them for recycling.
I'm confused how being able to take it apart with a screwdriver to recycle is significantly better or worse than taking it apart with a heat gun, particularly if the glued method means the product uses less materials in the first place.
Apple fanboys went on an anti-recycling rampage (Score:2)
I was looking at the stories on TUAW about this a few days ago when the dropping out of EPEAT was announced, and it amused me greatly that the vast majority of commentors were coming out about the futility of recycling and how forward thinking Apple was to ditch overblown environmental concerns in favor of design.
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.tuaw.com/2012/07/09/apple-removes-epeat-green-certification-could-lose-government-c/ [tuaw.com]
You make WHAT, Apple? (Score:2, Insightful)
"Perhaps most importantly, we make the most energy-efficient computers in the world"
My Kill-A-Watt would like to have a word with you, as I have several computers that run much faster than your crap and don't consume nearly as much power.
Not stupid at all (Score:5, Insightful)
They turned their back on EPEAT just to get the news coverage....doing something bad like that made all the haters spread the word just as much as the fans. Then, when they flip-flopped, all the haters suddenly got a nice little spiel about how they are not only EPEAT-compliant, but even better. And the haters actually paid attention because they were interested now.
And the fans are still happy because Apple is still certified now.
Excellent marketing, all-in-all.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
We meant to do it! [thewizofodds.com]
Re:Not stupid at all (Score:5, Interesting)
You mean the gold rating listed here?
http://images.apple.com/environment/reports/docs/macbookpro_retinadisplay_per_june2012.pdf [apple.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
http://images.apple.com/environment/reports/docs/macbookpro_retinadisplay_per_june2012.pdf [apple.com]
Those pie charts are all filled with images of endangered tropical hardwoods. Typical Apple thoughtlessness.
Re: (Score:2)
We look forward to Apple’s strong and creative thoughts on ongoing standards development.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Sadly, no.
It looks like they were trying to cut some corners, got caught and slapped down hard.
It reminds "fans" to think about the environmental (and social) impact of Apple's manufacturing practices, and believe me, that is not something Apple wants people thinking about, any more than a steak house wants people thinking about cows and the meat packing business. Apple, on the other hand, knows that a majority of their fans likes to think about meat packing, but not so muc
Re:Not stupid at all (Score:5, Interesting)
It looks like they were trying to cut some corners, got caught and slapped down hard.
Actually, it looks like they were trying to slap EPEAT into engaging brain... EPEAT wouldn't give the retina MBP a rating, apple throws toys out pram and yells about it being aluminium and highly recyclable... EPEAT give it a gold rating ;)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think so. Cases that can't be opened means batteries that can't be recycled. So consumers end up throwing away the old iPhone instead of recycling the battery. At least that's one argument.
"Environmentally-friendly" can mean a lot of different things. If you look at Apple corporate culture, at least in the Steve Jobs days, environmentally-friendly was not really a priority. When I wa
Re:Not stupid at all (Score:4, Informative)
1. Hmm, I can open the case on my Mac Pro just fine and replace anything I like. The Retina Macbook Pro is one product out of their lineup, most of which are fairly customer-maintainable. And the materials Apple uses by-and-large lead the industry in environmental friendliness. Surely the Retina MBP is worrisome in terms of signaling a trend, but I hope this backpedaling will also show in their future manufacturing practices.
2. Have you ever known someone who actually threw away their iPhone? Come on. I still have one of the original iPhones, and the battery works just fine. And even if they did decide to throw it away, Apple has a recycling program. To wit: do you know anyone that's still rocking a Treo from the 2000s? Smartphones get passed down via the used market, but eventually they all fall out of favor. At least Apple has a path to sustainable recycling for the product when that time comes. You may disagree with the disposable culture that smartphones and tablet devices bring, but that's a different issue and something that applies industry-wide.
And I can't speak to the sustainability of Apple's headquarters, but California building code requires that commercial building windows be un-openable. At least anything built since the 90's...I'm not quite sure when that code went into effect. I don't know much about green building design, but I would imagine openable windows in a giant air conditioned building would result in a lot of wasted energy. So I'm not sure what your point was there.
p.s. -- I've been making the point lately of not using the word 'consumer'. That's a word made up by corporations to change our relationship to big business. Customer denotes that the business exists to serve us, consumer denotes that we exist to serve the business. I don't like to give that word or that type of business relationship legitimacy.
Re:How stupid do you need to be? (Score:4, Interesting)
Their issues is that a person can't remove their own battery. That is not an environmental hazard and in fact Apple being the only one that can reomve it guarantees it gets recycled. Where as batteries that consumers can remove and replace can and do end up in land fills.
If you disagree feel free to provide proof.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
He's doing his best, just give him a little more rope.
Re: (Score:2)
Replying to yourself now? Why is it that I picture spittle flying from your mouth as you type this?
Re: (Score:2)
New iOS == new Xcode == new OS X == new Mac HW (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The EPEAT website lists some interesting requirements along with the EU hazardous material content and recycling common sense. They also specify that three year extended warrenties must be available and that memory must be upgradeable and that repair must be possible up to five years after production ends. I doubt this fits Apples business model even if this too might be considered green common sense. Who wants to be burdened with supporting customers when you could just sell them the next model, silly cust
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Never mind the warrenty, what about adding to the memory?
Re: (Score:2)
"Oh my word, this product lacks EPEAT certification! I cannot purchase this!" -- absolutely no one in an Apple store, ever.
Re: (Score:2)
No, but I'd repair it.
Seriously.
In my previous job I had to repair a lot of electronic devices, (mostly laptops that got dropped or similar). Having to toss an entire ipad because the glass screen is cracked would be very wasteful. It doesn't matter if you have to replace it, or you send it to apple and they replace it, or it gets sent to india/china and is 'recycled' there, hard to tear down is hard to tear down.
No one, absolutely no one wants to spend 100 dollars in man hours to recycle a laptop or an i