Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
A Greener Apple
- Thread starter TheSailerMan
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Man, please 'switchers', don't get into a political debate on Greenpeace, PETA, etc. etc.
BTW this is great news and you really have to be a pessimist to find fault with it.
BTW this is great news and you really have to be a pessimist to find fault with it.
Wow ...
Talk about taking a quote out of context. Jobs was clearly saying the policy that is changing is their policy to not talk about future plans, etc. The entire letter is all about plans they already had in place and things they've already done ... no new plans, just making things public.
Regardless of who is a "bigger company" Apple attracts a lot more of a spotlight in the media and that's what he was referring to.
In a lot of cases I'm sure they do have an impact but I wouldn't go so far as to say nothing would be done without them and they definitely don't deserve credit it this case. Greenpeace pretty much lied in their "reports" by not doing proper research, good intentions don't make up for that. Also as already mentioned, this letter is about things already in place before Greenpeace started all the recent hubbub. Go ahead and try and rationalize it if you like though, no skin off my back.
At least for me this has nothing to do with my "devotion to Apple" although I can't speak for Small White Car. It's about integrity and people taking credit for things they didn't do, especially after they lied and haven't admitted to it properly IMO. I admire what Greenpeace is trying to do I just take offense at the way they often go about it.
Ok, I've finally figured out what's going on here. I'll admit that I was wrong here, but I want to point out that several other posters have made the same mistake about your original post. So I'm not alone on this one.
You used the phrase "they have apparently managed to make Apple change their practices."
I (and others) assumed you were talking about the things in the letter. Based on this last post I can see that by saying "change their practices" you meant "write a single letter and put it on their homepage."
Ok, so IF you read it that way all of your posts make sense. I'll believe you when you say that's what you meant, but hopefully you can see WHY several of us misunderstood you. Calling a single letter "their practices" wasn't something any of us understood.
What's LED backlighting?
Sorry for being such a noob... but what is LED backlighting and how is it better/different than the current LCDs in MB/Ps ?
Sorry for being such a noob... but what is LED backlighting and how is it better/different than the current LCDs in MB/Ps ?
And I have to assume that this is just not true. What I heard is that the iSight was taken off the market in June 06 because it wasn't compliant to RoHS. That means it is not true that they were 2 years ago.
The statement from Jobs is a political statement and written in that way.
Good information, I find it interesting the only thing they found bad with apple was the flame retardant, which is a newer replacement for the bromine one that exist in the past and now they are claiming the new one is also bad, back to my point when will greenpeace and other develope a non-toxic flame retardant.
So greenpeace rather see your house burn down or your car or plane catch fire then see a PCB not catch fire.
You know you should stop using your computer becuase you adding to your personal carbon foot print on the environment.
In many respects this essay is a result of the Apple section of the Greenpeace website.
http://www.greenpeace.org/apple/
SJ has responded to each of the issues in turn, but this has been on the Greenpeace site for a while now. They have now conducted their third electronics audit, and clearly Apple has not communicated this information so far.
This should have a dramatic effect on the perception of Apple's position, currently at the bottom of the list.
It will be interesting to see the Greenpeace response.
All green news is good news. LED displays are particularly exciting.
However, until they offer free recycling without a purchase of a new computer, I think in that (major) area, it is hard to claim that they are doing a good job. The calculation of weight recycled compared to weight shipped seven years ago is potentially deceptive, too. If the actual average computer lifetime is 5 years, then a growing company will have inflated numbers, and a shrinking company will have deflated numbers. Does anybod know a firm figure for how long people keep their computers?
I also think they should mention CO2, given that it is the most important polutant on earth. It is of course hard to calculate -- it depends on the efficiency of the manufacturing process and materials, the distance and weight of shipped product and packaging, and the energy efficiency of the final product. But I'd be very interested to find out how apple compares.
However, until they offer free recycling without a purchase of a new computer, I think in that (major) area, it is hard to claim that they are doing a good job. The calculation of weight recycled compared to weight shipped seven years ago is potentially deceptive, too. If the actual average computer lifetime is 5 years, then a growing company will have inflated numbers, and a shrinking company will have deflated numbers. Does anybod know a firm figure for how long people keep their computers?
I also think they should mention CO2, given that it is the most important polutant on earth. It is of course hard to calculate -- it depends on the efficiency of the manufacturing process and materials, the distance and weight of shipped product and packaging, and the energy efficiency of the final product. But I'd be very interested to find out how apple compares.
