PDA

View Full Version : Apple Issues Statement on EPEAT Registry Withdrawal




MacRumors
Jul 10, 2012, 09:59 PM
http://images.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/07/10/apple-issues-statement-on-epeat-registry-withdrawal/)


http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2012/07/epeat-150x83.jpg

Late last week, we noted (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/07/07/apple-pulls-products-from-environmental-epeat-registry/) that Apple had pulled all of its qualifying Mac products from the Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT) registry for environmental ratings.

The move, which is said to have been related to Apple's design decisions that will disqualify its new and upcoming products from the registry, has the potential to impact Apple's presence in governmental and institutional purchasing. The city of San Francisco is among the first entities to act on Apple's withdrawal, announcing (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/07/10/san-francisco-to-block-most-municipal-mac-purchases-following-apples-epeat-withdrawal/) that it will bar most municipal Mac purchases.

Apple has now issued a statement to The Loop (http://www.loopinsight.com/2012/07/10/apple-responds-to-epeat-concerns/) addressing its environmental outlook and its commitment to continue meeting other modern standards like Energy Star."Apple takes a comprehensive approach to measuring our environmental impact and all of our products meet the strictest energy efficiency standards backed by the US government, Energy Star 5.2," Apple representative Kristin Huguet, told The Loop. "We also lead the industry by reporting each product's greenhouse gas emissions on our website, and Apple products are superior in other important environmental areas not measured by EPEAT, such as removal of toxic materials."The Loop's Jim Dalrymple notes that even EPEAT acknowledges that many of its standards are outdated, with Apple apparently believing that those criteria have become too restrictive and do not address the full gamut of the company's environmental commitments.

Article Link: Apple Issues Statement on EPEAT Registry Withdrawal (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/07/10/apple-issues-statement-on-epeat-registry-withdrawal/)



jav6454
Jul 10, 2012, 10:01 PM
Damage control... or rather image control or PR... what ever you wanna call it. This is what Apple is doing.

I have admit there are certain things the EPEAT can do to make their standards better. (If they so believe they are outdated).

stiligFox
Jul 10, 2012, 10:01 PM
Hmmm, thats a pretty good point there.

It still doesn't excuse making it harder for an average consumer to tear apart the device to take it in for recycling.

Although I imagine have the ability to dismantle your device was more useful back when there weren't as many places to take old devices to recycle.

Comeagain?
Jul 10, 2012, 10:04 PM
Yep, Apple truly doesn't care about the environment anymore. They're just greedy and want their designs to be the smallest, lightest, regardless of how terrible it is for the rest of the planet. How dare they.

</sarcasm>

SprodeBoy
Jul 10, 2012, 10:04 PM
That does seem like a big step for San fransisco. Denying apple solely for te fact that they do not have the title.

Icaras
Jul 10, 2012, 10:05 PM
So glad Apple is sticking to their guns on this one and not hindering their innovation while at the same time still making it loud and clear their effort in keeping green on their products.

Can't wait to see the future redesign of an iMac (and the other Macs as well)using what they've learned on the retina Macbook Pro.

pdjudd
Jul 10, 2012, 10:08 PM
It still doesn't excuse making it harder for an average consumer to tear apart the device to take it in for recycling.

Honestly, how many consumers tear apart their computers on their own? Most people that donít just trash their computers or sell them as is on ebay are taking them as is to the local trash company and pay to dispose them in with other computers. They donít tear them down themselves.

Heck our company pays somebody to dispose computers without discrimination and we are EPEAT Gold.

Wurm5150
Jul 10, 2012, 10:09 PM
Hmmm, thats a pretty good point there.

It still doesn't excuse making it harder for an average consumer to tear apart the device to take it in for recycling.

Although I imagine that was more useful at a time when there were fewer places you could take whole old devices to recycle.

The average consumer would GO TO THE NEAREST APPLE STORE AND TAKE THEIR DEVICE FOR RECYCLING AND GET A GIFT CARD FOR DOING SO..if there are no Apple Store nearby, the average consumer will get Apple to ship it for free to recycle their old device and get a gift card for doing so.

P.S. I got a $163 for recycling my old ass almost dead iMac..

http://www.apple.com/recycling/

quietstormSD
Jul 10, 2012, 10:11 PM
That's the lamest excuse I have ever heard from a company. They are attacking a standard as an excuse for pulling there products from attempting to follow that standard.

They should just face it that they can't meet EPEAT environmental standards. I love Apple products, but come on and stop trying to make excuses.

troop231
Jul 10, 2012, 10:11 PM
Or, the smart consumer will sell it on eBay / Craigslist and make more money than if he/she were to give it back to Apple and get a gift card.

Sixtafoua
Jul 10, 2012, 10:14 PM
Repairability is an area that apple doesn't want to address properly because they know they're wrong but continue to keep their stance because they they want to make a business out of repairs.

fun173
Jul 10, 2012, 10:16 PM
"Our products are not easy to work on or disassemble because we use screws such as the ones holding on the back of the iPhone when we could easily use Philips head screws which would not require a specialty tool to remove"

dagamer34
Jul 10, 2012, 10:16 PM
In these posts I've seen the following:
1) People attacking San Francisco because Apple products no longer fit their policy (if they bend the policy, what is the point of the policy?) or saying their tax dollars shouldn't be wasted on Macs (despite 1-2% of all computer being Macs) or the fact that it's a hippie town (what does that have to do with anything?)
2) People attacking Apple for no longer caring about the environment when there is evidence in the past for the exact opposite.
3) People attacking EPEAT for having outdated standards (though I don't think most people even know what those standards are), though Apple proudly touted their logo for the last 5 years. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

Honestly, I wish people would act rationally about discussing this topic instead of ad hominem attacks against people. I'd rather have the following:
1) Cities and governments commit to green initiatives that they've already put into place.
2) Apple to describe what it is doing to environmentally dispose of products like the iPad and Retina MacBook Pro where glue is used.
3) EPEAT to update its standards where necessary and work with Apple to update them (Apple did help with the guidelines when EPEAT was founded).

The amount of vitriol around this issue is unproductive at best and idiotic at worst. People need to work on issues and stop mindlessly attacking each other (I don't expect corporations and our government to act any better than the people work there).

applesith
Jul 10, 2012, 10:16 PM
I honestly dont care if their stuff qualifies. Paying for the qualification is one less cost to apple now.

stiligFox
Jul 10, 2012, 10:19 PM
The average consumer would GO TO THE NEAREST APPLE STORE AND TAKE THEIR DEVICE FOR RECYCLING AND GET A GIFT CARD FOR DOING SO..if there are no Apple Store nearby, the average consumer will get Apple to ship it for free to recycle their old device and get a gift card for doing so.

http://www.apple.com/recycling/

Whoa whoa whoa, that's my point: Nowadays that's what they do. But in the old days where there weren't as many Apple stores...

Ugh, nevermind. I muddled that up pretty bad. Sorry :/

----------

Honestly, how many consumers tear apart their computers on their own? Most people that don’t just trash their computers or sell them as is on ebay are taking them as is to the local trash company and pay to dispose them in with other computers. They don’t tear them down themselves.

Heck our company pays somebody to dispose computers without discrimination and we are EPEAT Gold.

Sure, but now, even those who used to dismantle their computer can't without paying for the tools to do so.

BUT... Going off of what Wurm said, why would anyone do that when they can take their device to Apple and get paid for it, beats me.

nagromme
Jul 10, 2012, 10:20 PM
Hmmm, thats a pretty good point there.

It still doesn't excuse making it harder for an average consumer to tear apart the device to take it in for recycling.

Although I imagine that was more useful at a time when there were fewer places you could take whole old devices to recycle.

I don’t think the average consumer is tearing things apart at home to decide which components different recycling companies are able to process.

The value of EPEAT (though it may need to be updated to allow progress in device construction) would be more to the recycling companies themselves.

But, if a lot of people take their old Macs to places other than Apple for recycling, then those places will adapt and learn to take them apart—EPEAT or no EPEAT.

Meanwhile, I hope most people just take the Mac back to Apple.

Not that I have ever known an old Mac to stop working and need recycling! I’m thinking of all my own Macs, my friends, and my family. All those Macs, dating back to the 90s, still run to my knowledge. I even accepted way too many of them as hand me downs, thinking I’d want to play old games or work in Director :rolleyes: Good grief, I just counted: I have 12 miscellaneous Macs, Pods and iOS devices cluttering up the joint! Many have been brutalized for years... none have failed.

Reduce - Reuse - Recycle: recycling is the last resort and the least environmentally friendly of those 3 principles! And Apple is outstanding at all 3, whether they’re able to follow a specific outdated rule set or not.

Rot'nApple
Jul 10, 2012, 10:20 PM
even EPEAT acknowledges that many of its standards are outdated,

Just like the thinking that governs San Francisco... :rolleyes:
/
/
/

greytmom
Jul 10, 2012, 10:21 PM
This whole issue is ridiculous. I've never pulled apart a computer in order to recycle it. When I'm done with it, I sell it or donate it.

I don't know anyone who breaks their computers down in order to recycle them. Hell, even my company simply donates their outdated equipment to various charities (and trust me, we are talking incredibly old stuff).

If the computer is energy efficient and there are available recycling programs in place, that's good enough for me. I don't give a damn if it takes a screwdriver or a sledgehammer to pull the thing apart.

stiligFox
Jul 10, 2012, 10:23 PM
Not that I have ever known an old Mac to stop working and need recycling! Iím thinking of all my own Macs, my friends, and my family. All those Macs, dating back to the 90s, still run to my knowledge. I even accepted way too many of them as hand me downs, thinking Iíd want to play old games or work in Director :rolleyes:

Hehe, that's true. I've a Pismo, iBook G4 and G3 iMac that have all lasted well... And they are still kicking when I use them XD

RedCroissant
Jul 10, 2012, 10:24 PM
That's exactly the type of statement that I was expecting from Apple and glad of it. It also makes sense that EPEAT must be able to modify its standards to emerging technology and be able to adjust policies so that companies that have shown to be responsible in regards to the environment should continue to get the support of the environmental community.

genovelle
Jul 10, 2012, 10:25 PM
That's the lamest excuse I have ever heard from a company. They are attacking a standard as an excuse for pulling there products from attempting to follow that standard.

They should just face it that they can't meet EPEAT environmental standards. I love Apple products, but come on and stop trying to make excuses.

Trolls should read before running off at the mouth. The author of the article added the part about the standard being out of date. The requirement for being able to take the device apart easily is unnecessary when you can take it to an Apple store or ship it back to them for disposal. They will even pay you for you trouble.

Eorlas
Jul 10, 2012, 10:26 PM
Hmmm, thats a pretty good point there.

It still doesn't excuse making it harder for an average consumer to tear apart the device to take it in for recycling.

Although I imagine that was more useful at a time when there were fewer places you could take whole old devices to recycle.

Every Target I've been to has a device recycling bin. Also, Apple offers to recycle your old device for free. They'll pay for everything including the shipping. If I'm not mistaken you also get an Apple gift card out of it? Can't remember if that detail is correct or not; someone else can check.

arctic
Jul 10, 2012, 10:27 PM
I love this "maneuver". It's time for EPEAT to make sure their standards are not stunting the technology changes. Go AAPL!!!!

AidenShaw
Jul 10, 2012, 10:27 PM
Just like the thinking that governs San Francisco... :rolleyes:
/
/
/

I'll take "San Francisco thinking" over most of the "red state thinking" any day.

Wait - does using "red state" and "thinking" in the same sentence constitute an oxymoron? I think that it does....

beamer8912
Jul 10, 2012, 10:31 PM
Just Apple trying to save face, and justify their switch to completely unserviceable (for the user) laptops.

Rend It
Jul 10, 2012, 10:34 PM
So glad Apple is sticking to their guns on this one and not hindering their innovation while at the same time still making it loud and clear their effort in keeping green on their products.

Can't wait to see the future redesign of an iMac (and the other Macs as well)using what they've learned on the retina Macbook Pro.

Right, because smearing a bunch of glue, instead of engineering an ultra lightweight bracket for the batteries -- just to save a millimeter or two -- is extremely innovative.

RedCroissant
Jul 10, 2012, 10:34 PM
I'll take "San Francisco thinking" over most of the "red state thinking" any day.

Wait - does using "red state" and "thinking" in the same sentence constitute an oxymoron? I think that it does....

It does.


Yes, I even down-voted myself for that one. I just couldn't resist the temptation.

KPOM
Jul 10, 2012, 10:40 PM
I'll take "San Francisco thinking" over most of the "red state thinking" any day.

Wait - does using "red state" and "thinking" in the same sentence constitute an oxymoron? I think that it does....

So you'll hand a blank check over to your governor so that he can build a high speed rail between those bustling metropolises of Bakersfield and Fresno?

San Francisco is being shortsighted. They are buying PCs based on the label, rather than any specifics. Apple will still take back their old Macs for recycling, and a few years from now would take back their new Macs. But because it doesn't have a sticker on it saying they meet some arbitrary standard, they won't buy one. No wonder the state is broke, despite having the 9th largest economy in the world.

tigress666
Jul 10, 2012, 10:48 PM
I honestly dont care if their stuff qualifies. Paying for the qualification is one less cost to apple now.

LolWhat?! Why do you care? Apple isn't going to pass the savings on to you.

AidenShaw
Jul 10, 2012, 10:51 PM
So you'll hand a blank check over to your governor so that he can build a high speed rail between those bustling metropolises of Bakersfield and Fresno?

Yes, yes, yes. Because to get from Los Angeles to Silicon Valley you need to pass through (or near to) Bakersfield and Fresno.

Yes!


San Francisco is being shortsighted.

Apple is being shortsighted. Instead of manufacturing systems to the current standard, and working *with* the standard to adopt it to new techniques - Apple is turning its back on a group that it's been touting for years.

If this is the "Tim Apple", then may the lord have mercy.

macse30
Jul 10, 2012, 10:56 PM
EPEAT is just jealous of all the press that Consumer Reports got about AntennaGate.

quietstormSD
Jul 10, 2012, 11:03 PM
Trolls should read before running off at the mouth. The author of the article added the part about the standard being out of date. The requirement for being able to take the device apart easily is unnecessary when you can take it to an Apple store or ship it back to them for disposal. They will even pay you for you trouble.

Not trolling. I am saying Apple pulled out of the EPEAT standard because they can't meet it any longer. Rather then making excuses that the standard is outdated. They should just say the truth. They pulled out of the EPEAT standard because they can't meet it. They are trying to throw smoke and mirrors on why they pulled out of the standard. Plain and simple. I admit, it's clever on their part. But come on just say the truth rather then putting up smoke and mirrors.

marcusj0015
Jul 10, 2012, 11:05 PM
So if Apple were meeting the EPEAT guidelines and renewing their certification, and customers still disposed of their cyberjunk improperly, Apple would be an upstanding company again? It doesn't pass the logic test... Apple has done amazing stuff on its end, now it's time for individuals and municipals to do their part. Apple is backing away and revealing the obvious.

Dude, your name is brilliant.

outdata326
Jul 10, 2012, 11:06 PM
Repairability is an area that apple doesn't want to address properly because they know they're wrong but continue to keep their stance because they they want to make a business out of repairs.

I work for a big box company, and we sell computers. However, we make no money selling the computers, but we do have a in house computer service center that does make a considerable amount of money on repairing computers. Also a majority of that money is made by fixing non Apple products.
i.e. Selling computers = no money, selling computer services = money!

To stop the person before they point this out, Apple has made a successful business out of selling computers(fact: back to back to back 30B dollar + quarters), and less on fixing them(in my opinion)!

Pyrrhic Victory
Jul 10, 2012, 11:07 PM
"Hey we're still environmentally friendly! Almost as friendly as before!"

lzyprson
Jul 10, 2012, 11:08 PM
This really easy to understand. ePeAT has become an outdated organization. Apple doesn't want the consumer opening their products because let's all admit right now, they are 99.9% perfect. Granted apple helped them become the agency that they are, but like every other agency, government, non profit, for profit, they've become lazy and are way behind the over achievers.

Looks like its time for apple to start a whole new aganecy. Btw. For those of you that don't already know, drop off your old Mac, oc, whatever, at the apple store. They will properly dispose of it for you all for free.

emwgradstudent
Jul 10, 2012, 11:13 PM
While it may be true that Apple's products exceed the EPEAT standards, that is not really a reason to remove a product from the listing. The people at EPEAT admit that their standards may be out of date and I believe this is a power move by Apple to get EPEAT to review and update these standards. However, it could bite them in the short run. San Francisco has already banned Apple products, and government organization and public schools are bound by these standards as well. Others will certainly do the same.

petsounds
Jul 10, 2012, 11:14 PM
I'm going to sidestep the EPEAT business a bit and speak to something that's been rattling in my head about this movement by Apple towards non-serviceable computers.

One of the really great value propositions for customers purchasing a Macintosh is, much like BMWs they retain much of their value on the used market. If Macs become appliances that you just hand in to Apple for refurbishing, or more to the point if the used market dries up because Macs have a shorter lifespan due to limited upgradeability and limited repairability, then the overall value of a Macintosh will be significantly diminished.

Right now, you can reasonably sell a used Mac for 75% of its value within the first three years of ownership. Dropping that down to maybe 25% due to a diminishing used market is something both customers and Apple should consider and be concerned about.

Saladinos
Jul 10, 2012, 11:15 PM
Damage control... or rather image control or PR... what ever you wanna call it. This is what Apple is doing.

I have admit there are certain things the EPEAT can do to make their standards better. (If they so believe they are outdated).

This sort of "your standards aren't good enough so we're withdrawing" isn't atypical of Apple.

I don't have their entire PR archive in front of me, but they've used this line before.

outdata326
Jul 10, 2012, 11:16 PM
That's exactly the type of statement that I was expecting from Apple and glad of it. It also makes sense that EPEAT must be able to modify its standards to emerging technology and be able to adjust policies so that companies that have shown to be responsible in regards to the environment should continue to get the support of the environmental community.

Good point.

One thing to remember is that we don't have any idea what went on before this happened. Apple helped start the standards for this company, and for all we know Apple could have been trying to get these standards updated, but were unsuccessful, so they pulled there products.

We may never know.

BlazednSleepy
Jul 10, 2012, 11:17 PM
:rolleyes:Gotta love corporations and how they dodge questions.

jav6454
Jul 10, 2012, 11:18 PM
This sort of "your standards aren't good enough so we're withdrawing" isn't atypical of Apple.

I don't have their entire PR archive in front of me, but they've used this line before.

We know that, but the whole, "I'm withdrawing from my biggest eco ad boost" is. After all they present all Macs as environmentally friendly. If they move out of EPEAT, then how to back themselves? What does this show for Apple's eco protection? Do they have something to hide?

