Apple Backpedals, Puts "All Eligible Products" Back on EPEAT Environmental Registry

[iHateMacs]

It changes nothing.

Apple products don't suddenly become environmentally friendly because they are on this register.

Jo Public has no interest. Is he really going to be looking at a shiny new iMac or Mac Pro and read the specs and decide that this is the machine for him then refuse to buy it because it's not listed on some hippy register?

It's another drain on resources.

 

[nostresshere]

I cannot stand waffling.
"Oh we made a decision. Oh, people are getting angry, let's change our decision."
Screw that. For better or for worse, make a choice and stick to it.
Finally, I hope Apple never lets these EPEAT standards dictate what they can or cannot do as far as product design.

For those of us that have made not only small, but major WRONG decisions, I commend Apple for not "sticking to their guns". Their reversal was surely a well thought out one. (not like what major governments do in face of media pressure)

 

[2499723]

It includes the rMBP now?

My thoughts exactly. How does that work?!

 

[Rogifan]

Wasteful is one thing. If I buy a Mac, I simply cannot afford to replace it every time it breaks. I might buy a used one. Maybe 2 years old - just because I like MacOS ad the design. I simply cannot just throw it out if it breaks after one year - at least I don't want to. I would like to be able to repair it with "commonly accessable tools" - and pentalobe would not keep me from doing that. Glue with the risk of toxic flames on the other hand would.

Just curious how many macs you've had that "broke" after one year? And what exactly broke that you had to repair or that Apple couldn't repair? The rMBP doesn't have a hard drive or optical drive. And fewer screws. In my mind that means less of a chance something will break. Maybe the batteries would need to be replaced but that's something Apple can do.

 

[admanimal]

This is Apple without Steve J

Actually, this sounds exactly like something that would have happened while Steve was still around.

 

[Judas1]

Whats with all the comments about EPEAT being like the mafia and are just demanding protection money? You don't have to be a part of EPEAT, but if you're not, it shows the direction you're heading in, and there will be backlash. Thats what happened here. No need for conspiracy theories.

Some people have blinders on and just can't see Apple doing any wrong. EPEAT not certifying some Apple products becomes EPEAT being a thug, when it was Apple that changed the designs of their computers. And Apple pulling rashly out of EPEAT and catching heat, becomes Apple making a strategic move to reform EPEAT. Please.

 

[pacman7331]

I'm really quite impressed by this. EPEAT is irrelevant, what impresses me is the company actually admitted they were wrong and reversed themselves, very unusual to see global corporations do that. That takes character.

However the reason for getting off EPEAT is also sort of a mystery also. Clearly the rMBP does not certify for EPEAT, but that is no reason to take the rest of the products off EPEAT.

But the criteria for reusability and repairability is something I hope the rMBP can attain in the future.

 

[Mad-B-One]

Who says Apple is being wasteful? iFixit has their own agenda. They're not a neutral party completely unbiased. Oh and btw, most people aren't buying hybrid cars. But I think the planet will survive just fine.

I don't know who said that. I asked the question if it is okay to be wasteful as long as you have some estatic benefit. I believe there has to be a balance. That's all.
To the hybrid cars: True. Also: Most people aren't buying Apple products either. So, you still can compare it. Both people are a significant market. That is why car producers build them and that is why Apple sells their products.

 

[Rizzm]

I cannot stand waffling.
"Oh we made a decision. Oh, people are getting angry, let's change our decision."
Screw that. For better or for worse, make a choice and stick to it.
Finally, I hope Apple never lets these EPEAT standards dictate what they can or cannot do as far as product design.

For me, making environmentally friendlier strides into future products is more important than making something .1" thinner.

 

[trunten]

I love how people still want to put the blame on EPEAT here and/or insinuate that by reversing their decision Apple is sticking it to EPEAT or whatever.