And I have to assume that this is just not true. What I heard is that the iSight was taken off the market in June 06 because it wasn't compliant to RoHS. That means it is not true that they were 2 years ago.
The statement from Jobs is a political statement and written in that way.
The camera CCD was the issue which apple does not make, and i believe apple now has a new isight that meets the requirements.
I don't trust American businesspeople. In fact, I probably find them some of the most untrustworthy people there are.
There are tons of measuring schemas out there and tons of companies subjecting themselves to them. Does Apple produce a sustainability report?
Ouch. Considerably more expensive than a similar sized/resolution fluorescent backlit display.
Right ok then, let's stop acting like a bunch of bitches shall we.
Yes I did mean that letter and I realise now that the way I worded it made it look as though my statement was referring to Apple suddenly being the green saviours of the planet overnight as a direct response to Greenpeace pressure. I apologise for this as it wasn't my intent.
I'm not a Greenpeace activist or anything and I don't support the way they go about effecting change. But as you have alluded to - their underlying message is an important one and something that everyone should take note of and work towards. I still stand by my statement that they have been instrumental in changing people's attitudes towards the environment though and that companies such as Apple have worked towards their own greener goals as a result.
Hmm I think I preffer NOT to be able to afford top of the line laptop than suffer from haevy metal poisoning...
You're right there. It's pretty clear that Apple have been doing this for a long time, but it won't be out of care for the environment, and it certainly won't be a result of GreenPeace's pressure. It'll be forethought regarding what consumers and governments will want in the future, simply a way of beating the cometition. At least it's worthwhile to cut out all these chemicals, regardless of their motives.
I've no doubt this press release is largely in response to Greenpeace's ranking of Apple, but Jobs is never going to say that. Whether Greenpeace's hits on Apple were justified is another matter altogether. Obviously, Jobs thinks Apple has and continues to lead the industry in responsiveness to environmental issues. What he and Apple's cult of secrecy have up to this point refused to do is project out what Apple will be doing with future products on any front. That looks to be, if you can believe Jobs, the only thing Greenpeace has really managed to get changed. Apple will now publicly state, at least once a year, how it is planning to make Apple more green. Don't hold your breath waiting for any of Apple's responses to be to Greenpeace directly or even acknowledge what Greenpeace has done. Jobs statement drips with resentment of what he thinks is an unfair characterization of Apple's practices. While Greenpeace can look at this a "win" in that they made Apple go public, it will never get Jobs to admit it.
Regardless of the tensions between Apple and Greenpeace and who is right, this is good news. More companies need to go public with how they are becoming more responsive to the needs of the environment. Companies may try to blow smoke up our collective rear ends with such statements, but still it is better than silence and a refusal to admit to responsibility.
Regardless of the tensions between Apple and Greenpeace and who is right, this is good news. More companies need to go public with how they are becoming more responsive to the needs of the environment. Companies may try to blow smoke up our collective rear ends with such statements, but still it is better than silence and a refusal to admit to responsibility.
It's good to see this. I, myself, am quite into being environmentally-friendly. This is great news! And it looks like they will have changed the iMacs for the better just in time for my purchase! Loverly
I'm also pleased that no one (when I last checked) had voted negative
Come on Green Apple!
14 negatives as of this post.
fluorescent lights
now that everyone is complaining about the mercury in fluorescent displays let's remember that compact fluorescent bulbs contain 2 - 5 mg of mercury each. this is what al gore says we should all use? considering the number of people who will not recycle these bulbs and do not know where to do so, shouldn't we also push for a better lighting technology there??? it seems inconsistent to me.
now that everyone is complaining about the mercury in fluorescent displays let's remember that compact fluorescent bulbs contain 2 - 5 mg of mercury each. this is what al gore says we should all use? considering the number of people who will not recycle these bulbs and do not know where to do so, shouldn't we also push for a better lighting technology there??? it seems inconsistent to me.
Excellent! I am glad you are in a career that does not require the use of a laptop, however some of us require a laptop for our work!Hmm I think I preffer NOT to be able to afford top of the line laptop than suffer from haevy metal poisoning...
Now is the time for you to look at this link to see the price of a backlit LED display. Now compare that price to the garden-variety LED display of the same size. Now apply that to the price of a laptop. Besides what does any of this have to do with a "top of the line" laptop? This would be a change that is across the board, from the MB to the MBP.
And you still ignore the fact that laptops are not 100% of the reason behind this.