Those are a few question the average Joe will think at first.

genovelle
Jul 10, 2012, 11:19 PM
Not trolling. I am saying Apple pulled out of the EPEAT standard because they can't meet it any longer. Rather then making excuses that the standard is outdated. They should just say the truth. They pulled out of the EPEAT standard because they can't meet it. They are trying to throw smoke and mirrors on why they pulled out of the standard. Plain and simple. I admit, it's clever on their part. But come on just say the truth rather then putting up smoke and mirrors.

Please read the article! "The Loop's Jim Dalrymple notes that even EPEAT acknowledges that many of its standards are outdated, with Apple apparently believing that those criteria have become too restrictive". (emphasis added)

If their design decisions would be compromised and interfere with creating a better product then they should pull out. This explains why over the last couple of years they have been actively expanding their recycle program and getting the word out about it.

Fruit Cake
Jul 10, 2012, 11:24 PM
In a mobile Device like iPhone, iPad I can appreciate the need to save a mm or 2, but on a laptop computer, I think it's pointless

TeamMojo
Jul 10, 2012, 11:30 PM
If I were Apple (too bad Steve is no longer alive) I'd pull WWDC and other Keynotes out of SF permanently. Santa Clara Convention Center would be glad to host some Apple events.

alephnull12
Jul 10, 2012, 11:31 PM
Sure, but now, even those who used to dismantle their computer can't without paying for the tools to do so.


Like a hammer?

Seriously though. If I'm going to think about buying something because it's recyclable - which I won't - it's not going to be the computer that I buy for $1000 bucks. It's going to be some junk I throw out every week.

Not that I give a damn, but the surest way to be a "bad recycler", is to buy some piece-of-**** recyclable computer that's going to fall apart, fail, or be rendered obsolete from bloated crapware in a couple years. You know, like the majority of computers out there that you could buy just because they're "epeat."

rocknblogger
Jul 10, 2012, 11:38 PM
I'm going to sidestep the EPEAT business a bit and speak to something that's been rattling in my head about this movement by Apple towards non-serviceable computers.

One of the really great value propositions for customers purchasing a Macintosh is, much like BMWs they retain much of their value on the used market. If Macs become appliances that you just hand in to Apple for refurbishing, or more to the point if the used market dries up because Macs have a shorter lifespan due to limited upgradeability and limited repairability, then the overall value of a Macintosh will be significantly diminished.

Right now, you can reasonably sell a used Mac for 75% of its value within the first three years of ownership. Dropping that down to maybe 25% due to a diminishing used market is something both customers and Apple should consider and be concerned about.

+1. Another point everyone seems to be missing is that using glue to permanently attach the battery to the chassis is extremely inelegant. It's something I would expect from a low priced competitor but not from Apple. It seems that the only reason to do so is to prevent any legitimate service providers from servicing the rMBP and forcing consumers to pay their premium price to get a replacement.

Also a lot of people around here make the assumption that Apple has some kind of special top secret procedure to remove the battery. But how do you know this? How do you know that the entire top half of the chassis doesn't get replaced with the battery?

Ive also read comment after comment about how you can bring it back to Apple (or ship it) but the sad fact is that a lot of people simply won't do this and eventually these devices WILL end up in some recycling bin somewhere. Since these devices are not easily recycled this means a lot of them will end up trash dumps. One thing people fail to realize is that recycling on many levels is done by hand. Even plastic and glass first has to be separated at the recycling facility by hand. These jobs are performed by regular folks who don't have time sit there carefully disassembling parts. Hence why they have to be easily disassembled using basic tools in order to be classified as EPEAT friendly.

I refuse to believe that Apple of all companies couldn't come up with a better solution in regards to the battery in the rMBP.

MuppetGate
Jul 10, 2012, 11:39 PM
Apple is being shortsighted. Instead of manufacturing systems to the current standard, and working *with* the standard to adopt it to new techniques - Apple is turning its back on a group that it's been touting for years.

On the contrary, Apple is playing this strategically.

They could stick to the standard and halt development and release of future products while they talk over the new requirements with EPEAT (and they don't strike me as an organisation that moves with a sense of urgency).

Or they light a rocket under EPEAT by removing their entire lineup (including products that are still compliant). Rather than risk other companies follow the Apple line, EPEAT will get their finger out and have a new set of guidelines out by early next year.

If this is the "Tim Apple", then may the lord have mercy.

Not the "Tim Apple"; the same Apple. To protect future innovation, Jobs would have done the same thing, and he wouldn't have been polite enough to tell them why.

MuppetGate
Jul 10, 2012, 11:53 PM
+1. Another point everyone seems to be missing is that using glue to permanently attach the battery to the chassis is extremely inelegant. It's something I would expect from a low priced competitor but not from Apple. It seems that the only reason to do so is to prevent any legitimate service providers from servicing the rMBP and forcing consumers to pay their premium price to get a replacement.

It also prevents illegitimate(?) service providers from taking the old battery and slinging it in the bin, or from fitting the battery badly and causing incidents on commercial flights.

Also a lot of people around here make the assumption that Apple has some kind of special top secret procedure to remove the battery. But how do you know this? How do you know that the entire top half of the chassis doesn't get replaced with the battery?

I suspect if this was the case then Apple would be charging a lot more than $200 to replace the batteries. Besides which, I'm not sure why I care as long as the battery gets disposed of correctly and the chassis gets recycled.

Ive also read comment after comment about how you can bring it back to Apple (or ship it) but the sad fact is that a lot of people simply won't do this and eventually these devices WILL end up in some recycling bin somewhere. Since these devices are not easily recycled this means a lot of them will end up trash dumps. One thing people fail to realize is that recycling on many levels is done by hand. Even plastic and glass first has to be separated at the recycling facility by hand. These jobs are performed by regular folks who don't have time sit there carefully disassembling parts. Hence why they have to be easily disassembled using basic tools in order to be classified as EPEAT friendly

I think that in return for money off Apple kit, folk will not only return Apple's stuff to them, but also send them old Dell and HP kit for recycling too.

You go to the Apple site, click about, they send you a shipping parcel, you pack up the machine and take it to your nearest postal depot. Not sure how they could have made it any easier.

zzLZHzz
Jul 10, 2012, 11:54 PM
Yep, Apple truly doesn't care about the environment anymore. They're just greedy and want their designs to be the smallest, lightest, regardless of how terrible it is for the rest of the planet. How dare they.

</sarcasm>

smallest and lightest is what the consumer want. do you want your portable gadget to be heavy and bulky?

faroZ06
Jul 11, 2012, 12:01 AM
I'll take "San Francisco thinking" over most of the "red state thinking" any day.

Wait - does using "red state" and "thinking" in the same sentence constitute an oxymoron? I think that it does....

Oh man, don't start the left vs right wing thing here. You might think that it does constitute an oxymoron, but there are plenty of people who think that left-wing policies are retarded.

----------

So you'll hand a blank check over to your governor so that he can build a high speed rail between those bustling metropolises of Bakersfield and Fresno?

Go Austin Beutner!

Really, I'd put those tens of billion dollars (or more like only 1 billion) into public start-up company investment, not a useless train. They could have bought a car and gas for all of the people here without transportation with that much money, not that they should have. These guys don't care about wasting money that's not theirs.

----------

smallest and lightest is what the consumer want. do you want your portable gadget to be heavy and bulky?

He was being sarcastic.

----------

This sort of "your standards aren't good enough so we're withdrawing" isn't atypical of Apple.

I don't have their entire PR archive in front of me, but they've used this line before.

Flash...

admanimal
Jul 11, 2012, 12:14 AM
One of the really great value propositions for customers purchasing a Macintosh is, much like BMWs they retain much of their value on the used market. If Macs become appliances that you just hand in to Apple for refurbishing, or more to the point if the used market dries up because Macs have a shorter lifespan due to limited upgradeability and limited repairability, then the overall value of a Macintosh will be significantly diminished.


The resale value of a Mac has nothing to do with its upgradeability (or lack thereof). Macs have high resale values compared with PCs for several (highly related) reasons:

1. There is only one company that makes Macs.
2. The price of a new Mac stays pretty constant from year to year.
3. There is at most one major new iteration of a model per year.

jnpy!$4g3cwk
Jul 11, 2012, 12:15 AM
I'm very disappointed that Apple has made the EPEAT decision, and, I'm equally very disappointed regarding Apple's new (non-user-serviceable) Retina Display design. In my opinion, the mechanical design of the mid-2007 to early-2008 models were the best (too bad about the Nvidia chip problems). I don't understand why Apple is obsessed with "thin" and extremely light designs for the new Retina display MBP.

MacPhilosopher
Jul 11, 2012, 12:25 AM
Apple products are environmentally smarter, in my opinion, just by not going obsolete in as short a time as most other tech.

firewood
Jul 11, 2012, 12:31 AM
They pulled out of the EPEAT standard because they can't meet it.

You seem to be assuming that all of EPEAT's standards are actually good for the environment. A lot of environmental standards and regulations, as well as public assumptions about what is good for the environment, have turned out not to be.

BlueParadox
Jul 11, 2012, 12:33 AM
That's the lamest excuse I have ever heard from a company. They are attacking a standard as an excuse for pulling there products from attempting to follow that standard.

They should just face it that they can't meet EPEAT environmental standards. I love Apple products, but come on and stop trying to make excuses.

I'm almost certain you didn't actually read the post.

MacDav
Jul 11, 2012, 12:34 AM
That's the lamest excuse I have ever heard from a company. They are attacking a standard as an excuse for pulling there products from attempting to follow that standard.

They should just face it that they can't meet EPEAT environmental standards. I love Apple products, but come on and stop trying to make excuses.

Do you know what the EPEAT environmental standards are? If you do,
would you please explain them to everyone. Please explain how the evironment
will be better off if Apple continued to adhear to them. It will be very interesting.
If you don't really know, then your post is nothing more than a loud mouthed jackass braying at the moon. So, I hope you'll enlighten us.

rocknblogger
Jul 11, 2012, 12:37 AM
It also prevents illegitimate(?) service providers from taking the old battery and slinging it in the bin, or from fitting the battery badly and causing incidents on commercial flights.



I suspect if this was the case then Apple would be charging a lot more than $200 to replace the batteries. Besides which, I'm not sure why I care as long as the battery gets disposed of correctly and the chassis gets recycled.



I think that in return for money off Apple kit, folk will not only return Apple's stuff to them, but also send them old Dell and HP kit for recycling too.

You go to the Apple site, click about, they send you a shipping parcel, you pack up the machine and take it to your nearest postal depot. Not sure how they could have made it any easier.

Not everyone is illegitimate. There are plenty of Apple authorized service centers around the world so let's not now start saying they are all bad. That's just unfair.

You're missing my point. Regardless of how easy it is to return devices to Apple there are people that simply won't. The reason doesn't matter but the fact remains that X percentage of devices will end up in a trash pile somewhere. However if the battery was easy to remove that number would be lower.

Fortimir
Jul 11, 2012, 12:38 AM
Just chiming in to say the EPEAT standards are BS. Okay, maybe the standards in general are fine, but I've got to agree with everyone who thinks "the ability to be taken apart by the consumer" is pointless.

Rivix
Jul 11, 2012, 12:51 AM
I honestly dont care if their stuff qualifies. Paying for the qualification is one less cost to apple now.

LOL I think they can afford it.

AppleScruff1
Jul 11, 2012, 12:52 AM
Gotta get a kick out of all the apologist's in these two threads. No matter what Apple does they sing it's praises.

sailmac
Jul 11, 2012, 12:54 AM
One thing to remember is that we don't have any idea what went on before this happened. Apple helped start the standards for this company, and for all we know Apple could have been trying to get these standards updated, but were unsuccessful, so they pulled there products.

We may never know.

Thanks for saying this -- I was thinking the same thing.

Rivix
Jul 11, 2012, 12:55 AM
Do you know what the EPEAT environmental standards are? If you do,
would you please explain them to everyone. Please explain how the evironment
will be better off if Apple continued to adhear to them. It will be very interesting.
If you don't really know, then your post is nothing more than a loud mouthed jackass braying at the moon. So, I hope you'll enlighten us.

It only hurts their image by not being in it. Sure Apple could be just as green without being a member, but now they don't have to be accountable to anyone so people will question their creditability.

PS, you come across as sounding like a bit of a jackass :/

I don't think Apple pulled out of this because they wanted higher standards or update them (unless updating them meant loosening them). This was a decision based on 'innovation'. They've even said it. Basically they want to be less environmentally consious because they think it's an obstacle. That's why you would pull out of something like this.

dra
Jul 11, 2012, 12:58 AM
apple to di world

faroZ06
Jul 11, 2012, 01:18 AM
Honestly, how many consumers tear apart their computers on their own? Most people that don’t just trash their computers or sell them as is on ebay are taking them as is to the local trash company and pay to dispose them in with other computers. They don’t tear them down themselves.

Yeah. I rarely recycle stuff, reusing instead, but I'd just take it in to Apple. They're making a big fuss about nothing.

----------

Just chiming in to say the EPEAT standards are BS. Okay, maybe the standards in general are fine, but I've got to agree with everyone who thinks "the ability to be taken apart by the consumer" is pointless.

Yeah. Honestly, if you're a consumer who takes apart computers (presumably to sell the parts), you probably know what you're doing

----------

Apple products are environmentally smarter, in my opinion, just by not going obsolete in as short a time as most other tech.

Yes, but their parts are also harder to replace unless you are talking about an iMac G5 (easier to open and access than a Dell tower), PowerMac, or Mac Pro. And why the @#$% can't you use a dead iMac as a monitor unless it is a new one with a working motherboard??!?!?! Still, not very many people go and replace their CPU or something when it breaks.

----------

The resale value of a Mac has nothing to do with its upgradeability (or lack thereof). Macs have high resale values compared with PCs for several (highly related) reasons:

1. There is only one company that makes Macs.
2. The price of a new Mac stays pretty constant from year to year.
3. There is at most one major new iteration of a model per year.

Macs have great resale value, making them cheaper to own than other PCs in many cases. For about $100/year, probably even less, (selling every 2 years) you can have a shiny new MacBook Pro at all times. If you're good at buying and selling on eBay, you can even make money buying from bad sellers and selling to bad buyers.

----------

When I first saw the article about Apple and EPEAT, I was disappointed in Apple. Then I actually read the article.

People who say stuff like "Apple is dodging questions!" or "Apple is getting away with less environmentally-friendly computers!" have not read the article. They do not qualify for EPEAT because their computers cannot be easily taken apart by consumers. You should only post those comments if you think that the ease of disassembly by consumers matters to the environment.

I'm not saying that Apple is environmentally friendly, and their own comments that basically say "We are green!" can be discounted as marketing tactics, but this EPEAT situation is not something to get worked up about.

MacDav
Jul 11, 2012, 01:23 AM
Gotta get a kick out of all the apologist's in these two threads. No matter what Apple does they sing it's praises.

While I don't assume that everything Apple does is a good thing. I also don't assume everything Apple does is a bad thing. Each policy decision needs to be looked at objectively. It appears you think Apple made a bad decision regarding EPEAT. Am I correct? I am not familiar with the EPEAT guidelines. Could you explain the process and guidelines, also how and why Apple withdrawing from EPEAT will adversely affect the environment? It will be very enlightening for everyone. Thanks in advance.

faroZ06
Jul 11, 2012, 01:25 AM
While I don't assume that everything Apple does is a good thing. I also don't assume everything Apple does is a bad thing. Each policy decision needs to be looked at objectively. It appears you think Apple made a bad decision regarding EPEAT. Am I correct? I am not familiar with the EPEAT guidelines. Could you explain the process and guidelines, also how and why Apple withdrawing from EPEAT will adversely affect the environment? It will be very enlightening for everyone. Thanks in advance.

"The Loop's Jim Dalrymple notes that even EPEAT acknowledges that many of its standards are outdated, with Apple apparently believing that those criteria have become too restrictive and do not address the full gamut of the company's environmental commitments."

Really, this sounds accurate. It is unsurprising that US government guidelines are outdated. Heck, it would probably take a lot of time to change the guidelines even if they wanted to. A disadvantage of this kind of government is that it's slow, not that I am ignoring the advantages.

From a marketing standpoint, this is very risky for Apple. Many people will see this and think "Apple ≠ green", and the whole "green" thing is a big marketing tactic itself. I really don't like how abused this term is because it leads people into thinking that many things are good for the environment, like "ecoslim" plastic bottles, hybrid Escalades, and The Princess and the Frog on DVD (which has been marketed to me as a "green" product). Our school's idiotic Green Committee printed a bunch of posters that say "Going Green!!" and "Save Paper!!" (ironic) on them.

DoNoHarm
Jul 11, 2012, 01:27 AM
This is such an awesome and important point. Actually, perhaps this is a hidden cost advantage to buying one of these old style bodies. If this is one of the last generations they sell that is repairable, the resale value will remain high while all the people who go retina will be stuck with a computer that can't even smoothly display facebook. I was already leaning to getting an old style body and this point has me completely switched. Too bad my current Macbook pro is running so smoothly. I hope they still offer the old body style when it finally gives out.

I'm going to sidestep the EPEAT business a bit and speak to something that's been rattling in my head about this movement by Apple towards non-serviceable computers.

One of the really great value propositions for customers purchasing a Macintosh is, much like BMWs they retain much of their value on the used market. If Macs become appliances that you just hand in to Apple for refurbishing, or more to the point if the used market dries up because Macs have a shorter lifespan due to limited upgradeability and limited repairability, then the overall value of a Macintosh will be significantly diminished.

Right now, you can reasonably sell a used Mac for 75% of its value within the first three years of ownership. Dropping that down to maybe 25% due to a diminishing used market is something both customers and Apple should consider and be concerned about.

MacDav
Jul 11, 2012, 01:41 AM
"The Loop's Jim Dalrymple notes that even EPEAT acknowledges that many of its standards are outdated, with Apple apparently believing that those criteria have become too restrictive and do not address the full gamut of the company's environmental commitments."

Really, this sounds accurate. It is unsurprising that US government guidelines are outdated. Heck, it would probably take a lot of time to change the guidelines even if they wanted to. A disadvantage of this kind of government is that it's slow, not that I am ignoring the advantages.

From a marketing standpoint, this is very risky for Apple. Many people will see this and think "Apple ≠ green", and the whole "green" thing is a big marketing tactic itself. I really don't like how abused this term is because it leads people into thinking that many things are good for the environment, like "ecoslim" plastic bottles, hybrid Escalades, and The Princess and the Frog on DVD (which has been marketed to me as a "green" product). Our school's idiotic Green Committee printed a bunch of posters that say "Going Green!!" and "Save Paper!!" (ironic) on them.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply

Mr. Gates
Jul 11, 2012, 01:41 AM
This is such an awesome and important point. Actually, perhaps this is a hidden cost advantage to buying one of these old style bodies. If this is one of the last generations they sell that is repairable, the resale value will remain high while all the people who go retina will be stuck with a computer that can't even smoothly display facebook. I was already leaning to getting an old style body and this point has me completely switched. Too bad my current Macbook pro is running so smoothly. I hope they still offer the old body style when it finally gives out.