To recap removing all MR emotions

1. EPEAT has standards set forth to get their rating
2. Apple had several products which qualified. Some new products did not.
3. EPEAT maintained their standards therefor some new Apple products did not get the rating
4. Apple withdrew ALL of their products from EPEAT
5. San Francisco stated that without the EPEAT rating, unfortunately - they couldn't purchase Apple equipment going forward.
6. Apple issues a press release which takes a swipe at EPEAT
7. Apple changes their mind due to SF and regular customers expressing their concerns

The facts seem pretty clear to me. This is a good thing for Apple, EPEAT, SF and all customers. It's not a victory or defeat for any party. Stop trying to make it into one.

All good points except for the fact that all apple products are gold rated. And this didn't change just because they pulled out. I take more stock in what the company does rather than some mark.

 

[Mad-B-One]

Just curious how many macs you've had that "broke" after one year? And what exactly broke that you had to repair or that Apple couldn't repair? The rMBP doesn't have a hard drive or optical drive. And fewer screws. In my mind that means less of a chance something will break. Maybe the batteries would need to be replaced but that's something Apple can do.

Now, let's start at the beginning: I didn't say Macs brake after one year. I said, if I buy a Mac it will probably be a used one - like a 2-yo Mac. Having that another year is 3 and then the warranty is out. (And about Macbooks, they had GPU problems in the past with free replacement, so, no company is safe from breaking parts.) Apple wouldn't repair it for free after that, do they? The more parts are to be replaced, the more expensive it gets. With the rMBP that means if I break the unibody or the mousepad or the battery, all three have to be replaced at once. And in this case, guess who is paying? It is not so much about that something can break - everything can - e.g. accidental damage. It is about that Apple produced it a way that it is not friendly for repair without replacing things that aren't even broken. I understand the soldered RAM - with a RAM slot etc, way more space would have been used. But the batteries do not have to be glued in a way you cannot service the part anymore. Just compare it to the Macbook Air: Easy to replace the trackpad. If you see it differently, we can agree to disagree on this subject.

 

[iPadPublisher]

Slate's Farhad Manjoo called the entire EPEAT situation a "really strange unforced error."

I suspect that Apple had been trying for some time to get EPEAT to update their certification guidelines. They probably scoffed, and Apple went this route to either break free, or publicly force EPEAT into submission.

It was spun in a way that Apple was out because the standard wasn't up to date, and restrictive for non-environmental reasons. They made EPEAT look bad, and it appears to have worked.

So, I'm not so sure this was an error at all.

 

[cgk.emu]

Perhaps EPEAT agreed to possibly review their requirements.

Kinda what I thought as well. Maybe Apple pulling their products was a calculated move?

 

[samcraig]

All good points except for the fact that all apple products are gold rated. And this didn't change just because they pulled out. I take more stock in what the company does rather than some mark.

Maybe now they are. But not so when they pulled them all out.

"Apple's recent Mac products, such as the Retina MacBook Pro, are difficult to fully disassemble making them ineligible for certification"

 

[koban4max]

apparently, Apple chickened out. They never stand firm with their products. Makes me mad.

 

[samcraig]

They made EPEAT look bad, and it appears to have worked.

So, I'm not so sure this was an error at all.

I'm pretty sure Apple got far more of the negative press. One wonders how many emails EPEAT got asking them to change their standards vs how many Apple got to comply.

Ultimately it is more important for Apple to get an EPEAT rating than it is for EPEAT to change their standards. YES - it's important for them to stay relevant. But EPEAT doesn't have stockholders and sales to worry about.

But again - this is good for all parties involved. EPEAT will update their standards to not be outdated. And Apple will get their certifications.

This isn't a lawsuit or a contest. I said it before, I'll say it again - it's not a question of winning or losing. Every action, in turn, has consequences. And now the scenario has played out to the advantage of everyone including the customers.

 

[Mad-B-One]

apparently, Apple chickened out. They never stand firm with their products. Makes me mad.

What do you mean by that? All their products were certified before and are now again. Sure, they chickened out because they thought it wouldn't have that big of an impact, but apparently, it did.

What do you mean with "not standing firm with their products?" No product was changed - even though some like me would hope they use less glue.

 

[JayLenochiniMac]

I love how people still want to put the blame on EPEAT here and/or insinuate that by reversing their decision Apple is sticking it to EPEAT or whatever.

