iThink iWatch was already taken.
Also called the little black box Apple TV bc iTV was already taken.
Folks who call it iWatch? Well…
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.
Apple Can No Longer Call Apple Watch 'Carbon Neutral' in Germany
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Also called the little black box Apple TV bc iTV was already taken.
Folks who call it iWatch? Well…
Yup, the German government protects the auto industry more than the rights of its citizens...
A bit ironic as VW was cheating on it’s diesel emmisons & certifying their cars as compliant. They’re not even planting trees for their carbon emmisons. Seem like they could learn a thing or two from … 😉
The concept is you plant enough trees or use carbon capture that will offset the Co2 you emit.
This resulting in a long term neutral product or “net zero”.
But we all know it’s bs way to get around emissions that they’re still emitting now and will take decades to undo.
I always wonder if anyone is double checking the carbon credit business. I’d bet money they’re double selling credits to what they’ve actually offset.
It’s because the government of German state Lower Saxony is holding significant amounts of VW stock (20,1%)
There were a few times I didn’t feel like “the center of everything” as a customer when I visited Germany to see my relatives over the years.
Carbon neutral is NOT equal to resource neutral. It is possible to release carbon during production and capture somewhere else. However, what we currently allow as carbon capture is not really correct, since many of the programmes used are not efficient or long term. Planting trees for logging is not a long term solution but only a delay until you use the tree.
Today, there are millions of people who care about their environment and want to do good when they make purchases. Or at least try to. That's exactly why Apple runs these kinds of ads. And that's why it's important for the advertising to be accurate.
And yes, as soon as the contract expires, furniture stores like IKEA or an oil company can come and tear down the trees. Of course, we don't know if that will happen right away. But the court has made it clear that a short lease is not enough to call a product "carbon neutral."
No system is perfect.
But if I have the choice between the German system, where "companies must prove the safety of their products in advance and provide a six-month statutory warranty after purchase," and the American system, where "in case of doubt, customers can sue and earn millions," I prefer the German system.
No, that's because they have the rule of law (Constitutional state)
Ten years ago, VW paid out $20 billion in US so that each buyer would receive an average of $41 in compensation, but here it was ruled that up to 15% of the purchase price was appropriate. It is no coincidence that VW has paid out €33 billion in Germany alone since the scandal broke and is still setting aside €600 million every year due to the latest lawsuits.
However, Germans live in a constitutional state. This means that someone who has driven their car 100,000 km before the scandal broke does not have as much of a claim as someone who has only driven the car 1,000 km. This is due to depreciation and sales opportunities.
Let's put it this way, "20 billion in class action lawsuit" is perfect for the regulars' table or the forum. But broken down, it's not that much.
Yeah but no but yeah but no.
In theory a product or service can be carbon neutral on a planetary scale as all the carbon is mixed together in the atmosphere. While kids are individuals.
The problem is people are just that: people. So in reality offsetting carbon is full of scams and dodgy claims.
New flash, no one gives a ****.
On the list of buying decisions for an Apple product, “carbon neutral” is number 0.
Stupid virtual signaling. How about innovating again.
On the list of buying decisions for an Apple product, “carbon neutral” is number 0.
Stupid virtual signaling. How about innovating again.
Your reasoning is so flawed. First of all you talk about “these people”. Most people don’t want to harm the planet. So we are all “these people”.
And second, while customers prefer cheap products, companies should be held accountable for their products. Customers should not be able to choose between a cheap watch that was produced in a factory that killed all aquatic life in a river, or an expensive watch that didn’t.
Environmental concerns shouldn’t be a marketing tactic. All products should be produced in the most environmentally friendly way.
It’s not correct that you can buy a watch that’s cheaper because they exploit the environment or workers.
Yet here we are.
Conspiracy theorists may say that there's an open door policy in government towards the big car manufacturers in the USA and a 'what's good for German car manufacturers, is good for Germany' policy.
It is ironic about the Apple Watch rolling, as the German car manufacturers are woefully behind moving to making electronic vehicles, as they've been very reluctant to change.
There's a huge manufacturing base - and lots of jobs - in Germany all based off cars with combustion engines, but sadly for all of them, not changing feels like King Canute trying to hold back the sea.