Give it some time.

Pretty soon ( 5-10 years ) you will no longer be able to "buy" Macs. A lease program will be implemented and you will pay on the wear and tear decided by a "Genius" (LOL) at an Apple store. A monthly fee of $149.00 and you can have the best laptop in the local Starbucks. Yayyyyy !

Anyhoo.

For me, a sweet top of the line gaming rig with a nice Hackintosh on VM Ware is all I need.

AppleScruff1
Jul 11, 2012, 01:52 AM
While I don't assume that everything Apple does is a good thing. I also don't assume everything Apple does is a bad thing. Each policy decision needs to be looked at objectively. It appears you think Apple made a bad decision regarding EPEAT. Am I correct? I am not familiar with the EPEAT guidelines. Could you explain the process and guidelines, also how and why Apple withdrawing from EPEAT will adversely affect the environment? It will be very enlightening for everyone. Thanks in advance.

Everyone is enlightened. If Apple does it, it's good. Even when it's not. Replace Apple here with Samsung, Microsoft, Google, etc and it would be a terrible thing. No explanations would be needed, would they? :rolleyes:

autrefois
Jul 11, 2012, 02:09 AM
Kudos to Apple for standing their ground!

Apple will take care of the recycling, don't worry!

EPEAT was outdated anyway, so screw them!

I love how people supporting Apple on this in thread upon thread are just ignoring the fact that Apple made their MBPs less recyclable and less serviceable than they used to be. Just because Apple will take them back (and give you some small pittance in the form of a gift card for the parts they can sell or re-use: do you REALLY think they're losing out on the deal?) doesn't mean they're as environmentally friendly as the previous, non-retina MBPs.

So people are basically saying, screw the environment! Screw the consumer! Screw third-party Apple dealers! If Apple wants to glue a battery to their motherboard and make it so that only Apple can do anything to repair the machine, it must somehow magically be a good idea!

I love Apple products, but I do actually still use critical thinking when faced with new information. It's not good for consumers or the environment to suddenly come out with a product that is less eco-friendly and less serviceable, and also pull the rest of your products out of consideration as well for the environmental standard that you've been bragging about until recently.

inkswamp
Jul 11, 2012, 02:24 AM
In these posts I've seen the following:
1) People attacking San Francisco because Apple products no longer fit their policy (if they bend the policy, what is the point of the policy?) or saying their tax dollars shouldn't be wasted on Macs (despite 1-2% of all computer being Macs) or the fact that it's a hippie town (what does that have to do with anything?)

The 12 posts before yours contain nothing of the sort.

2) People attacking Apple for no longer caring about the environment when there is evidence in the past for the exact opposite.

Of the 12 posts before yours, I see only one that tangentially fits this description.

3) People attacking EPEAT for having outdated standards (though I don't think most people even know what those standards are), though Apple proudly touted their logo for the last 5 years. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

Of the 12 posts before yours, I see only one person making this suggestion and it's nothing even remotely like an attack.

Honestly, I wish people would act rationally about discussing this topic instead of ad hominem attacks against people.

You know, I wish people would create strawman arguments and then criticize others (ironically, an ad hominem argument) for not staying on topic. Now, that would be great!

jontech
Jul 11, 2012, 02:55 AM
My two main concerns are that they use environmentally friendly materials when they built the computer and also when the computer has reached its end of lifespan that they can recycle it responsibly if they can continue to meet these two criteria I will continue to give them my business

If the main concern was the serviceability requirements of the certification and I can understand why they pulled their products most consumer should not be opening up their computers to service them it should be left to service technicians that can responsibly repair and dispose of any parts an recycle

In the end I believe Apple will work out details with the certification process to ensure that their products comply

gnasher729
Jul 11, 2012, 03:03 AM
That's the lamest excuse I have ever heard from a company. They are attacking a standard as an excuse for pulling there products from attempting to follow that standard.

They should just face it that they can't meet EPEAT environmental standards. I love Apple products, but come on and stop trying to make excuses.

What is helpful for the environment is to do things that are good for the environment. What is not helpful for the environment is following standards about the environment.

Apple is saying here "we could follow EPEAT standards, but it would make our products worse, and it wouldn't help the environment". It is common sense tbat if there is an "environmental standard" demanding things from you that are not actually beneficial for the environment, then yes, you attack the standard. Or do you want the environment to be damaged because companies blindly follow standards that don't help the environment?


You seem to be assuming that all of EPEAT's standards are actually good for the environment. A lot of environmental standards and regulations, as well as public assumptions about what is good for the environment, have turned out not to be.

As an example, EPEAT requires that a product contains 25% recycled plastic. So if one product has 1000 grams of plastic of which 250 gram come from recycled sources, and another has 200 grams only with none coming recycled, think about which is more environmentally friendly, and guess which one follows EPEAT standard.


When I first started buying Apple products in the mid-2000's, I remember that Apple was having a hard time getting certified as "green" by anyone. Their products at the time had higher than average levels of toxic materials. Looking back on those days as "the good old days" is like thinking fondly of our childhood when we'd collect the mercury from broken thermometers so we could roll the pretty, harmless, liquid metal across our palms.

I think you are talking about the infamous Greenpeace report. Greenpeace didn't compare levels of toxic materials. Greenpeace compared companies promises to remove toxic materials. In one case (bromide flame retardants) they marked HP up for promising to get rid of BFRs within two years, and marked Apple down for not making any such promise. They just failed to notice that Apple had removed BFRs two years earlier so obviously wouldn't make any promises to do so in the future. (They also didn't get that Apple preferred actions to words, so they wouldn't announce plans, they would just do it. Get's you negative points when Greenpeace finds it easier to judge companies by their promises).


Everyone is enlightened. If Apple does it, it's good. Even when it's not. Replace Apple here with Samsung, Microsoft, Google, etc and it would be a terrible thing. No explanations would be needed, would they? :rolleyes:

So you make some blind accusations without any shred of evidence, and when you are called to actually show evidence, you follow by more blind accusations without any shred of evidence, and you get voted up. Brilliant.

doelcm82
Jul 11, 2012, 03:04 AM
I love how people supporting Apple on this in thread upon thread are just ignoring the fact that Apple made their MBPs less recyclable and less serviceable than they used to be. Just because Apple will take them back (and give you some small pittance in the form of a gift card for the parts they can sell or re-use: do you REALLY think they're losing out on the deal?) doesn't mean they're as environmentally friendly as the previous, non-retina MBPs.

So people are basically saying, screw the environment! Screw the consumer! Screw third-party Apple dealers! If Apple wants to glue a battery to their motherboard and make it so that only Apple can do anything to repair the machine, it must somehow magically be a good idea!

I love Apple products, but I do actually still use critical thinking when faced with new information. It's not good for consumers or the environment to suddenly come out with a product that is less eco-friendly and less serviceable, and also pull the rest of your products out of consideration as well for the environmental standard that you've been bragging about until recently.

When I first started buying Apple products in the mid-2000's, I remember that Apple was having a hard time getting certified as "green" by anyone. Their products at the time had higher than average levels of toxic materials. Looking back on those days as "the good old days" is like thinking fondly of our childhood when we'd collect the mercury from broken thermometers so we could roll the pretty, harmless, liquid metal across our palms.

Thank Steve Apple made a conscious effort to use fewer harmful materials in their products, and thinner computers use less material overall.

theluggage
Jul 11, 2012, 04:09 AM
As an example, EPEAT requires that a product contains 25% recycled plastic. So if one product has 1000 grams of plastic of which 250 gram come from recycled sources, and another has 200 grams only with none coming recycled, think about which is more environmentally friendly, and guess which one follows EPEAT standard.


At least try to look at the big picture. Its not about some simplistic measure of green-ness of the device currently in your hand, or what one particular manufacturer does.

By requiring an arbitrary amount of recycled plastic in every product, you ensure that there is a market for recycled plastic, creating an incentive to collect plastic for recycling. Insisting on 100% wouldn't work - there will be technical reasons why some parts can't be recycled - while not require any would mean manufacturers wouldn't consider recycled if it cost 1 cent more per ton.

Concequence: even your product with 200g of non-recycled plastic is more likely to get recycled because of the standards.

Likewise, people have been saying 'oh, but I sell on, or donate my old computers, and I can always take it back to the Mac store' - fine, but when San Fransisco clears an office building in ten year's time do you expect them to sort everything by manufacturer (including those who have gone bust or disappeard in a string of takeovers) and send them back individually (while also ensuring that each company isn't just having them buried or incinerated in the third world)? I bet commercial recyclers don't get a $5000 gift voucher for rolling up at an Apple store with a truckload of g4s. Nope, that's when you want an army of minimally trained (because it ain't gonna pay well) people with screwdrivers breaking stuff down into metal, glass, plastics and 'electronics'.

...and even if you sell on, or donate your old stuff, that gets it out of your mind but it doesn't cease to exist. Eventually, its going to be scrapped and someone has to get rid of it. Repairability (not so much the ability to take it back to a certified apple repairer, but to cannibalize parts from other old computers) will help delay that - but when it finally does die, that's when the ability to easily break it up into metal, plastics, 'electronics' and batteries, and deal with each appropriately, becomes important.

vmachiel
Jul 11, 2012, 04:10 AM
I kinda get why they did it, with regard to the repairability. It's not that their going to go wild with toxics and bigger packaging all of the sudden.

KnightWRX
Jul 11, 2012, 04:16 AM
The 12 posts before yours contain nothing of the sort.

Of the 12 posts before yours, I see only one that tangentially fits this description.

Of the 12 posts before yours, I see only one person making this suggestion and it's nothing even remotely like an attack.

Maybe you missed the 2 other threads on EPEAT we've had this week. There's a lot more than 12 posts before his. Of course, then you wouldn't be able to attack him like you criticize him for doing right ? :rolleyes:

Pot, meet kettle.

Anyway, on topic : People are quick to assume EPEAT is outdated (Apple said no such thing however, notice how they completely dodge saying what in EPEAT made them pull out). However, who's to say an updated EPEAT standard would be less restrictive ? If anything, it might be even more restrictive as environnemental concerns are growing year after year.

driceman
Jul 11, 2012, 04:36 AM
What is helpful for the environment is to do things that are good for the environment. What is not helpful for the environment is following standards about the environment.

Apple is saying here "we could follow EPEAT standards, but it would make our products worse, and it wouldn't help the environment". It is common sense tbat if there is an "environmental standard" demanding things from you that are not actually beneficial for the environment, then yes, you attack the standard. Or do you want the environment to be damaged because companies blindly follow standards that don't help the environment?




As an example, EPEAT requires that a product contains 25% recycled plastic. So if one product has 1000 grams of plastic of which 250 gram come from recycled sources, and another has 200 grams only with none coming recycled, think about which is more environmentally friendly, and guess which one follows EPEAT standard.




I think you are talking about the infamous Greenpeace report. Greenpeace didn't compare levels of toxic materials. Greenpeace compared companies promises to remove toxic materials. In one case (bromide flame retardants) they marked HP up for promising to get rid of BFRs within two years, and marked Apple down for not making any such promise. They just failed to notice that Apple had removed BFRs two years earlier so obviously wouldn't make any promises to do so in the future. (They also didn't get that Apple preferred actions to words, so they wouldn't announce plans, they would just do it. Get's you negative points when Greenpeace finds it easier to judge companies by their promises).




So you make some blind accusations without any shred of evidence, and when you are called to actually show evidence, you follow by more blind accusations without any shred of evidence, and you get voted up. Brilliant.

Listen to this guy.

whooleytoo
Jul 11, 2012, 05:42 AM
I pity the EPEAT standard folk. A few days ago, many here probably had never even heard of them, now they're public enemy #1. Have EPEAT even made a comment regarding the rMBP?

MH01
Jul 11, 2012, 05:47 AM
Do you know what the EPEAT environmental standards are? If you do,
would you please explain them to everyone. Please explain how the evironment
will be better off if Apple continued to adhear to them. It will be very interesting.
If you don't really know, then your post is nothing more than a loud mouthed jackass braying at the moon. So, I hope you'll enlighten us.

Dunno..... Environment + Standards =

A: Pointers on how to **** up the environment
B : Pointers on how to reduce damage to the environment
C: Apple is right... whatever the issue/question is.

cdmoore74
Jul 11, 2012, 06:11 AM
Call me crazy but if I was in charge of IT at a large school or company do you really want be responsible for computers that cannot be fixed on site? Or computers that cannot be discarded easily without paying a huge disposal fee? Or be responsible for computers that break down after the warranty is over?
Man Apple, you guys just made Acer look more desirable.

KnightWRX
Jul 11, 2012, 06:11 AM
I pity the EPEAT standard folk. A few days ago, many here probably had never even heard of them, now they're public enemy #1. Have EPEAT even made a comment regarding the rMBP?

Google partners with Apple for the release of the original iPhone, Eric Schmidt on Apple's board = Google is good! Moar Google.

Google finally releases Android after 3 years, Eric leaves Apple's board since he's useless as he's been avoiding strategic iOS meetings over conflicts of interest = Google is bad! Down with evil Google.

Consumer reports ranks the iPhone the number #1 smartphone choice over all other models = Consumer reports is on the forefront of technology and the best publication there is.

Consumer reports notes that it can't recommend the iPhone 4 over the antenna issues faced by all shipped units (unfixed to this day, required a change of design for the iPhone 4S) even though it's their highest ranked phone = Consumer reports are dinosaurs and bad.

Adobe releases yet another version of Photoshop, flagship software that's putting Apple on the creative map for publicity, marketing and photography everywhere = Adobe are gods amongst men.

Steve Jobs publishes a letter on Flash = Adobe are a bunch of ****.

Gizmodo gets their hands on an iPhone 4 prototype, confirms it is the real deal, does an extensive review and photoshoot of the device = Gizmodo is great!

Apple revokes Gizmodo's invitation for breaking their secrecy = Gizmodo ruined the iPhone 4 launch, they shouldn't have spoiled it, bunch of idiots, Chen should get deported.

Apple signs on with EPEAT gold certification for their products, ushers in a new age of environnemental reform and decide to head unto a road to greener products = EPEAT standards should be followed by everyone, a great example this industry needs.

Apple removes certification for their products to meet new design goals, says they will try to remain green in other areas not measured by EPEAT = EPEAT are out of touch and out of date, they should lessen their requirements, bunch of fascists!

Macrumors. As predictable as ever. ;)

Abazigal
Jul 11, 2012, 06:26 AM
Call me crazy but if I was in charge of IT at a large school or company do you really want be responsible for computers that cannot be fixed on site? Or computers that cannot be discarded easily without paying a huge disposal fee? Or be responsible for computers that break down after the warranty is over?
Man Apple, you guys just made Acer look more desirable.

The problem is that you are looking at the purchase of computers solely from the POV of what will result in the least trouble for the school's IT support staff, and not necessarily what will benefit the recipients (the students and teachers) most. Yes, these are valid points, but they cannot be the main deciding factors, at most a tie-breaker in the event of a tie between 2 competing choices.

What's the point of having computers that can be repaired on-site when the issue is that they break down ever so often? It's like a self-fulfilling prophecy. My school had the pupils purchase acer laptops (part of their 1-to-1 scheme) and I saw pupils' laptops entering and leaving the technician's lab from time to time. Not to mention that Acer's after-sales support stinks. In the 2nd year, they moved to Toshiba.

Conversely, we have 2 labs of imacs and to my knowledge, they have not had to service them even once.

So which one is more trouble now? :confused:

jmgregory1
Jul 11, 2012, 06:33 AM
The thing people must not forget is that Apple was the one to pull products from EPEAT, not EPEAT pulling the products. I will assume Apple's reason is as they noted, the standards do not fit Apple's current manufacturing processes.

I've been involved in similar industry certification programs that are created for all the right reasons, but in general become mired in their own bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake. If EPEAT has not changed or altered their standards and certifications over the past couple of years, let alone the past decade, chances are really good - as in you can guarandamntee it that they have not changed, then it's going to take companies like Apple pulling out to force the change.

And for those people that think the changes will simply cow-tow to Apple resulting in a net negative for the environment, you're smoking dope. So, let's look at another industry where recycling is a big issue - cars/trucks. Do you think we should be telling the auto industry that they should stop gluing and welding their cars and have all parts screwed on with phillips screws? That's a great idea. And homes too - they should be built with walls that are screwed together with exposed screws so we can disassemble them ourselves and recycle the parts properly.

This is such a perfect example of misinformation - and I'm not talking about what Apple is doing.

gopnick
Jul 11, 2012, 06:38 AM
This is a highly political thread, but oh well.

Four years working in environmental have now taught me two things:

(1) Environmental standards and regulations since 1987 have little bearing on protecting the environment and more to do with protecting incumbent giant corporations. Many of these standards (and regulations, too) can't possibly be met by anyone. People just find ways to make it all technically work out with high dollar consultants, while their emissions/waste go up or down as technology and demand change.

(2) When companies and consumers pay disposal costs, it is in their financial best interests to reduce the amount of hazardous waste in their products. Apple will do the right thing for the environment because customers, who must pay disposal fees (and hefty taxes in some states) will demand it.

This doesn't merely apply to standards compliance organizations or environmental.

Read about how the FDA is protecting big pharma. It's sickening.

I hope Apple grows up as a company and tells these idiots (who wouldn't know how to protect the environment even if they cared) to go get bent.

Taipan
Jul 11, 2012, 06:40 AM
I don't get it. When wie are talking about Recycling we are talking about defective or outdated devices that are not used anymore, aren't we?
So whether or not a cable breaks when the battery is torn out shouldn't be an issue. Neither is soldered on RAM, because the materials are basically the same as the mainboard's anyway. So the only issue I'm seeing are the screws.

macingman
Jul 11, 2012, 06:53 AM
The average consumer would GO TO THE NEAREST APPLE STORE AND TAKE THEIR DEVICE FOR RECYCLING AND GET A GIFT CARD FOR DOING SO..if there are no Apple Store nearby, the average consumer will get Apple to ship it for free to recycle their old device and get a gift card for doing so.

P.S. I got a $163 for recycling my old ass almost dead iMac..

http://www.apple.com/recycling/

Actually your the first person I've ever heard of that has ACTUALLY done this.

----------

smallest and lightest is what the consumer want. do you want your portable gadget to be heavy and bulky?

I honestly can't believe don't see sarcasm even when it is so blatantly there.

Kaibelf
Jul 11, 2012, 06:55 AM
Hmmm, thats a pretty good point there.