To recap removing all MR emotions

1. EPEAT has standards set forth to get their rating
2. Apple had several products which qualified. Some new products did not.
3. EPEAT maintained their standards therefor some new Apple products did not get the rating
4. Apple withdrew ALL of their products from EPEAT
5. San Francisco stated that without the EPEAT rating, unfortunately - they couldn't purchase Apple equipment going forward.
6. Apple issues a press release which takes a swipe at EPEAT
7. Apple changes their mind due to SF and regular customers expressing their concerns

The facts seem pretty clear to me. This is a good thing for Apple, EPEAT, SF and all customers. It's not a victory or defeat for any party. Stop trying to make it into one.

There seems to be a statement missing. EPEAT changes its standards now that the rMBP is on the list wearing the Gold status. Someone should confirm this as a fact.

 

[bertman]

Brilliant. Really. Do you think for one minute Apple didn't do this to force a re-assessment of EPEAT standards to match Apple's design strategy?

 

[quietstormSD]

I remember when I was called a troll just a few days ago for disagreeing with Apple's explanation on why they pulled out. I am satisfied at this recent development though. Remember Fan Boys, Think Different. Don't pile on.

 

[Amazing Iceman]

Apple realized they still had to pay the protection Money to EPEAT.

Yeah, a waste of time and money for Apple, just to comply with an outdate and flawed standard, just as you said, like paying protection to the mob.

And all that, just to calm the ignorants who don't really understand what EPEAT is, and who believe that if Apple doesn't comply with EPEAT, then it's an enemy of the environment.

 

[samcraig]

There seems to be a statement missing. EPEAT changes its standards now that the rMBP is on the list wearing the Gold status. Someone should confirm this as a fact.

It's vague on their website. I believe it's an act in good faith.

http://www.epeat.net/

An interesting question for EPEAT is how to reward innovations that are not yet envisioned with standards that are fixed at a point in time. Diverse goals, optional points awarded for innovations not yet described, and flexibility within specified parameters to make this happen are all on the table in EPEAT stakeholder discussions. And of course, timely standards development, as with newly created Imaging Equipment and Television standards, and the current refresh of the PC/Display standard, is critical as well.

----------

Brilliant. Really. Do you think for one minute Apple didn't do this to force a re-assessment of EPEAT standards to match Apple's design strategy?

Conspiracy theory. You know - when in doubt - typically the simplest answer is the right one.

In other words. Apple pulled their products and didn't care for the negative press and emails they got. There was no reason to pull the already certified products. They most likely went back and said they would rejoin but that EPEAT should proceed with updating their standards to be more current.

In other words - had Apple not gotten bad press and customer flack - they wouldn't have gone back. So they didn't do it to force anything. They simply believed there'd be no fallout.

 

[tutubibi]

It includes the rMBP now?

Of course

 

[rcappo]

Good for Apple and EPEAT. And good for the people and cities that complained. I agree that Apple is pretty good when it comes to environmentally friendly products and energy efficiency. And that is a good thing.

 

[JayLenochiniMac]

It's vague on their website. I believe it's an act in good faith.

http://www.epeat.net/

An interesting question for EPEAT is how to reward innovations that are not yet envisioned with standards that are fixed at a point in time. Diverse goals, optional points awarded for innovations not yet described, and flexibility within specified parameters to make this happen are all on the table in EPEAT stakeholder discussions. And of course, timely standards development, as with newly created Imaging Equipment and Television standards, and the current refresh of the PC/Display standard, is critical as well.

----------



Conspiracy theory. You know - when in doubt - typically the simplest answer is the right one.

In other words. Apple pulled their products and didn't care for the negative press and emails they got. There was no reason to pull the already certified products. They most likely went back and said they would rejoin but that EPEAT should proceed with updating their standards to be more current.

In other words - had Apple not gotten bad press and customer flack - they wouldn't have gone back. So they didn't do it to force anything. They simply believed there'd be no fallout.

But if it's an act in good faith on EPEAT's part based on the vague explanation, then one must question whether EPEAT wouldn't have been so quick to act had Apple not pulled this stunt.