It still doesn't excuse making it harder for an average consumer to tear apart the device to take it in for recycling.

Although I imagine have the ability to dismantle your device was more useful back when there weren't as many places to take old devices to recycle.

Just contact Apple an have them handle it. For free. Seriously, who complains about having LESS work to do?

samcraig
Jul 11, 2012, 07:00 AM
I pity the EPEAT standard folk. A few days ago, many here probably had never even heard of them, now they're public enemy #1. Have EPEAT even made a comment regarding the rMBP?

Hyperbole? They are hardly Public Enemy #1. Not even by a longshot.

Why would EPEAT have to make any comment about any company/product to single them out? EPEAT has standards. If something doesn't meet their standards - they don't give it their "blessing."

If EPEAT were going to release any statement it would be the products that DO meet standards. Why would they release statements about millions of products that don't?

Thunderhawks
Jul 11, 2012, 07:02 AM
What a bunch of drivel by those who want to knock Apple.

Are you really telling us you recycle your electronics based on the EPEAT standards?
(If you recycle at all)

Letís see:

I get myself a screwdriver. Wait donít have TORX, so off to Home Depot to buy one.
Darn! Only available in a set of 5 .

Okay, got the computer open. What am I looking at?

Darn! Need smaller screwdrivers Philips and slot.
Off to Radio Shack. Home Depot doesnít have these small sizes.

Okay, got it all disassembled.

Made 10 piles:

Glass to the left. Should I have wiped off the olefin coating with some solvent and breathe that in.
What would I do with the rag with the coating in it?
Wash it and the chemicals go into the sewer and ground water?

Hammered the glass into little pieces , so nobody gets hurt later.
One never knows.

All cables clipped out (Donít ask, had to go to get a small clipper ☺
Pulled the plastic coatings off all the cables. If I save the copper wires maybe in 25 years I may have a pound
of it to get $ 1.29 at the local scrap yard.

That disk drive/burner still looks good. Who knows if I can use it later. Put that one into a drawer.
Same for fan (dusty) and loud speakers.

Battery, still held a charge. Maybe if I buy another computer that uses that size I can reuse.
Into the drawer with that one too. Hard Drive is a little slow and old technology, but Iíll keep it as a backup.
Into the drawer will buy a case for it, whenever. (Note: the word NEVER is in whenever!)

Memo to self into cloud to remember what drawer and that I have that stuff at all!

Mother boards, hm. Should I unsolder everything? I just came back from Radio Shack and should have bought
a soldering kit with the suction bulk to collect all the solder.
Canít really do de-soldering, as the fumes are not good for the environment and tickle my nose.

Plastic shells top and base in hand. Is that number 1 or 2 category plastic my local guys donít recycle number 6.

Metal frames, magnets and weight. Okay metal pile. Itís already 6 oz.

..........and so on and so on.

This really looks like something 99% of all consumers would do.

All that hubbub when everybody knows you can just give the stuff back to Apple.

Really?

bad03xtreme
Jul 11, 2012, 07:06 AM
I'll take "San Francisco thinking" over most of the "red state thinking" any day.

Wait - does using "red state" and "thinking" in the same sentence constitute an oxymoron? I think that it does....

Yea and where has that gotten them, oh thats right...

Amazing Iceman
Jul 11, 2012, 07:06 AM
When I first started buying Apple products in the mid-2000's, I remember that Apple was having a hard time getting certified as "green" by anyone. Their products at the time had higher than average levels of toxic materials. Looking back on those days as "the good old days" is like thinking fondly of our childhood when we'd collect the mercury from broken thermometers so we could roll the pretty, harmless, liquid metal across our palms.

Lol, I used to play with Mercury too. Actually, I had at least about 10cc of it, given to me by the Lab teacher to make a thermometer.
I haven't turned into a mutant yet.
Oh, and what about those amalgam tooth fillings? You could extract the Mercury by heating the amalgam in a probe.

KPOM
Jul 11, 2012, 07:07 AM
Yes, yes, yes. Because to get from Los Angeles to Silicon Valley you need to pass through (or near to) Bakersfield and Fresno.

Yes!

No wonder your state is broke, despite having the 2nd highest taxes in the country and corporate headquarters of lots of profitable companies like Apple.

The high speed rail project has been a boondoggle from the start.



Apple is being shortsighted. Instead of manufacturing systems to the current standard, and working *with* the standard to adopt it to new techniques - Apple is turning its back on a group that it's been touting for years.

If this is the "Tim Apple", then may the lord have mercy.


If they lose out on too many sales, they can change back. However, they don't sell much to enterprises, anyway, and consumers likely didn't even know about EPEAT until this story came out. In the meantime, even EPEAT recognizes some of its standards are outdated. Apple is probably attempting to make a deliberate statement by pulling all of its products out rather than just not submitting the ones that won't qualify.

Perhaps they are trying to convince EPEAT to come out with an "EPEAT 2," or perhaps they want to try to lobby the government to repeal the Bush-era rule that says that 95% of federal government purchases need to comply with EPEAT (in favor of more flexible standards that allow for company-managed recycling programs).

gnasher729
Jul 11, 2012, 07:08 AM
Call me crazy but if I was in charge of IT at a large school or company do you really want be responsible for computers that cannot be fixed on site? Or computers that cannot be discarded easily without paying a huge disposal fee? Or be responsible for computers that break down after the warranty is over?
Man Apple, you guys just made Acer look more desirable.

A school or company absolutely shouldn't buy computers that can only be discarded by paying a huge disposal fee (if they do, that should be added to the purchase price, and that kind of thing would just guarantee that lots of computers end up not recycled, not even in landfill, but along some roadside where they have been dumped to avoid disposal fees).

However, Apple in the USA takes back all their computers. There are no fees; depending on the state of the computer you may actually get money for it. If you can't get the computer to an Apple store, Apple's recycler will send you a box for the computer, postage paid.


No, but if the battery breaks and explodes or leaks toxic goo, then you have to equip your recycling staff with hazmat gear. Or if the display breaks and leaves big chunks of glass bonded to the aluminium shell then, as well as the 'elf and saftey issues (which you can deride but not ignore) it's going to reduce the yield of your recycling.

You return the computer to Apple, and Apple gives it to a recycler. There will be a contract between Apple and the recycler where, based on the cost of recycling and the money the recycler makes from the leftover bits, one side pays money to the other side. If it's harder to recycle, then Apple will pay more for recycling. _Or_ Apple has figured out all these problems that you see and just told the recycler how to avoid breaking batteries.

theluggage
Jul 11, 2012, 07:08 AM
So whether or not a cable breaks when the battery is torn out shouldn't be an issue.

No, but if the battery breaks and explodes or leaks toxic goo, then you have to equip your recycling staff with hazmat gear. Or if the display breaks and leaves big chunks of glass bonded to the aluminium shell then, as well as the 'elf and saftey issues (which you can deride but not ignore) it's going to reduce the yield of your recycling.

I suspect its the "gluing things together" issue with the RMBP (and the iPad3 iif/when EPEAT gets extended to mobile devices) behind this issue - not simply the fact that it is non-user-replaceable.

Using glue makes a lot of sense if you're trying to shave millimetres of thickness - apart from not needing brackets/grooves/flanges, making the battery permanently bonded to the case means that it can rely on the case for strength and doesn't need such a rigid casing itself. Similar arguments for the display. ISTR it was reported that Apple will "repair" these by swapping entire case sections, so they never have to ship a 'naked' display or battery module outside of their own factory.

Unfortunately, it then means that you can't easily separate the battery from the aluminium for recycling... hell, forget recycling, you really need to separate aluminium, glass, plastics and batteries for safe and efficient disposal.
.

Rodimus Prime
Jul 11, 2012, 07:10 AM
"Hey we're still environmentally friendly! Almost as friendly as before!"
Which was not that good.
Force obsolete with software blocks on products. Everything is throw away and not upgradeable.

Forcing something to be obsolete before it really is and then have it be trash is not friendly no matter how you cut it.

theluggage
Jul 11, 2012, 07:13 AM
However, Apple in the USA takes back all their computers. There are no fees; depending on the state of the computer you may actually get money for it. If you can't get the computer to an Apple store, Apple's recycler will send you a box for the computer, postage paid.

So, couple of questions:

(a) Does that just apply to consumers - or can a commercial contractor pitch up with a truckload of mixed* computer equipment and have it disposed of for free?

(* or do you expect the contractor refitting a school to sort all the old electronic junk by manufacturer, and look up the recycling policy for each one)

(b) Will they still be offering this facility in 10 years time?

r.harris1
Jul 11, 2012, 07:14 AM
To be honest, I'd never heard of EPEAT prior to Apple pulling out of it. I only looked at Apple's environment specifics and thought they seemed reasonable. I took a fresh look at them today and they still seem reasonable.

I find it difficult to get worked up about the whole thing and in fact, if a company's environmental profile looks reasonable before and after pulling out of a certification body, I'd question the relevance of the body to anything real. But that's just me.

trainwrecka
Jul 11, 2012, 07:14 AM
The average consumer would GO TO THE NEAREST APPLE STORE AND TAKE THEIR DEVICE FOR RECYCLING AND GET A GIFT CARD FOR DOING SO..if there are no Apple Store nearby, the average consumer will get Apple to ship it for free to recycle their old device and get a gift card for doing so.

P.S. I got a $163 for recycling my old ass almost dead iMac..

http://www.apple.com/recycling/

I just take my old iMac into any Apple Store and they issue me a gift card? Online it says they'll hook me up with a $193!!

SpyderBite
Jul 11, 2012, 07:28 AM
Knock it off with the "user upgradable" crap. That is irrelevant to the topic and honestly is also becoming an antiquated process as the netbook lines evolve.

This is about recycling/disposal policies. Not whether or not you can save $100 by upgrading the RAM yourself. The latter is currently being discussed in a dozen other threads in the forum.

When it comes down to retiring your Mac, you have several options that do not require that you take a hammer to your computer. So, Apple's decision to withdraw from an outdated standard does not effect the consumer with the exception of the stray ignorant soul who imagines a pile of MacBooks sitting in the sun, emitting toxic radiation, with dead kittens lying around the scene.

jmgregory1
Jul 11, 2012, 07:28 AM
For all of you supporting EPEAT and bashing Apple. Read this, taken from EPEAT's site. I love their mission - "Operate the most successful global environmental rating system for electronic products..." Their goal is to operate a rating system - not to reduce or eliminate electronic waste or to better recycle said parts. It's complete crap - again it probably started with noble intent, but that is not what it is today.

EPEATģ is the definitive global registry for greener electronics. Itís an easy-to-use resource for purchasers, manufacturers, resellers and others wanting to find and promote environmentally preferable products.

Our vision: A world where the negative environmental and social impacts of electronics are continually reduced and electronic products are designed to accelerate the worldís transition to sustainability

Our mission: Operate the most successful global environmental rating system for electronic products, helping connect purchasers to environmentally preferable choices, and thereby benefiting producers who demonstrate environmental responsibility and innovation

Our values: Leadership, transparency, continuous improvement, collaboration and market-orientation

Rogifan
Jul 11, 2012, 07:31 AM
That's the lamest excuse I have ever heard from a company. They are attacking a standard as an excuse for pulling there products from attempting to follow that standard.

They should just face it that they can't meet EPEAT environmental standards. I love Apple products, but come on and stop trying to make excuses.
What's so great about EPEAT standards? I care about what a company does, not if they meet some checklist, and one that seems to be outdated. Show me evidence that Apple's green standards have changed (for the worse) because of this. My guess is you can't.

samcraig
Jul 11, 2012, 07:43 AM
Way to take their mission out of context with the small part of the actual mission statement.



For all of you supporting EPEAT and bashing Apple. Read this, taken from EPEAT's site. I love their mission - "Operate the most successful global environmental rating system for electronic products..." Their goal is to operate a rating system - not to reduce or eliminate electronic waste or to better recycle said parts. It's complete crap - again it probably started with noble intent, but that is not what it is today.

EPEATģ is the definitive global registry for greener electronics. Itís an easy-to-use resource for purchasers, manufacturers, resellers and others wanting to find and promote environmentally preferable products.

Our vision: A world where the negative environmental and social impacts of electronics are continually reduced and electronic products are designed to accelerate the worldís transition to sustainability

Our mission: Operate the most successful global environmental rating system for electronic products, helping connect purchasers to environmentally preferable choices, and thereby benefiting producers who demonstrate environmental responsibility and innovation

Our values: Leadership, transparency, continuous improvement, collaboration and market-orientation

----------

I guess there are 2 ways of looking at it. Their points are valid. EPEAT is outdated and maybe they are pushing for something new to happen by making such a bold move. On the other hand, withdrawing from EPEAT does allow them to be less green and maybe allow them to profit further with an increased environmental impact

I don't think the issue is whether they are more or less green. People seem to be up in arms that EPEAT has a standard to meet their approval. Apple doesn't meet it. San Francisco (the city) only purchases computers and laptops with the EPEAT seal of approval.

No one is saying Apple is more or less green. They are saying that based on EPEATS's criteria - they don't qualify.

The real problem is that the general public doesn't know what is and what isn't the criteria to get an EPEAT approval - they just see headlines that (now) state that SF won't purchase Apple's computers because they don't pass EPEAT's rating.

That was the thrust of the PR spin by Apple. In short - they were saying they are every bit as environmentally conscious - if not more so - than before. Regardless of any "rating." And at the same time - they took a little swipe at EPEAT in the process. Which, personally, they didn't need to do. But that's Apple.

Rogifan
Jul 11, 2012, 07:46 AM
Knock it off with the "user upgradable" crap. That is irrelevant to the topic and honestly is also becoming an antiquated process as the netbook lines evolve.

This is about recycling/disposal policies. Not whether or not you can save $100 by upgrading the RAM yourself. The latter is currently being discussed in a dozen other threads in the forum.

When it comes down to retiring your Mac, you have several options that do not require that you take a hammer to your computer. So, Apple's decision to withdraw from an outdated standard does not effect the consumer with the exception of the stray ignorant soul who imagines a pile of MacBooks sitting in the sun, emitting toxic radiation, with dead kittens lying around the scene.
Seems to me this is just an excuse for people to bitch about the rMBP not being easily serviceable by the average joe and to look pro environment in the process. Prior to this hubbub I'm sure most people had never even heard of EPEAT.

KnightWRX
Jul 11, 2012, 07:46 AM
For all of you supporting EPEAT and bashing Apple.

No one is supporting EPEAT and bashing Apple. EPEAT is EPEAT, Apple is Apple. Both have a choice in doing what they do.

Read this, taken from EPEAT's site. I love their mission - "Operate the most successful global environmental rating system for electronic products..." Their goal is to operate a rating system - not to reduce or eliminate electronic waste or to better recycle said parts.

So I guess ANSI, the IETF and ISO are also bad because their missions are to operate successful standardisation organisations rather than producing standardized products ?

EPEAT's goal is to operate a rating system. This system rates environnemental sustainability based on determined critieria. What's wrong with that ? Are you bashing EPEAT ? Why ?

jmgregory1
Jul 11, 2012, 07:49 AM
Way to take their mission out of context with the small part of the actual mission statement.

Out of context? You're out of context. The whole mission: Our mission: Operate the most successful global environmental rating system for electronic products, helping connect purchasers to environmentally preferable choices, and thereby benefiting producers who demonstrate environmental responsibility and innovation.

Please, dear lord, tell me how the rest of their mission speaks of doing anything about helping the environment? Please, please tell me. "Helping connect purchasers to environmentally preferable choices, and thereby benefiting producers who demonstrate environmental responsibility and innovation."

Quite frankly, Apple seems to be a pretty damn good fit for consumers looking to buy environmentally preferable electronics as they are demonstrating environmental responsibility and innovation.

But you can choose to buy an HP or Dell or Samsung, or whatever you want because they're all doing things better than Apple.

KnightWRX
Jul 11, 2012, 07:52 AM
Out of context? You're out of context. The whole mission: Our mission: Operate the most successful global environmental rating system for electronic products, helping connect purchasers to environmentally preferable choices, and thereby benefiting producers who demonstrate environmental responsibility and innovation.

Please, dear lord, tell me how the rest of their mission speaks of doing anything about helping the environment?

By connecting purchasers to suppliers who want to buy products that meet EPEAT's requirements for sustainability for one ? What's wrong with establishing a sustainability rating system and operating it ?

hobo.hopkins
Jul 11, 2012, 07:55 AM
The reason makes sense to me, although I can see why some wouldn't like Apple's move here. The fact is that they have been committed towards environmental consciousness for a while now, and that won't change just because of this event.

RWinOR
Jul 11, 2012, 07:55 AM
I see it like this.

Buy an Apple computer. it is energy efficient, made of highly recyclable materials and has the lowest greenhouse emissions. But cannot be easily taken apart by consumers.

or

Buy a computer that waste power, made from plastic, and does not care about greenhouse emissions. But it can be taken apart easily.

Hum that is a easy decision for me.

By the way, all you who are up in arms about e-peat and taking your electronic devices apart for recycling.... what about Televisions, these are far bigger, and are replaced more frequently then any computer I have owned. Do you take those apart to recycle, how about digital cameras, DVD players, Stereo receivers, Cell phones, etc. (I'll bet there are way more cell phones in our land fills then apple computers!)

The average consumer does not tear down and disassemble any electronic device before disposing, or recycling. Using highly recyclable materials, and being environmentally friendly is a far better choice for everyone who lives on Planet Earth.

Flitzy
Jul 11, 2012, 07:57 AM
That's the lamest excuse I have ever heard from a company. They are attacking a standard as an excuse for pulling there products from attempting to follow that standard.

They should just face it that they can't meet EPEAT environmental standards. I love Apple products, but come on and stop trying to make excuses.

EPEAT is a private organization. Just because they publish a "standard", doesn't mean not following it makes you anti-environment.

Sounds to be like EPEAT is just trying to strong-arm Apple, while being hypocritical by ignoring handheld devices and tablets.

samcraig
Jul 11, 2012, 07:58 AM
Sorry - I can't help you with reading comprehension. I say that sincerely. If you believe what your wrote to be true and not out of context...

I guess LEEDS (which Apple also praises itself for having the platinum rating) is meaningless as well?

Out of context? You're out of context. The whole mission: Our mission: Operate the most successful global environmental rating system for electronic products, helping connect purchasers to environmentally preferable choices, and thereby benefiting producers who demonstrate environmental responsibility and innovation.

Please, dear lord, tell me how the rest of their mission speaks of doing anything about helping the environment? Please, please tell me. "Helping connect purchasers to environmentally preferable choices, and thereby benefiting producers who demonstrate environmental responsibility and innovation."

Quite frankly, Apple seems to be a pretty damn good fit for consumers looking to buy environmentally preferable electronics as they are demonstrating environmental responsibility and innovation.

But you can choose to buy an HP or Dell or Samsung, or whatever you want because they're all doing things better than Apple.

KnightWRX
Jul 11, 2012, 07:59 AM
I see it like this.

Buy an Apple computer. it is energy efficient, made of highly recyclable materials and has the lowest greenhouse emissions. But cannot be easily taken apart by consumers.

or

Buy a computer that waste power, made from plastic, and does not care about greenhouse emissions. But it can be taken apart easily.


or

Buy a computer that is energy efficient, made of highly recyclade materials and has the lowest greenhouse emissions and can be taken apart easily enabling any local recycler to dispose of it when the time comes.

You know, not everything in life has to be extremes. ;)

samcraig
Jul 11, 2012, 08:00 AM
EPEAT is a private organization. Just because they publish a "standard", doesn't mean not following it makes you anti-environment.

Sounds to be like EPEAT is just trying to strong-arm Apple, while being hypocritical by ignoring handheld devices and tablets.

No. EPEAT isn't trying to strongarm anything. SF isn't either. Did you not read this entire thread? Because I (and others) have made it very clear.

EPEAT has a standard. Apple doesn't meet it. EPEAT isn't certifying some products of Apple. The city of SF only will buy computers/laptops with an EPEAT rating. There's no forcing anyone to do anything. And no one is being hypocritical.

KnightWRX
Jul 11, 2012, 08:01 AM
Sounds to be like EPEAT is just trying to strong-arm Apple

What actions have EPEAT actually taken against Apple and how are they "strong-arming" them exactly ? Do you have any examples of this strong-arming or are you just making stuff up ?

Apple decided to follow EPEAT standards, then they decided not to. That's about the only thing that has happenned.

phillipduran
Jul 11, 2012, 08:05 AM
Apple is deciding they will do their own version of green and not be shackled to any 3rd party interpretation of what eco friendly means. Looks like control is back in the hands of Apple and they can lead on this. Sounds like smart business to me.

Most of these eco groups need to be marginalized anyhow.

samcraig
Jul 11, 2012, 08:06 AM
What actions have EPEAT actually taken against Apple and how are they "strong-arming" them exactly ? Do you have any examples of this strong-arming or are you just making stuff up ?

Apple decided to follow EPEAT standards, then they decided not to. That's about the only thing that has happenned.

In February - I had a list of standards I needed in a phone. Apple used to meet those. They decided not to. I must be trying to strong-arm them into complying with my wishes.

KnightWRX
Jul 11, 2012, 08:14 AM
Apple is deciding they will do their own version of green and not be shackled to any 3rd party interpretation of what eco friendly means. Looks like control is back in the hands of Apple and they can lead on this. Sounds like smart business to me.

Control has always been in the hand of Apple. They were never "shackled" to EPEAT since participation in the rating system has always been optional.

Most of these eco groups need to be marginalized anyhow.

Eco groups ? EPEAT is a tool built from a grant by the EPA, a US government agency : http://www.epa.gov/epeat/. The EPA gave the management to the GEC, a non-profit organisation : http://www.greenelectronicscouncil.org/pages/about. Eco terrorists these guys aren't...

koolmagicguy
Jul 11, 2012, 08:15 AM
$45,000 per year is not much at all. Apple will lost more than that from green people. And no, I'm not referring to aliens.

bedifferent
Jul 11, 2012, 08:17 AM
I believe what was meant by EPEAT's standards being "outdated" refer's to Apple's latest technology in their non-user serviceable "retina" notebooks being "unfit" for EPEAT even though the devices are technically eco-conscious. As the retina displays require a tighter form factor they do not qualify for EPEAT's list, however EPEAT needs to address their list to recognize that if a tech isn't user serviceable it does not necessarily mean it is environmentally toxic. Apple can and will recycle the devices, and the devices are still utilizing the same eco-conscious/recyclable materials as before; aluminum, mercury and arsenic free materials and parts.

While I do not like Apple's move to less user serviceable/upgradeable systems for other reasons, I still believe that Apple products are leading the tech industry into better environmental responsibility. Group's such as EPEAT aren't doing this for fun, they do a good job at keeping company's in check without strong arming any one or hindering their ability in the free market.

a.gomez
Jul 11, 2012, 08:19 AM
That's the lamest excuse I have ever heard from a company. They are attacking a standard as an excuse for pulling there products from attempting to follow that standard.

They should just face it that they can't meet EPEAT environmental standards. I love Apple products, but come on and stop trying to make excuses.

Yep... nothing but spin from Apple - sad thing is some will believe this stupidity.

samcraig
Jul 11, 2012, 08:28 AM
Control has always been in the hand of Apple. They were never "shackled" to EPEAT since participation in the rating system has always been optional.



Eco groups ? EPEAT is a tool built from a grant by the EPA, a US government agency : http://www.epa.gov/epeat/. The EPA gave the management to the GEC, a non-profit organisation : http://www.greenelectronicscouncil.org/pages/about. Eco terrorists these guys aren't...

Not to mention - Apple had been instrumental in developing the EPEAT certification standards.

miniroll32
Jul 11, 2012, 08:44 AM
This whole issue will most likely wash over once Apple start releasing more computers with Retina-MBP functionality. The company have been producing very 'closed' products for many years now, and it surely won't be long before the idea of letting a customer open up their Mac/iDevice will seem old hat. It's just the way things are going unfortunately, and it's how they've managed to continue miniaturising their technology.

johncrab
Jul 11, 2012, 08:48 AM
Apple makes a valid point and Epeat acknowledged that they are behind the ball on this one. This is another case of ISO-like standards aging out of relevance and some (like government departments) unable to move beyond them once they are set in stone. Just like ISO, this has become irrelevant and will soon go away when it becomes obvious to those clinging to it that nothing but old, outdated stuff meets these old, outdated specs.

jmgregory1
Jul 11, 2012, 08:50 AM
I would welcome everyone to look at EPEAT's standards so that we all can better guess why exactly Apple has decided to pull its products from EPEAT. But they will be guesses regardless until Apple divulges their exact reasons.

Some of you will decide it's because Apple is doing the wrong thing and others will, myself included, decide that it's because the standards were created (and agreed to even by Apple) at a time when manufacturing processes were different than they are today and because the standards haven't changed, while Apple's production processes and business has.

If you review the ieee 1680 standards, you'll note that it includes things like the requirement for upgradability (with common tools), a 3 year service contract, product life extension (up to 5 years) and easy disassembly of external enclosures.

Most of these things sound reasonable, but they also sound like things that were created years ago. You can argue that you want to be able to pull and replace ram or an ssd or whatever, but tech, like with automobiles, is moving beyond the days when you could swap out parts (easily) at home. Life is full of examples where you used to be able to fix things yourself, but times change. Should we all be expecting that our cars are made using phillips head screws and carburetors that we can take apart ourselves?

My issue with EPEAT and to a greater extent ISO and other groups like this, including one that I've been dealing with for years in the paper industry, FSC (forest stewardship council), is that they misinform the general public what exactly they are, whether that is on purpose or not. ISO certification doesn't make a company greener or better for the environment - 14001 for example "does not state requirements for environmental performance, but maps out a framework that a company or organization can follow to set up an effective environmental management system." But companies tout their 14001 certification as if that makes them a green company and the general public (if they know anything about ISO 14001) thinks the company is all good. The same goes for 9000 or 9001 certification. Do you know what 9001:2008 certification represents?

I'm not saying it's a bad thing to be certified to any standards certification body, but it's not what most people think it is and may in fact have no real bearing on whether a company is doing the right thing, be it for the environment, the customer or the company stateholders.

FSC has done a great job in marketing to designers of printed pieces - check out your latest copy of just about any major retailer catalog you get in the mail for the FSC logo on the back. Consumers (or in this case designers and the companies they work for) think that an FSC certified paper means it is some magically better paper for the environment (a paper not made with redwood or some other Amazonian rainforest trees). They don't know that FSC allows trading of the FSC badge to occur and if a company is willing to pay the money, can be certified regardless of whether they're effectively tracking chain of custody of the paper/pulp/wood product. So when my company produces a product that isn't FSC certified (because we're the only company in the world doing what we do and FSC would need to charge us extra to create a category for us), we may lose out on getting a piece of business with a company that demands FSC certification. Of course when we tell people the reality behind what we produce, how we have from the beginning gone so far beyond what FSC requires (simple tracking of the wood through the system) it is an eye opener for them.

thestickman
Jul 11, 2012, 08:52 AM
This whole "green" has been a crock of bovine droppings from the beginning. I applaud Apple for leaving that ridiculous EPEAT nonsense.

Macboy Pro
Jul 11, 2012, 08:53 AM
Apple's direction is clearly back to proprietary design and parts, not user friendly, not upgradeable. Unfortunately, this does come down to greed indirectly.

Here is my point:
#1If you can't upgrade, can't fix it, and have a 1 year warranty, you have a paperweight or a $1000+ bill to repair it after one year, payable to Apple. (memory soldered to board, screen is glued to casing, etc)

#2 You have the option to buy a 3YR Applecare for $350 (which is really two additional years). Then you have a $1000+ bill to repair, of course payable to Apple

#3 In either case, you can not upgrade your technology to gain more years out of your product, which will lead to more new purchases, payable to Apple.

All in the name of "thin" and the "wow" factor. Being a huge Apple fan, this is very frustrating. No one that knows me would ever think I would be looking in other directions for technology, but I feel the urge.

Apple needs to temper their confidence.

Bezetos
Jul 11, 2012, 08:56 AM
The average consumer would GO TO THE NEAREST APPLE STORE AND TAKE THEIR DEVICE FOR RECYCLING AND GET A GIFT CARD FOR DOING SO..if there are no Apple Store nearby, the average consumer will get Apple to ship it for free to recycle their old device and get a gift card for doing so.

P.S. I got a $163 for recycling my old ass almost dead iMac..

http://www.apple.com/recycling/

Ok, let me make this clear...

Apple wants you to, instead of selling your equipment, to give it to them, so they can refurbish it and sell it again and they give you a gift card so that you can spend it on their iTunes Store and nothing else? I guess this only works when your phone/computer is dead.

whooleytoo
Jul 11, 2012, 08:57 AM
Hyperbole? They are hardly Public Enemy #1. Not even by a longshot.

Why would EPEAT have to make any comment about any company/product to single them out? EPEAT has standards. If something doesn't meet their standards - they don't give it their "blessing."

If EPEAT were going to release any statement it would be the products that DO meet standards. Why would they release statements about millions of products that don't?

A little hyperbole, certainly, but not much. Given the "hippie" & "green scam" comments and comparison with the Catholic church on the EPEAT threads, I think it fits in nicely with the existing OTT hyperbole on the thread.

And I wasn't suggesting EPEAT release any statement. I'm commenting on how EPEAT is being criticised (perhaps even 'castigated') without them taking any action or making any comment. Apple withdraws from EPEAT, releases a statement on the matter, and now there are many posts ridiculing the EPEAT standards. Where was the indignation a few weeks ago?

samcraig
Jul 11, 2012, 08:57 AM
This whole "green" has been a crock of bovine droppings from the beginning. I applaud Apple for leaving that ridiculous EPEAT nonsense.

Yes - but you're forgetting - they were instrumental in formulating EPEAT's standards. They might be outdated - but calling them ridiculous or nonsense is ridiculous and nonsense. :)

Fwink!
Jul 11, 2012, 09:00 AM
All epeat has to do is upgrade their standards to include tablets & phones. When Apple is faced with losing school and corporate orders over their insistence on form over function, they may change their "iTune".

On the other hand epeat needs to update their standard to reflect current product trends.

And gov agencies can stop with the false "green" schemes, we all know how wasteful, fat, and sloppy gov is in general.

it's all fail.

samcraig
Jul 11, 2012, 09:01 AM
A little hyperbole, certainly, but not much. Given the "hippie" & "green scam" comments and comparison with the Catholic church on the EPEAT threads, I think it fits in nicely with the existing OTT hyperbole on the thread.

And I wasn't suggesting EPEAT release any statement. I'm commenting on how EPEAT is being criticised (perhaps even 'castigated') without them taking any action or making any comment. Apple withdraws from EPEAT, releases a statement on the matter, and now there are many posts ridiculing the EPEAT standards. Where was the indignation a few weeks ago?

More hyperbole. Can you point out (aside from on here) how EPEAT is being castigated? If anything - Apple's getting all the negative press. And I wouldn't call THEM getting castigated either.

It's also hard to post statements which have indignation BEFORE the issue came to light. How many mind readers are on these boards? Oh yeah - I forgot ;)

You could ask yourself - why didn't Apple release a statement at the time they knew they wouldn't be EPEAT qualified? That's not a serious question. Nor should they have.

applesith
Jul 11, 2012, 09:06 AM
LolWhat?! Why do you care? Apple isn't going to pass the savings on to you.

Better them have the money than EPEAT.

Mad-B-One
Jul 11, 2012, 09:06 AM
Now, it might be that the standards are outdated, but just revisit the post about the teardown of the rMBP for a while: The lowest repairability score ever! Not because they solder everything including RAM onto the MB. That would be perfectly okay. They glued the battery onto cables for the trackpad and into the unibody. In other words: Your trackpad fails, battery and body are toxic waste. Now, if you think I am wrong, explain to me how to disasamble it easy and safe (keep in mind that the Li-Ion battery goes up in flames with toxic gases when punctured) for a standard electro waste recycling plant, and I will back down on that claim. It is not like there would not have been alternatives. All Apple saved here was that 3rd parties could replace a battery and a few cents to either use a different way to glue it in (such as only point-glued on preak-away latches) or using screwed latches. Also, the way to access some of the products cause possible destruction of parts. Most of the times, this is only the problem because Apple chose to so they have a monopoly on service and the life cycles of the products cannot be extended propperly by 3rd parties. So, even if the guidelines are updated, just because Apple uses a solar power plant for a datacenter does not mean that their products are "green."
Back to recycling: A pentalobe screw is not anything hindering recycling. So, whoever brought that argument for the iPhone: Recycling centers have those. The iPhone itself is probably pretty easy to take apart, actually. My major concern is the glued-to-the-body batteries. Everything else is less dramatic. a RAM module goes the same way a mainboard would go. Arguing with that it makes more sense to sell your old equipment is bogeous. Eventually, it will go towards its end of life and needs recycling. Also: 6 years down the road, if the rMBP battery fails, the thing is a brick without a power plug becuase it would be way to expensive to repair. Now, for many 7 year old laptops with removable batteries, you will find 3rd parties offering them and the device can either still be used for a donation (give it to a church, they find a missionary in Africa or South America who will find use for sure) or other uses such as your kids.

HelveticaRoman
Jul 11, 2012, 09:07 AM
Don't be too surprised if Apple is broken up soon, even if their machines can't be.

RogueWarrior65
Jul 11, 2012, 09:11 AM
In other words: b.s. was trumping innovation. Government bureaucracies are always the lumbering giant with the mentality of Lennie Small. Glad to see that Apple is telling one to go pound sand.

CJM
Jul 11, 2012, 09:12 AM
Every Target I've been to has a device recycling bin. Also, Apple offers to recycle your old device for free. They'll pay for everything including the shipping. If I'm not mistaken you also get an Apple gift card out of it? Can't remember if that detail is correct or not; someone else can check.

Not in my country, you don't.

samcraig
Jul 11, 2012, 09:14 AM
In other words: b.s. was trumping innovation. Government bureaucracies are always the lumbering giant with the mentality of Lennie Small. Glad to see that Apple is telling one to go pound sand.

How so? What innovation was stifled? Do you have a list? Nothing was stifled.

KnightWRX
Jul 11, 2012, 09:16 AM
All epeat has to do is upgrade their standards to include tablets & phones.

This isn't about tablets and phones.

samcraig
Jul 11, 2012, 09:17 AM
This isn't about tablets and phones.

Reading comprehension on this thread is perhaps at an all time low.

Flitzy
Jul 11, 2012, 09:23 AM
Apple's direction is clearly back to proprietary design and parts, not user friendly, not upgradeable. Unfortunately, this does come down to greed indirectly.

Here is my point:
#1If you can't upgrade, can't fix it, and have a 1 year warranty, you have a paperweight or a $1000+ bill to repair it after one year, payable to Apple. (memory soldered to board, screen is glued to casing, etc)

#2 You have the option to buy a 3YR Applecare for $350 (which is really two additional years). Then you have a $1000+ bill to repair, of course payable to Apple

#3 In either case, you can not upgrade your technology to gain more years out of your product, which will lead to more new purchases, payable to Apple.

All in the name of "thin" and the "wow" factor. Being a huge Apple fan, this is very frustrating. No one that knows me would ever think I would be looking in other directions for technology, but I feel the urge.

Apple needs to temper their confidence.

There's absolutely no need to open up and tinker with a Mac product. I've had the same MBP for four years now, never once needed to take it apart.

The whole "oh, we can't take these things apart" stuff is just ridiculous. Nobody cares about that.

KnightWRX
Jul 11, 2012, 09:34 AM
The whole "oh, we can't take these things apart" stuff is just ridiculous. Nobody cares about that.

Except local recyclers that want to tear apart and seperate recycable from non-recycable material and sort them.

whooleytoo
Jul 11, 2012, 09:37 AM
More hyperbole. Can you point out (aside from on here) how EPEAT is being castigated? If anything - Apple's getting all the negative press. And I wouldn't call THEM getting castigated either.

It's also hard to post statements which have indignation BEFORE the issue came to light. How many mind readers are on these boards? Oh yeah - I forgot ;)

You could ask yourself - why didn't Apple release a statement at the time they knew they wouldn't be EPEAT qualified? That's not a serious question. Nor should they have.

All quotes from this thread alone. If being "outdated", "hypocritical", "BS" and irrelevant isn't castigating, then you and I, sir, have very different ideas of "castigated". :)

"EPEAT was outdated anyway, so screw them!"

"Just chiming in to say the EPEAT standards are BS."

"Sounds to be like EPEAT is just trying to strong-arm Apple, while being hypocritical by ignoring handheld devices and tablets."

"I love their mission - "Operate the most successful global environmental rating system for electronic products..." Their goal is to operate a rating system - not to reduce or eliminate electronic waste or to better recycle said parts."

"I'd question the relevance of the body to anything real."

And no mind-reading needed - the EPEAT certification hasn't changed (that I'm aware of) in the last month or so. So why do people who - seemingly - had no issue with EPEAT last month suddenly have such an issue, when EPEAT hasn't changed, but Apple's production process has?

Mad-B-One
Jul 11, 2012, 09:42 AM
If you review the ieee 1680 standards, you'll note that it includes things like the requirement for upgradability (with common tools), a 3 year service contract, product life extension (up to 5 years) and easy disassembly of external enclosures.

Most of these things sound reasonable, but they also sound like things that were created years ago. You can argue that you want to be able to pull and replace ram or an ssd or whatever, but tech, like with automobiles, is moving beyond the days when you could swap out parts (easily) at home. Life is full of examples where you used to be able to fix things yourself, but times change. Should we all be expecting that our cars are made using phillips head screws and carburetors that we can take apart ourselves?

But why is that? Not because it couldn't be accomplished, it is because shorter life cycles and higher repair costs are what these companies want. Let's take ieee 1680: How much arder or more expensive would it be to comply to that standard? Apple can do all kind of wonders with engineering, but it can't do that? I simply don't believe that.
Looking at cars, same thing: When car radios were either DIN (German Industry Norm) our double DIN (ISO 7736), you could replace and upgrade faily easily and inexpensive. I had a Ford Focus with a simple CD player. CD didn't work. Replacement costs: $450 plus labor. Really? I could have gotten get a navigation system for that amount if the vehicle would have a DIN or double DIN! I worked in the car industry for one of the brake technology suppliers: Car companies don't do that because it makes cars better. They do that because the car traders make money on repairing cars. In a lot of countries, the sales are usually not covering all costs where competition is high, so, by having parts installed you cannot repair or replace by yourself, you create revenue for them. Another quick example would be key replacement: If you have a VW after 2006, you have to get even the battery of your remote replaced by VW because the key has to be syncronized afterwards - for a premium, of course! Lost a key? Even with transmitter, no problem if you had the "master key" 15 years ago (even manual explained how to do it). Now: look at the rentals warning for Enterprise (they have that on every key they hand you): "The average costs to replace a key is $225."

samcraig
Jul 11, 2012, 09:42 AM
Got it. I thought you meant EPEAT was getting catigated in the the real world - you know - where it matters. Because that's where Apple is getting all the bad press on this one. In the real world.

All quotes from this thread alone. If being "outdated", "hypocritical", "BS" and irrelevant isn't castigating, then you and I, sir, have very different ideas of "castigated". :)

"EPEAT was outdated anyway, so screw them!"

"Just chiming in to say the EPEAT standards are BS."

"Sounds to be like EPEAT is just trying to strong-arm Apple, while being hypocritical by ignoring handheld devices and tablets."

"I love their mission - "Operate the most successful global environmental rating system for electronic products..." Their goal is to operate a rating system - not to reduce or eliminate electronic waste or to better recycle said parts."

"I'd question the relevance of the body to anything real."

And no mind-reading needed - the EPEAT certification hasn't changed (that I'm aware of) in the last month or so. So why do people who - seemingly - had no issue with EPEAT last month suddenly have such an issue, when EPEAT hasn't changed, but Apple's production process has?

rocknblogger
Jul 11, 2012, 09:42 AM
At least try to look at the big picture. Its not about some simplistic measure of green-ness of the device currently in your hand, or what one particular manufacturer does.

By requiring an arbitrary amount of recycled plastic in every product, you ensure that there is a market for recycled plastic, creating an incentive to collect plastic for recycling. Insisting on 100% wouldn't work - there will be technical reasons why some parts can't be recycled - while not require any would mean manufacturers wouldn't consider recycled if it cost 1 cent more per ton.

Concequence: even your product with 200g of non-recycled plastic is more likely to get recycled because of the standards.

Likewise, people have been saying 'oh, but I sell on, or donate my old computers, and I can always take it back to the Mac store' - fine, but when San Fransisco clears an office building in ten year's time do you expect them to sort everything by manufacturer (including those who have gone bust or disappeard in a string of takeovers) and send them back individually (while also ensuring that each company isn't just having them buried or incinerated in the third world)? I bet commercial recyclers don't get a $5000 gift voucher for rolling up at an Apple store with a truckload of g4s. Nope, that's when you want an army of minimally trained (because it ain't gonna pay well) people with screwdrivers breaking stuff down into metal, glass, plastics and 'electronics'.

...and even if you sell on, or donate your old stuff, that gets it out of your mind but it doesn't cease to exist. Eventually, its going to be scrapped and someone has to get rid of it. Repairability (not so much the ability to take it back to a certified apple repairer, but to cannibalize parts from other old computers) will help delay that - but when it finally does die, that's when the ability to easily break it up into metal, plastics, 'electronics' and batteries, and deal with each appropriately, becomes important.

Glad to see someone else gets it!!

Dreyrugr
Jul 11, 2012, 09:43 AM
I'm not understanding why it is necessary for a consumer to be able to disassemble something in order to have it recycled. Most recycling facilities I'm familiar with begin with a large grinder.

Flitzy
Jul 11, 2012, 09:43 AM
Except local recyclers that want to tear apart and seperate recycable from non-recycable material and sort them.

Not being about to take apart a laptop isn't going to kill the environment.

Just like, according to EPEAT, not being able to take apart tablets and phones isn't going to kill the environment.

They're just mad Apple called them out on their ridiculous hypocrisy.

EPEAT is not the gods of recycling - they're a suggested series of guidelines. Much like W3C is not the gods of the Internet.

Mad-B-One
Jul 11, 2012, 09:54 AM
There's absolutely no need to open up and tinker with a Mac product. I've had the same MBP for four years now, never once needed to take it apart.

The whole "oh, we can't take these things apart" stuff is just ridiculous. Nobody cares about that.

Waaaait! Wasn't there an free replacement issue with the MBP and graphics? Now, it is not about costs when it comes to the environment: If there is an issue with a product and virtually the whole thing ends up being waste, THAT is an issue they don't get certified for. Now, if that happens to you right after your warranty runs out and you have to fill the tab, you will see this differently. Let's say your batty fails on a rMBP in three years and one week. You have to pay the replacement af everything but the logic board and screen? Nice. Thanks, Apple!

samcraig
Jul 11, 2012, 10:07 AM
Not being about to take apart a laptop isn't going to kill the environment.

Just like, according to EPEAT, not being able to take apart tablets and phones isn't going to kill the environment.

They're just mad Apple called them out on their ridiculous hypocrisy.

EPEAT is not the gods of recycling - they're a suggested series of guidelines. Much like W3C is not the gods of the Internet.

EPEAT isn't mad. Apple issued this statement after Apple withdrew their products. Do you understand what actually happened and the order of events? No one is "mad." Except maybe some MR members.

Mad-B-One
Jul 11, 2012, 10:07 AM
I'm not understanding why it is necessary for a consumer to be able to disassemble something in order to have it recycled. Most recycling facilities I'm familiar with begin with a large grinder.

How many are you familiar with then? Want to elaborate? All reports I've seen on that was disasamby first and then the grinder for the guts.

whooleytoo
Jul 11, 2012, 10:12 AM
Got it. I thought you meant EPEAT was getting catigated in the the real world - you know - where it matters. Because that's where Apple is getting all the bad press on this one. In the real world.

Ha! :) I've long ago learned that most threads develop into pointless arm-wrestles that solve nothing since most participants have picked a side and aren't changing.

Back in the real world, it'd be a shame if the rMBP and Apple's subsequent abandonment of the EPEAT certification leads to others following suit - without any replacement being in place. Apple may well have had genuine reasons for the production process they chose, but that doesn't mean that every laptop should be glued-together. It'd be nice if they could work together with EPEAT/EPA, or perhaps better yet, with industry partners and manufacturers, to implement more up-to-date recycling standards and processes.

I guess it's understandable that a standards body would be slow to change. After all, who'd want to comply to a standard that could change mid-project and render a product non-certifiable even before it's released.

FloatingBones
Jul 11, 2012, 10:20 AM
3) People attacking EPEAT for having outdated standards (though I don't think most people even know what those standards are), though Apple proudly touted their logo for the last 5 years. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

It would seem that Apple's dropping of the EPEAT standards is an eloquent resolution to the dilemma you note. EPEAT has outlived its usefulness, and Apple provides a means for customers to recycle their old Apple equipment.

I'm generally skeptical of the utility of government agencies addressing consumer products. The CARB standards (http://www.arb.ca.gov/consprod/fuel-containers/pfc/pfc.htm) for gasoline cans sound like a good idea; the general principle is that gas cans must be self-sealing when users are not pouring gas into the fuel tank of their lawn mowers, tractors, etc. As a practical matter, those rules are a train wreck. Virtually all of the mechanisms in cheap gas cans will break within a few months. I have found only one gas can line, the No-spill can (http://nospill.com/), actually works reliably and doesn't break. Unfortunately, customers and retailers are highly sensitive to price; most retail outlets don't sell the No-spill line. When the cheap cans break, they leak fuel vapors -- often far more than the old simple cans with a separate vent.

Isn't this failure obvious to the CARB? Why don't they do something to address their unworkable rules? Unfortunately, these California rules now apply to the entire US; consumers seeking a workable product must find it on their own.

I hope that Apple conversed with the EPEAT organization to try to make their standards more workable; we have no idea what happened behind the scenes. SF's response to Apple's actions sound rather knee-jerk to me.

rocknblogger
Jul 11, 2012, 10:29 AM
Not being about to take apart a laptop isn't going to kill the environment.

Just like, according to EPEAT, not being able to take apart tablets and phones isn't going to kill the environment.

They're just mad Apple called them out on their ridiculous hypocrisy.

EPEAT is not the gods of recycling - they're a suggested series of guidelines. Much like W3C is not the gods of the Internet.

Who's mad? EPEAT has not made a single comment regarding Apple. Apple decided to withdraw on their own no one forced them to do anything. And what makes this whole thing more puzzling is that they withdrew ALL of their products but only the rMBP doesn't qualify under EPEAT guidelines.

theluggage
Jul 11, 2012, 10:33 AM
Not being about to take apart a laptop isn't going to kill the environment.

No, but not being able to safely and economically dispose of the mountains of electronic junk generated each year in a country of 300 million people could be a major headache. (Or, for those of us outside the USA, rather fewer people living in a much smaller area with fewer opportunities for landfill).

A quick Google suggests that Apple are currently selling 3-4 million Macs every quarter - and that's just one manufacturer making one particular category of product, so you need to multiply that by, oh, I dunno, lots, to get the total volume of junk that will have to be disposed of in 5-10 years time. How much do you want to bet on all those companies still existing, with "bring it back to us for recycling" policies still intact, by then?

I doubt that even Apple have budgeted their recycling project for that long (and I bet the budget only assumes that a fraction of Macs will actually come back to them).

But no, let all the other companies making slightly thicker laptops worry about this - Apple should get a free pass because they're so, so pretty. Of course, then no manufacturer will want to join if it means that their laptops will always be 2mm fatter than Apple's.

Oh, and I'm sure that EPEAT would love to extend their register to mobiles and tablets if someone funded them and/or if there was demand from the 'users' of their ratings (i.e. companies and government institutions who want to be environmentally responsible). Maybe that has something to do with Apple's departure.

SBlue1
Jul 11, 2012, 10:38 AM
I replaced my old MacBook with the latest one a few weeks ago. I took out the ram and sold it on eBay and tore the hard disc out and formatted it with a hammer. :) Now i can bring the rest back to the Apple store to get it recycled.

I am curious how I am gonna do this with my new MacBook pro.

mdelvecchio
Jul 11, 2012, 10:49 AM
It still doesn't excuse making it harder for an average consumer to tear apart the device to take it in for recycling.


...yes, because the average consumer dismantles their laptops for recycling. riiight.

you do realize apple accepts any of their computers for proper recycling, right?

gnasher729
Jul 11, 2012, 10:51 AM
Ok, let me make this clear...

Apple wants you to, instead of selling your equipment, to give it to them, so they can refurbish it and sell it again and they give you a gift card so that you can spend it on their iTunes Store and nothing else? I guess this only works when your phone/computer is dead.

No. If you find someone to buy your equipment, go ahead and sell it to them. If, however, you want to get rid of an old Apple computer, and can't be bothered to find a buyer, or figured out that nobody is going to buy it, then you can take it to Apple, who will give you money if it still has value, and recycle it (and refurbishing would be the best imaginable way of recycling), instead of dumping it and it ending up in a landfill.

jmgregory1
Jul 11, 2012, 10:51 AM
No, but not being able to safely and economically dispose of the mountains of electronic junk generated each year in a country of 300 million people could be a major headache. (Or, for those of us outside the USA, rather fewer people living in a much smaller area with fewer opportunities for landfill).

A quick Google suggests that Apple are currently selling 3-4 million Macs every quarter - and that's just one manufacturer making one particular category of product, so you need to multiply that by, oh, I dunno, lots, to get the total volume of junk that will have to be disposed of in 5-10 years time. How much do you want to bet on all those companies still existing, with "bring it back to us for recycling" policies still intact, by then?

I doubt that even Apple have budgeted their recycling project for that long (and I bet the budget only assumes that a fraction of Macs will actually come back to them).

But no, let all the other companies making slightly thicker laptops worry about this - Apple should get a free pass because they're so, so pretty. Of course, then no manufacturer will want to join if it means that their laptops will always be 2mm fatter than Apple's.

Oh, and I'm sure that EPEAT would love to extend their register to mobiles and tablets if someone funded them and/or if there was demand from the 'users' of their ratings (i.e. companies and government institutions who want to be environmentally responsible). Maybe that has something to do with Apple's departure.

That's the thing. You can't look at the number of Apple computers sold each year and assume that is the number that ends up in a landfill. I get that you can't expect the same number to be recycled back to Apple either. But we really don't know how many are dumped, just as we don't know how many pc's are dumped each year.

My guess, and I know it's just a guess, is that far fewer Apple computers are dumped and/or recycled each year compared to any other brand pc. Regardless of whether you want to talk about some issues some Apple computers have had over the years that cost extra to repair or replace, their customer satisfaction rating has almost always been higher than other pc makers (go ahead and prove me wrong if you must, because I'm not going to dig up citations on everything I say).

And in 5-10 years, no one can say how things will be recycled. But I'm guessing it's not going to be by someone, even in a third world country, hand disassembling laptops who will complain that they can't pull the battery off of the aluminum case.

Without digging further, this is what I came up with from a few years ago regarding dumping and recycling of electronics.

3.2 million tons of electronic waste is trashed annually. This is a huge amount, especially considering that most of it can be reused in some manner. 99% of a computer is recycleable. Only 500,000 are recycled annually, a shocking number considering how many programs are in place to encourage electronic recycling.

Citations:http://www.greenstudentu.com/encyclopedia/recycling
http://www.prlog.org/10351086-saving-the-planet-one-little-computer-at-time.html
Read more: http://greenanswers.com/q/90840/recycling-waste/how-many-computers-get-recycled-each-year/#ixzz20KSt6Bsm

gnasher729
Jul 11, 2012, 10:52 AM
I doubt that even Apple have budgeted their recycling project for that long (and I bet the budget only assumes that a fraction of Macs will actually come back to them).

If you look at Apple's website, their estimate is that 70% (by weight) make it back to Apple, compared to 20% for Dell.

AZREOSpecialist
Jul 11, 2012, 11:02 AM
That does seem like a big step for San fransisco. Denying apple solely for te fact that they do not have the title.

I don't think we should be holding San Francisco up as an example of anything.

autrefois
Jul 11, 2012, 11:10 AM
When I first started buying Apple products in the mid-2000's, I remember that Apple was having a hard time getting certified as "green" by anyone. Their products at the time had higher than average levels of toxic materials. Looking back on those days as "the good old days" is like thinking fondly of our childhood when we'd collect the mercury from broken thermometers so we could roll the pretty, harmless, liquid metal across our palms.

Thank Steve Apple made a conscious effort to use fewer harmful materials in their products, and thinner computers use less material overall.

Yes, Apple was bad environmentally, then worked hard to get certified green and fortunately succeeded. Now they've announced they aren't going to try to meet the standards that until this week they were bragging about meeting. Don't you see this as a step in the wrong direction?

While (slightly) thinner computers will generally use fewer materials, if it is harder or impossible to recycle more of the components that are used in this computer, then it isn't really progress on this front.

lilo777
Jul 11, 2012, 11:10 AM
I don't think we should be holding San Francisco up as an example of anything.

Why not? People love the city. Don't they have the highest real estate prices in entire nation?

jmgregory1
Jul 11, 2012, 11:16 AM
Yes, Apple was bad environmentally, then worked hard to get certified green and fortunately succeeded. Now they've announced they aren't going to try to meet the standards that until this week they were bragging about meeting. Don't you see this as a step in the wrong direction?

While (slightly) thinner computers will generally use fewer materials, if it is harder or impossible to recycle more of the components that are used in this computer, then it isn't really progress on this front.

You can't equate Apple's recycle-ability based upon the fact that they have pulled out of a ratings system. Others have noted, Apple was bashed by Greenpeace for not having a policy regarding some toxic chemical - that other manufacturers agreed to work to reduce. So Apple looks bad - but the reality was Apple didn't have policy statement on it because they had stopped using it 2 years prior.

Are they perfect, of course not. Should they be lumped into the same category as companies that produce throw away cheap pc's? Of course not.

autrefois
Jul 11, 2012, 11:17 AM
There's absolutely no need to open up and tinker with a Mac product. I've had the same MBP for four years now, never once needed to take it apart.

The whole "oh, we can't take these things apart" stuff is just ridiculous. Nobody cares about that.

Nobody cares about upgrading or servicing a $1000+ MacBook PRO? These are supposed to be professional machines, after all. Sure not everyone is going to do so, and not everyone who buys a MBP actually needs a pro machine, but they should change the name if they're really just meant as disposal consumer machines that you can't customize or upgrade (much less repair) during their lifetime.

KnightWRX
Jul 11, 2012, 11:24 AM
Not being about to take apart a laptop isn't going to kill the environment.

Sure, neither is adjusting your carb to run a bit richer your already low MPG muscle car from the 60s. In fact, the environnement is much more likely to kill us and then go on to heal itself over a few million years.

Just like, according to EPEAT, not being able to take apart tablets and phones isn't going to kill the environment.

Can you point to where EPEAT makes that claim ?

They're just mad Apple called them out on their ridiculous hypocrisy.

How can a tool be mad ? Do you have sources for this anger emenating from this tool ?

EPEAT is not the gods of recycling - they're a suggested series of guidelines. Much like W3C is not the gods of the Internet.

Sure they're not, but when you want to be compatible on the Web, you follow W3C guidelines. Makes life easier for everyone else writing web sites and web browsers.

Just like when you want to promote sustainability, you work with EPEAT, a tool that provides standards and good practices for that.

jmgregory1
Jul 11, 2012, 11:34 AM
Nobody cares about upgrading or servicing a $1000+ MacBook PRO? These are supposed to be professional machines, after all. Sure not everyone is going to do so, and not everyone who buys a MBP actually needs a pro machine, but they should change the name if they're really just meant as disposal consumer machines that you can't customize or upgrade (much less repair) during their lifetime.

Again, how does being called a professional product equate to being user serviceable or upgradable? The mba I use isn't called a professional product, yet I make money using it, therefor it is a professional piece of technology for me.

I know plenty of designers and photographers who make their living using Apple computers. They're not complaining that they can't open up the case to "tweak" the computer. If something goes wrong with their Mac (which is really just a tool for them), they do expect it can be fixed and they take it to Apple to do so. The design team I used to work with is still using G4 and G5 Mac Pros (which actually happen to be the epitome of user service-able computers), but again, they're not spending any time taking them apart or upgrading them. If they function for them as is, there is nothing for them to "upgrade" or fix.

And this idea that any of Apple's products are disposable consumer products baffles me. They are, for the most part, high quality pieces of technology that do as they are intended to do. Apple doesn't expect anyone to throw away any of their products. Even the crazy iPhone upgraders (myself included) are not dumping their old iPhones into the landfill, but rather selling them or passing them down for others to use - but that's a whole other issue.

StyxMaker
Jul 11, 2012, 11:42 AM
I'll take "San Francisco thinking" over most of the "red state thinking" any day.

Wait - does using "red state" and "thinking" in the same sentence constitute an oxymoron? I think that it does....

Mega-dittos

KnightWRX
Jul 11, 2012, 11:42 AM
The mba I use

MacBook Air (13-inch, Late 2010) - Technical Specifications (http://support.apple.com/kb/SP618)
MacBook Air achieved a Gold rating from EPEAT in the U.S., Canada, France, Germany, and the UK.

jmgregory1
Jul 11, 2012, 11:52 AM
Sure, neither is adjusting your carb to run a bit richer your already low MPG muscle car from the 60s. In fact, the environnement is much more likely to kill us and then go on to heal itself over a few million years.



Can you point to where EPEAT makes that claim ?



How can a tool be mad ? Do you have sources for this anger emenating from this tool ?



Sure they're not, but when you want to be compatible on the Web, you follow W3C guidelines. Makes life easier for everyone else writing web sites and web browsers.

Just like when you want to promote sustainability, you work with EPEAT, a tool that provides standards and good practices for that.

No - promoting sustainability does not mean you work with EPEAT. That's a marketing choice, not a sustainability choice. A company and a product can be significantly more environmentally responsible and have ZERO affiliation with an environmental marketing program.

And don't you think that the auto industries move from carburetors to electronic fuel injection was a good thing?

Doing so took away the ability for most people to tinker with their car (at least the fuel injection part). And it vastly improved both the efficiency and negative environmental impact that carburetors had.

So Apple changes how they do things and it pisses off those consumers who want to be able to tweak and it also goes against the policies set up for recycle-ability of computers years before.

I'm sorry, but times change.

----------

MacBook Air (13-inch, Late 2010) - Technical Specifications (http://support.apple.com/kb/SP618)

Gee, that is not what you were talking about, nor was it what I was talking about. It was the idea of what is considered and sold as being professional.

KnightWRX
Jul 11, 2012, 11:58 AM
No - promoting sustainability does not mean you work with EPEAT. That's a marketing choice, not a sustainability choice. A company and a product can be significantly more environmentally responsible and have ZERO affiliation with an environmental marketing program.

I never said they can't. EPEAT is a rating system that defines a given set of criteria. It doesn't define all criteria though, and it's purely optional. No one is forced to adhere to these criteria.

And don't you think that the auto industries move from carburetors to electronic fuel injection was a good thing?

Never said the contrary, read the quote and answer in context again.

Doing so took away the ability for most people to tinker with their car (at least the fuel injection part).

Couldn't be more wrong. It spawned a whole new industry :

http://www.hondata.com/

So Apple changes how they do things and it pisses off those consumers who want to be able to tweak and it also goes against the policies set up for recycle-ability of computers years before.

I'm sorry, but times change.

Sure, but requirements asking that local recyclers be able to seperate and sort materials don't.

samcraig
Jul 11, 2012, 12:01 PM
I never said they can't. EPEAT is a rating system that defines a given set of criteria. It doesn't define all criteria though, and it's purely optional. No one is forced to adhere to these criteria.



Exactly. No one is forced is they key point here. Everything else is rhetoric.

rcappo
Jul 11, 2012, 12:02 PM
They should have worked with EPEAT to update the standards if things have changed. But, if they need to use some bad stuff, then customers have the right to know.

It is one of the things that goes along with being a huge company. For one or two products, it doesn't matter. But a few million will have an impact.

Dreyrugr
Jul 11, 2012, 12:10 PM
How many are you familiar with then? Want to elaborate? All reports I've seen on that was disasamby first and then the grinder for the guts.

Just the facility down the street actually. I won't claim to be an authority on electronics recycling. My point is that as the end result of recycling is the recovery of raw materials, it isn't really required for items to be taken apart neatly. Its true that some disassembly is sometimes required in order to separate certain toxic materials, typically heavy metals. However I doubt that it matters how those parts are accessed as long as they come out in one piece. Disassembly is labor intensive and therefor costly. If I can get to a mercury vapor tube more quickly by sawing the end off of a plastic case then I'm going to do it that way. It won't matter if the case is screwed or glued together.

If you want to include reuse as recycling then that's another matter.

jmgregory1
Jul 11, 2012, 12:27 PM
I never said they can't. EPEAT is a rating system that defines a given set of criteria. It doesn't define all criteria though, and it's purely optional. No one is forced to adhere to these criteria.

Point being, EPEAT does not necessarily equal the best environmental position.

Never said the contrary, read the quote and answer in context again.

I know you didn't say so - that's why I posed the question because it's the segue to what's happening in the computer industry.

Couldn't be more wrong. It spawned a whole new industry :

http://www.hondata.com/

Again, the point is that what was once a part of a car that people could and did mess with changed. And that change forced people to do things differently. Let's see, isn't that EXACTLY what we're talking about here? Apple has changed the game and the other players and even the "rules" makers haven't caught up yet.

Sure, but requirements asking that local recyclers be able to seperate and sort materials don't.

I won't pretend to know much about how recyclers work, other than what I've personally seen. I've been to an electronics recycler where what I saw was tables of computers where they ripped and hammered apart the cases, then passed the guts to another station where wires and boards were separated. No one, not one single person that I saw, was using a screwdriver to disassemble anything. It was fast moving and the goal was to get through the mountain of crt's, desktops and laptops they had. Coincidentally, I didn't see any Apple products in the pile, although it was a mountain and easily could have had them buried somewhere.

And again, how recyclers are taking apart and separating parts today is different than what was done 10 years ago. How they do things in 10 years will most likely be different than what they're doing today. So do we set the bar at how things were done 10 years ago and just call it a day?

divinox
Jul 11, 2012, 12:30 PM
Cute green-washing!

KnightWRX
Jul 11, 2012, 12:31 PM
Fix your quoting of my post. It's confusing, your answers are in the quote block of my post.

Again, the point is that what was once a part of a car that people could and did mess with changed. And that change forced people to do things differently. Let's see, isn't that EXACTLY what we're talking about here? Apple has changed the game and the other players and even the "rules" makers haven't caught up yet.

Apple has changed their game, not the game. Standard bodies shouldn't just adjust Standards to Apple, they should update and adjust standards to reflect their policies (in this case environnemental). There is no garantee that an updated EPEAT standard would cover Apple's new EPEAT incompatible policies though.

For all we know, Apple is taking a step backwards in sustainability with the MBPR. Also, why did they pull EPEAT certification for products that still meet the criteria ?

Anyway, it's all moot. Optional rating system is optional. Apple just exercised their option. Why must this result in people saying the rating system is obsolete and that Apple is somehow being victimized ? I'll never know.

york2600
Jul 11, 2012, 12:34 PM
Energy efficiency and being recyclable are not the same thing. This is PR fluff. I've volunteered at a large scale computer cycling center before and having computers that cannot be easily disassembled destroys the ability to recycle them. If they can't be disassembled they will instead be crushed and melted down, with recovery of only a few basic metals. The rest will be thrown away. It's a real shame. A crap Dell is fully recyclable in the US, using safe methods. A Mac will get shipped abroad and melted down for metals in China in a giant fire pit.

divinox
Jul 11, 2012, 12:42 PM
This whole issue is ridiculous. I've never pulled apart a computer in order to recycle it. When I'm done with it, I sell it or donate it.

I don't know anyone who breaks their computers down in order to recycle them. Hell, even my company simply donates their outdated equipment to various charities (and trust me, we are talking incredibly old stuff).

If the computer is energy efficient and there are available recycling programs in place, that's good enough for me. I don't give a damn if it takes a screwdriver or a sledgehammer to pull the thing apart.

Open your eyes... you think all the junk we consume just magically disappear, or that it would be efficient use of resources even if it did? For obvious reasons things that are easily to disassemble are easier to recycle. That you don't give a damn goes hand in hand with you thinking the issue is ridiculous. Shocker.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0xpRk7MYNg

jmgregory1
Jul 11, 2012, 12:50 PM
Fix your quoting of my post. It's confusing, your answers are in the quote block of my post.



Apple has changed their game, not the game. Standard bodies shouldn't just adjust Standards to Apple, they should update and adjust standards to reflect their policies (in this case environnemental). There is no garantee that an updated EPEAT standard would cover Apple's new EPEAT incompatible policies though.

For all we know, Apple is taking a step backwards in sustainability with the MBPR. Also, why did they pull EPEAT certification for products that still meet the criteria ?

Anyway, it's all moot. Optional rating system is optional. Apple just exercised their option. Why must this result in people saying the rating system is obsolete and that Apple is somehow being victimized ? I'll never know.

I'm not sure why it came out that way - I didn't do anything different than reply with quote, although things have been a bit wonky since I installed ML - especially with Safari.

I'm not saying EPEAT should be changing to reflect Apple's changes - but that overall, how things were done in the past is the past. Production methods, consumer needs, recycling methods all change over time. If EPEAT isn't reviewing and revising their program (or in this case ieee making the revisions) then at some point it will be more than just Apple pulling out.

Knowing what I do about rating groups, my guess is that EPEAT is more concerned with their own justification than they are making any real and significant changes to what they do or what they suggest electronics manufacturers do. They've sold a bill of goods to such a broad audience (like the US government) that they will resist change due to the issues it will cause down the line.

As far as whether the rmbp is better or worse for being environmentally friendly through end of life is a question neither of us can answer today. Why they pulled approved products from EPEAT is yet another question we can't answer. We make assumptions and argue to support those assumptions.

The piece that makes me not believe there is some nefarious reason for them to pull out is the fact that Apple is so BIG and in the limelight for just about everything they do. They're not likely to make a change because they're doing something wrong, which will be exposed by the change itself. I just don't see that being the case.

Swift
Jul 11, 2012, 01:13 PM
So, the aim of EPEAT was to make sure that anybody and his brother could disassemble a device with a screwdriver so that parts of it could be recycled? Well, if Apple still will accept their own computers for recycling, and I believe this is still true, who cares? Answer: fussbudgets who carry an alphabet soup of agencies around in their heads, who probably don't like iPhones, etc. The battery is glued in in the new MacBook Pro Retina, and the screen as well. No other change, right? Oh, and the Flash memory is soldered in? Well, this makes a difficult job for 3rd-party repairs, true. So? Apple will do it for you. What do you get for that? A fast, thin, light computer with superior battery reserves and a screen with incredible detail and contrast. Terrible! I want a crappy computer I can take apart in my basement lab! I need to get some expensive tools to disassemble it? Waah! My recycling business will make less money!

B-But... what about toxic chemicals? Well, what if they don't get put in the computer in the first place? What about if the release of toxics by a MacBook Air is far, far less than the recyclable ones?

I bet there will be a change of heart in SF when they see the new standards that Apple will in fact present.

----------

Energy efficiency and being recyclable are not the same thing. This is PR fluff. I've volunteered at a large scale computer cycling center before and having computers that cannot be easily disassembled destroys the ability to recycle them. If they can't be disassembled they will instead be crushed and melted down, with recovery of only a few basic metals. The rest will be thrown away. It's a real shame. A crap Dell is fully recyclable in the US, using safe methods. A Mac will get shipped abroad and melted down for metals in China in a giant fire pit.

So it's bad for the recycling industry, you're saying. Shrug. What if there are far fewer toxics, they consume less energy, etc. Then you're probably putting more carbon in the atmosphere melting down metals to recycle.

divinox
Jul 11, 2012, 01:45 PM
So, the aim of EPEAT was to make sure that anybody and his brother could disassemble a device with a screwdriver so that parts of it could be recycled? Well, if Apple still will accept their own computers for recycling, and I believe this is still true, who cares? Answer: fussbudgets who carry an alphabet soup of agencies around in their heads, who probably don't like iPhones, etc. The battery is glued in in the new MacBook Pro Retina, and the screen as well. No other change, right? Oh, and the Flash memory is soldered in? Well, this makes a difficult job for 3rd-party repairs, true. So? Apple will do it for you. What do you get for that? A fast, thin, light computer with superior battery reserves and a screen with incredible detail and contrast. Terrible! I want a crappy computer I can take apart in my basement lab! I need to get some expensive tools to disassemble it? Waah! My recycling business will make less money!

B-But... what about toxic chemicals? Well, what if they don't get put in the computer in the first place? What about if the release of toxics by a MacBook Air is far, far less than the recyclable ones?

I bet there will be a change of heart in SF when they see the new standards that Apple will in fact present.

----------



So it's bad for the recycling industry, you're saying. Shrug. What if there are far fewer toxics, they consume less energy, etc. Then you're probably putting more carbon in the atmosphere melting down metals to recycle.

Are you honestly comparing energy needed to recycle metals with energy needed to mine them? If so, wow.

Technarchy
Jul 11, 2012, 02:23 PM
I don't care. Make cool stuff, Apple.

RWinOR
Jul 11, 2012, 02:35 PM
Apple has changed their game, not the game. Standard bodies shouldn't just adjust Standards to Apple, they should update and adjust standards to reflect their policies (in this case environnemental). There is no garantee that an updated EPEAT standard would cover Apple's new EPEAT incompatible policies though.

For all we know, Apple is taking a step backwards in sustainability with the MBPR. Also, why did they pull EPEAT certification for products that still meet the criteria ?

Anyway, it's all moot. Optional rating system is optional. Apple just exercised their option. Why must this result in people saying the rating system is obsolete and that Apple is somehow being victimized ? I'll never know.

Everyone is assuming that Apple did not try to work with EPEAT to upgrade the standards. Perhaps Apple wanted tougher standards and EPEAT would not act on it, or the other contributors flat refused to update the outdated standards. No one will ever really know why they pulled out. All anyone can do is speculation.

Times change, standards should as well. There was a time when a 5 1/4 inch floppy was standard in all PC's. Should we still want that? How about 3 1/2 floppies? The list goes on. As manufacturing processes improve and products become greener, the standards should reflect this.

As far as special tools go, there was a time not long ago when Americans were screaming about buying metric tools to work on their imported cars, and other imported goods. Guess what, most of us went out and bought that specialized tool, now it is considered normal to have.

samcraig
Jul 11, 2012, 02:38 PM
Everyone is assuming that Apple did not try to work with EPEAT to upgrade the standards.

Where do you get that idea? Who suggested that Apple did or did not try to work with EPEAT?

Everyone is certainly not saying that. I don't even think that notion was brought up maybe more than once or twice.

Mad-B-One
Jul 11, 2012, 03:10 PM
So, the aim of EPEAT was to make sure that anybody and his brother could disassemble a device with a screwdriver so that parts of it could be recycled? Well, if Apple still will accept their own computers for recycling, and I believe this is still true, who cares?

It's not always about recycling but life cycles as well. The city of San Francisco faces probably the same problem our agency faces: They want to replace equipment and have to follow guidelines the legislature set. Up until recently, Apple probably was for the EPEAT certification becaue their products were on the list. I'm working with an HP tablet/laptop hybrid. It is quite some years old but our IT can repair them as needed because you can in fact take them appart to a certain degree as an IT department. That means, buying them was smart because even though there is no warranty anymore, you can prolong the life cycle. You also have to have mostly the same machines as a big agency so your software roll-out and updates run smoothly. Having the 5 year life cycle certification helps them. Having the repairability helps them as well. In other words, I will never hold an iPad in my hands other than one of my private ones. Furthermore, I won't hold an Apple laptop in my hands either because they don't want to be certified. Remember - they pulled their certifications themselves. Now, what they do is limit the disaster they caused because Apple might have thought that nobody will realize, but they did! And now, the y have to explain some things. Apple supported EPEAT for quite a while. If EPEAT was so backwards, why didn't Apple help them to change? After all, most of their products still qualifies.

The Final Cut
Jul 11, 2012, 03:24 PM
i lost some respect for apple here, but then again the standards it broke are still not clear so I'm not hating just yet.

samcraig
Jul 11, 2012, 03:26 PM
Apple supported EPEAT for quite a while. If EPEAT was so backwards, why didn't Apple help them to change? After all, most of their products still qualifies.

It's pretty clear that Apple no longer considers EPEAT beneficial to them. And that is their right. That doesn't make EPEAT any more or less valid just because Apple doesn't hold their certification. All it means is that Apple doesn't hold their certification.

Mad-B-One
Jul 11, 2012, 04:03 PM
It's pretty clear that Apple no longer considers EPEAT beneficial to them. And that is their right. That doesn't make EPEAT any more or less valid just because Apple doesn't hold their certification. All it means is that Apple doesn't hold their certification.

Exactly what I was getting at. Problem is that the press and the rules for agencies thinks it is a bad move - which results in bad press - no matter how much fans of Apple want to put that on EPEAT, it is how Apple reacted. Sure, if Apple does not need the certification, they can opt out. It's their choice. Apperently though, they will loose business due to guidelines which got them the business in the first place: The certification from EPEAT. That certification is not Flash. You might not get rid of it by preaching HTML5.
In my eyes, the whole thing was just a move Apple underestimated in impact off.

MacDav
Jul 11, 2012, 04:42 PM
Everyone is enlightened. If Apple does it, it's good. Even when it's not. Replace Apple here with Samsung, Microsoft, Google, etc and it would be a terrible thing. No explanations would be needed, would they? :rolleyes:

So, you pretty much believe that most of the people on MacRumor forums are mindless zombies. When they hear or see the word Apple they say: "Apple good". When they hear or see the words Samsung, Microsoft, or Google they say: "Bad Companies". Well good for you. Unfortunately, you still haven't explained anything about what the EPEAT standards are, or how the environment will be negatively affected by Apple not following them. I never really expected you to explain anything to me, because it's very doubtful that you know anything about it. It would be nice if you actually knew what you were talking about before you posted. Maybe now you'll do some research and try to shoot me down. Really, I hope you can teach me something. I like to learn new things.

sulliweb
Jul 11, 2012, 05:21 PM
I still wonder why it has to be an Apple vs. ___ on these forums...

Anywho, my perspective, for whatever that is worth is this. I'm a computer tech. It's my job. I work for a school that has a limited budget. A lot of times, we hang onto computers and scavenge them for older parts. I have a 250 GB drive go out in a machine, a slightly older 40 or 80 GB drive will probably work just fine. While Apple is making devices, not "PCs" as we've come to think of them, what some techs like me are seeing is a rise in cost over the long run of a computer life cycle. I can't work on it, or I have to have special tools... That costs money. Money I'd rather spend putting equipment in the hands of kids.

For the crew I'm with, we can work on all PCs, and probably half the Macs out there. I tend to steer clear of stuff I can't work on, and warranties aren't worth the money in he long run IF you can repair the machines yourself, so add in warranty pricing....

The only issue EPEAT has brought up that I've seen is making things easy to disassemble. That's good in my book. If you can't repair or easily repair a device, you're more likely just to chunk it and get a new one, at some point. That's probably means more overall trash getting thrown away. And more stuff being produced (using resources) in the long run.

If I'm a tech at SF, I'd probably see things the same way, and that may be why they're sticking with their policy. City budgets are limited just like schools...

Is Apple right or wrong? Don't know, don't care honestly. My concern is that I can't fix or reuse parts, and that means I won't be using many of the hard to fix Apple products. We haven't even done major iPad deployments for similar reasonings.

We just have to see the impact on our finances and budget as best we can to educate kids. At least that's my opinion. Right or wrong. No hate on Apple, but for all the folks asking who still takes computers apart? That would be the IT staff wherever you work. Scavenging parts can be a significant savings on repairs over time.

Just something to think about...

thewap
Jul 11, 2012, 05:23 PM
lets see, if I count all my macbook pros since 2006 till 2011 the repairs
I have done myself out of warranty were;

3 battery replacements $300 apprx
2 screens $250
2 keyboards $120
1 modem $45
failed ram $80
1 motherboard $180 aftermarket ($apple quote i think was over $1,000)
1 motherboard cleaned by me (Apple genius incorrectly assessed fried MB and quoted $1400 replacement, or buy new comp).

Total out of warranty maintenance costs estimated $ 1,000 for 4 macbook pros since 2006 with all still working most passed on to my kids.

Now that Apple has made the line virtually non-repairable for any of the above out of warranty estimate for same would be-- $6,000 to $7,000?
or a new MBP every time some component breaks ? no sense repairing out of warranty or buying second hand at 75% of the cost if any kind of failure will cost over $1,000. So no, I don't think a secondhand Rmbp is a good invest in the resale market better to buy a new one. This in my mind at least doubles the amount of macs that will end up in the landfills. It also doesn't help getting funds in the secondary market to help buy the next best thing.

just IMO..

flipnap
Jul 11, 2012, 06:02 PM
I dont understand why people go on and on about a glued battery. first off, its not meant to be removed.. like ever. a properly charged battery should last about 5 years. Do you know how many parts in your car are glued? Everyone hears the word "glue" and thinks of some elmer glue sloppy job. Its an industrial epoxy meant the secure the battery from bracket wear and exploding!! Its the BEST solution available for security. Why would apple put it in a metal bracket? that doesnt make a lick of sense..

----------

lets see, if I count all my macbook pros since 2006 till 2011 the repairs
I have done myself out of warranty were;

3 battery replacements $300 apprx
2 screens $250
2 keyboards $120
1 modem $45
failed ram $80
1 motherboard $180 aftermarket ($apple quote i think was over $1,000)
1 motherboard cleaned by me (Apple genius incorrectly assessed fried MB and quoted $1400 replacement, or buy new comp).

Total out of warranty maintenance costs estimated $ 1,000 for 4 macbook pros since 2006 with all still working most passed on to my kids.

Now that Apple has made the line virtually non-repairable for any of the above out of warranty estimate for same would be-- $6,000 to $7,000?
or a new MBP every time some component breaks ? no sense repairing out of warranty or buying second hand at 75% of the cost if any kind of failure will cost over $1,000. So no, I don't think a secondhand Rmbp is a good invest in the resale market better to buy a new one. This in my mind at least doubles the amount of macs that will end up in the landfills. It also doesn't help getting funds in the secondary market to help buy the next best thing.

just IMO..

i have had multiple laptops from multiple manufacturers and never had a single problem with ram or breakage. in fact, i have a 6 year old dell with the same battery and its running strong. how do we know you just dont treat your gear like garabage. get my point?

AppleScruff1
Jul 11, 2012, 08:47 PM
So, you pretty much believe that most of the people on MacRumor forums are mindless zombies. When they hear or see the word Apple they say: "Apple good". When they hear or see the words Samsung, Microsoft, or Google they say: "Bad Companies". Well good for you. Unfortunately, you still haven't explained anything about what the EPEAT standards are, or how the environment will be negatively affected by Apple not following them. I never really expected you to explain anything to me, because it's very doubtful that you know anything about it. It would be nice if you actually knew what you were talking about before you posted. Maybe now you'll do some research and try to shoot me down. Really, I hope you can teach me something. I like to learn new things.

I read the forum every day. I stand by what I said. How could I teach you anything you don't already know? You're the expert, not me.

----------



So you make some blind accusations without any shred of evidence, and when you are called to actually show evidence, you follow by more blind accusations without any shred of evidence, and you get voted up. Brilliant.

Again, I just read the forum everyday. What I posted is quite accurate.

Rend It
Jul 11, 2012, 10:06 PM
I dont understand why people go on and on about a glued battery. first off, its not meant to be removed.. like ever. a properly charged battery should last about 5 years. Do you know how many parts in your car are glued? Everyone hears the word "glue" and thinks of some elmer glue sloppy job. Its an industrial epoxy meant the secure the battery from bracket wear and exploding!! Its the BEST solution available for security. Why would apple put it in a metal bracket? that doesnt make a lick of sense...

If you're referring to my post, I'm quite familiar with all manner of industrial adhesives, especially those designed for aerospace applications. As such, I'm also familiar with the difficulty of removing these adhesives. It usually requires extremely high temperatures (in excess of 200įC) or toxic chlorinated solvents. In the case of the rMBP, if one of the cables breaks under the batteries (or devices attached to said cables), then the batteries are toast, which is a waste of energy on many levels. The aluminum frame can probably withstand heat, but if solvents are used, they would likely attack that as well.

Who said a battery bracket has to be metal? It could be carbon fiber (which would add as much weight as the adhesive). Furthermore, it would cost little extra weight or cost to add a thin foamed gasket to absorb shock and prevent wear on the cells. However, these solutions, unfortunately, require a modest amount of engineering innovation.

Finally, if batteries are supposed to last 5 years, why isn't that fact reflected in Apple's warranty? Even if there were a separate one just for batteries.

The one caveat to all of this is if Apple has actually engineered an adhesive that can withstand the usual consumer temperature range (-40 to 85įC), but can actually be readily dissolved with non-toxic, non-polluting solvents, or can be released by application of heat just slightly in excess of 85įC. It's doubtful to me, but if so, Apple could simply choose to: (A) share the removal process with recyclers, or (B) at least explain that this is the case to its customers.

MuppetGate
Jul 11, 2012, 10:48 PM
According to this article on Fortune

http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/07/11/apple-working-to-refresh-the-green-pc-standards-it-dropped/

And it looks as if the new standard will cover a wider range of devices

thewap
Jul 12, 2012, 03:41 AM
I dont understand why people go on and on about a glued battery. first off, its not meant to be removed.. like ever. a properly charged battery should last about 5 years. Do you know how many parts in your car are glued? Everyone hears the word "glue" and thinks of some elmer glue sloppy job. Its an industrial epoxy meant the secure the battery from bracket wear and exploding!! Its the BEST solution available for security. Why would apple put it in a metal bracket? that doesnt make a lick of sense..

----------



i have had multiple laptops from multiple manufacturers and never had a single problem with ram or breakage. in fact, i have a 6 year old dell with the same battery and its running strong. how do we know you just dont treat your gear like garabage. get my point?

Some people work in the field on locations, and also have kids..get it?

gnasher729
Jul 12, 2012, 08:24 AM
Energy efficiency and being recyclable are not the same thing. This is PR fluff. I've volunteered at a large scale computer cycling center before and having computers that cannot be easily disassembled destroys the ability to recycle them. If they can't be disassembled they will instead be crushed and melted down, with recovery of only a few basic metals. The rest will be thrown away. It's a real shame. A crap Dell is fully recyclable in the US, using safe methods. A Mac will get shipped abroad and melted down for metals in China in a giant fire pit.

So you claim that Apple is lying? That's a big claim if you don't have evidence.

And EPEAT is about "being able to disassemble with commonly available tools". A device that can be easily disassembled using an unusual or purpose built tool doesn't meet EPEAT. So since Apple is adamant that everything you return to them is recycled _in the country where it is returned_, why wouldn't they design a laptop, together with the tools to recycle it?

There are so many posts here how it is impossible to remove the batteries, and I could probably find half a dozen ways to remove them easily and safely (while using some simple, but not "commonly available" tool, which a recycler getting 100,000 Retina MBPs from Apple surely would have).


Finally, if batteries are supposed to last 5 years, why isn't that fact reflected in Apple's warranty? Even if there were a separate one just for batteries.

A car is supposed to last for more than 10 years. Try finding one with ten years warranty. The battery doesn't last 5 years, it lasts 1000 charges. How long that is in years depends on your usage. Many people can drive a car with a full tank for weeks. Others empty a full tank in two days.

jnpy!$4g3cwk
Jul 12, 2012, 08:48 AM
Are you really telling us you recycle your electronics based on the EPEAT standards?
(If you recycle at all)

Letís see:

I get myself a screwdriver. Wait donít have TORX, so off to Home Depot to buy one.
Darn! Only available in a set of 5 .

Okay, got the computer open. What am I looking at?

:

All cables clipped out (Donít ask, had to go to get a small clipper ☺
Pulled the plastic coatings off all the cables. If I save the copper wires maybe in 25 years I may have a pound
of it to get $ 1.29 at the local scrap yard.

That disk drive/burner still looks good. Who knows if I can use it later. Put that one into a drawer.
Same for fan (dusty) and loud speakers.

Battery, still held a charge. Maybe if I buy another computer that uses that size I can reuse.
Into the drawer with that one too. Hard Drive is a little slow and old technology, but Iíll keep it as a backup.
Into the drawer will buy a case for it, whenever. (Note: the word NEVER is in whenever!)

Memo to self into cloud to remember what drawer and that I have that stuff at all!

:

This really looks like something 99% of all consumers would do.

All that hubbub when everybody knows you can just give the stuff back to Apple.

Really?

:)

Amusing, I have to admit. Yet, I'm not mechanically adept at all, and yet, I replaced a battery in one Mac, two disks in two different Macs, and upgraded the memory in three. No big deal, but, serviceability is a big deal, these components still fail, and should be repairable by the consumer or the IT department. And, if they are as well made as the 2007-2008 models, they should last indefinitely-- which, in practice, means 5-6 years before the hardware and software no longer match, not the 3 years you get with Apple support. Spreading the Apple tax over 5-6 years makes it much more justifiable than over three years.

As for EPEAT, Apple seems to be trying hard to look arrogant.

Rend It
Jul 12, 2012, 10:25 AM
A car is supposed to last for more than 10 years. Try finding one with ten years warranty. The battery doesn't last 5 years, it lasts 1000 charges. How long that is in years depends on your usage. Many people can drive a car with a full tank for weeks. Others empty a full tank in two days.

Great! That's why car warranties are expressed in years and mileage. So, where's the Apple warranty that says, 5 years or 1000 charge cycles, whichever comes first? Since the batteries are not user-serviceable, and the cycle count is tied to the battery S/N through the charge controller, this would be straightforward to verify.

ixodes
Jul 12, 2012, 10:34 AM
Just Apple trying to save face, and justify their switch to completely unserviceable (for the user) laptops.
You're right.

Only Apple could pollute the environment, up-sell consumers into more expensive, somewhat disposable computers, and have their apologists quickly change the subject.

How Selfish and Narcissistic of them, Steve would be proud.

Limboistik
Jul 12, 2012, 11:38 AM
That's exactly the type of statement that I was expecting from Apple and glad of it. It also makes sense that EPEAT must be able to modify its standards to emerging technology and be able to adjust policies so that companies that have shown to be responsible in regards to the environment should continue to get the support of the environmental community.

My thoughts exactly.

viewfly
Jul 12, 2012, 03:42 PM
Since all Smartphones (Motorola, Samsung, Sony, Nokia, BB) are not part of the EPEAT standard, governments apparently have been OK buying Droids, BB, iPhones etc to date.

The same with Tablets (iPads or Androids). Not covered by EPEAT.

YES THAT IS RIGHT...NO PHONE OR TABLETS ARE COVERED BY EPEAT...AND GOVERNMENTS HAVE BEEN BUYING THEM LIKE CRAZY.

So why all the 'high and mighty' fuss with EPAT now? I think Apple is trying to point out how out-of-date EPEAT.

Somewhere down the road mobile phones and tablets will be covered, and of course laptop are already covered, so it is understandable that Apple will withdraw, as will other mgfr that don't have removable batteries (Droid RAZR).

The real problem is that even with removable batteries, few people do the right t hing anyways.

'Simple Available tools' How about a hammer and prying tool (screwdriver). If the phone or laptop is headed for the trash, smash it up and remove the battery.

Or take it or send it to Apple and they will pay you for proper disposal.

flipnap
Jul 12, 2012, 03:50 PM
If the phone or laptop is headed for the trash, smash it up and remove the battery.

you do realize these batteries can explode if you smash them

----------

Originally Posted by beamer8912 View Post
Just Apple trying to save face, and justify their switch to completely unserviceable (for the user) laptops.

these comments make people sound really bizarre. If you cant see, plain as day, that all laptops will be sealed appliances in a year or so, then you are being naive or an outright troll. MANY windows laptops are already sealed. they DONT want you going in and messing with them. have you EVER seen a tag saying "please dont remove, no user servicable parts inside?" on other appliances? because ive seen it on TONS of things. the reason is they dont want you electrocuting yourself or screwing up the product.

Your car engine cant be taken apart but you dont have a problem with that? i cant believe how you guys cant see this. its as obvious as obvious can get. Whys everyone wearing the tinfoil hats on this?

viewfly
Jul 12, 2012, 04:01 PM
you do realize these batteries can explode if you smash them

----------





Hammer and screwdriver to remove or smash the case off. Not smash the batteries.

Anyhow just being flippant.

MacDav
Jul 12, 2012, 04:41 PM
Originally Posted by AppleScruff1
Gotta get a kick out of all the apologist's in these two threads. No matter what Apple does they sing it's praises.

Originally Posted by MacDav
While I don't assume that everything Apple does is a good thing. I also don't assume everything Apple does is a bad thing. Each policy decision needs to be looked at objectively. It appears you think Apple made a bad decision regarding EPEAT. Am I correct? I am not familiar with the EPEAT guidelines. Could you explain the process and guidelines, also how and why Apple withdrawing from EPEAT will adversely affect the environment? It will be very enlightening for everyone. Thanks in advance.

Originally Posted by AppleScruff1
Everyone is enlightened. If Apple does it, it's good. Even when it's not. Replace Apple here with Samsung, Microsoft, Google, etc and it would be a terrible thing. No explanations would be needed, would they?

Originally Posted by MacDav
So, you pretty much believe that most of the people on MacRumor forums are mindless zombies. When they hear or see the word Apple they say: "Apple good". When they hear or see the words Samsung, Microsoft, or Google they say: "Bad Companies". Well good for you. Unfortunately, you still haven't explained anything about what the EPEAT standards are, or how the environment will be negatively affected by Apple not following them. I never really expected you to explain anything to me, because it's very doubtful that you know anything about it. It would be nice if you actually knew what you were talking about before you posted. Maybe now you'll do some research and try to shoot me down. Really, I hope you can teach me something. I like to learn new things.

Originally Posted by AppleScruff1
I read the forum every day. I stand by what I said. How could I teach you anything you don't already know? You're the expert, not me.

Originally Posted by MacDav
You must be kidding. How does reading the forum every day factor into this at all? The fact that you stand by unsupported drivel is very sad indeed. Finally you are down right twisting the facts in saying that I am the expert, when the whole point of my original post was to say that I didn't know anything about the EPEAT standards, and since you seemed to know about them, maybe you could enlighten everyone. Pathetic...




[QUOTE=AppleScruff1;15231900]I read the forum every day. I stand by what I said. How could I teach you anything you don't already know? You're the expert, not me.[COLOR="#808080"]

---------

Sackvillenb
Jul 13, 2012, 11:49 AM
Well, this is a pretty basic statement on behalf of the company, but what they are saying is essentially true. Apple does make other factors of their computers "environmentally friendly". Are they perfect? No, but nothing is. Everything we do has some sort of impact, and Apple seems to be doing more on that front than most other electronics companies.

robgendreau
Jul 13, 2012, 12:27 PM
Your car engine cant be taken apart but you dont have a problem with that? i cant believe how you guys cant see this. its as obvious as obvious can get. Whys everyone wearing the tinfoil hats on this?

Huh? A car engine that can't be disassembled?

Maybe I'm naive, but I remember when Apple was a leader in innovation. If their leadership is now limited to a rush to a disposable laptop, I'd prefer not to follow. It's a shame because with their resources and talent, they could do so much better. But after all they are there to make money, not save the world.

jnpy!$4g3cwk
Jul 14, 2012, 05:27 PM
Your car engine cant be taken apart but you dont have a problem with that? i cant believe how you guys cant see this. its as obvious as obvious can get. Whys everyone wearing the tinfoil hats on this?



There is a whole industry built around maintaining a repairing cars. Kids take auto mechanics in high school and learn how to do it. There are millions of auto mechanics out there, including many amateurs. So, I have to take your remarks as ironical, but, I don't get what you are trying to say, with or without irony.


In any case, Apple changed its mind and will continue to be part of EPEAT and will continue to list some of products. Good for Apple for admitting that they made a mistake.

flipnap
Jul 14, 2012, 05:47 PM
you guys both missed my point about car engines. im talking about the owner not able to do it. You do realize normal people dont tear apart their car engines right? they have to take it to a mechanic. So you have to take your macbook to a "mechanic".. back in the day i used to work on my engines, go in and change out the carb, or install a new set of plugs. todays engines are not "user servicable".

I dont understand how you can talk about apple not being innovative when they just put out one of the thinnest, powerful and best looking screens on the planet.

I dont understand all the fuss about not being able to service your own computer, who wants to do that if you dont need to. Whens the last time you opened up your TV to swap out a capacitor? The only thing you cant do is install ram, so buy it with the box! soldered ram never goes bad and if it does apple gives you a brand new model for free. whats the problem?