Apple Can No Longer Call Apple Watch 'Carbon Neutral' in Germany

[switz]

I bought my first Rolex watch new in 1966 for $345. It has been serviced a few times. It has a third hand so two time zones can be displayed (I was in the Navy so GMT was shown plus the local time) and had the date function and was self winding and water proof.

I can put it on and set the time and it functions today just like it did when new. 59 years later it still functions as a time piece.

My Ultra 2 Apple Watch may be supported for seven years and then parts and battery will not be available from Apple and it cost $799 when new. The whole device goes into the scrap pile as there will be no way to keep it working.

Even all of Apple's products have finite lifespans. The G4 Cube in my office can still boot up, but there is no connection capability for today's homes and certainly no "new" software for that "mature" device so it is now just decoration. It cost me over $3,000 then.

My Rolex can be considered a green product. None of Apple's products can be considered green products after seven years.....

 

[Enrico77]

I bought my first Rolex watch new in 1966 for $345. It has been serviced a few times. It has a third hand so two time zones can be displayed (I was in the Navy so GMT was shown plus the local time) and had the date function and was self winding and water proof.

I can put it on and set the time and it functions today just like it did when new. 59 years later it still functions as a time piece.

My Ultra 2 Apple Watch may be supported for seven years and then parts and battery will not be available from Apple and it cost $799 when new. The whole device goes into the scrap pile as there will be no way to keep it working.

Even all of Apple's products have finite lifespans. The G4 Cube in my office can still boot up, but there is no connection capability for today's homes and certainly no "new" software for that "mature" device so it is now just decoration. It cost me over $3,000 then.

My Rolex can be considered a green product. None of Apple's products can be considered green products after seven years.....

I completely agree, and the worst part is that products designed to last are disappearing or becoming extremely elitist. There’s practically nothing left that you can hand down to your children. Because yes, zero carbon isn’t buying a new Apple Watch—it’s passing down a Rolex to your children and your grandchildren without melting down new steel.

Anyway, back on topic, that’s exactly why I have no problem—unlike Apple fanboys—when justice shuts down these corporate nonsense claims like “zero carbon.” I’m not an eco-activist. Like everyone else, I do positive things (for example, I get around 90% by bike instead of by car, even commuting to work daily) as well as negative things (for example, I enjoy flying on weekends, I live in a house instead of an apartment, etc.). I don’t hide behind a pretense of being a model citizen. Honestly, the ecological gestures I make are often more for my own benefit—like cycling being faster in traffic jams, waking up my mind, and getting me more active at work—than for altruistic reasons.

Generally, I hate marketing and I hate lies. You can say: “Look, if you want to be ecological, buy the Rolex once in your life, pass it down to your child who will keep using it and won’t buy anything else. But if you want the latest tech gadgets and don’t care about polluting the world, get an Apple Watch and change it yearly.” And for the record, if Apple’s advertising told me exactly that, I’d still buy the Apple Watch.

 

[WinstonSmyth]

When they first announced that at the keynote, my first thought was that it was greenwashing humbug, when they started talking about carbon credits and planting trees to offset the manufacturing and distribution process.

By all means claim you have improved the process and reduced emissions and the use of harmful chemicals, carbon etc. That is all good, but don't ruin it by claiming "carbon neutrality" by using credits or planting trees...

Trees and all plants love CO2 they thrive from it. Many farmers pump CO2 into their greenhouse to help the plants.

 

[MNWildFan]

Apple Watch carbon neutral or not doesn't have any exciting new features at all!

Hey, you say that, but the most recent ones just got sleep apnea detection

I feel like with all of the medical technology that we've packed into these watches like the blood oxygen detection and others (except if you have the newest watches, which after another workaround sounds like they're going to disable the feature AGAIN), we have hit a plateau as to what else can be done with these

One thing I won't understand though is why we can't play music or whatever through the built-in speaker; it kind of annoys me that you need to have headphones for when you do a Time to Run or Time to Walk workout, but I guess beggers can't be choosers

 

[switz]

One is not exactly a begger if they can afford a new Apple Watch and pay cash. Going into debt to buy a new one is closer to being a begger.

 

[Agent007]

Planting trees which sequester carbon dioxide from the air can offset the carbon dioxide that manufacturing and other product cycle related processes release into the air. That way, the net amount of carbon dioxide won't change, hence "neutral".

I don't know why this concept is so hard to understand.

Planting trees is easier said than done. One cannot simply plant seeds in the dirt and walk away. Young trees need massive amounts of water and are less capable of surviving prolonged drought or unusually harsh seasons. Forests have an ecosystem that involves a symbiosis between different forms of life - termites might kill a lone tree but, in a forest, some animal species that eats termites might be what's keeping the trees alive.

You can't see the forest for the trees!

 

[Chazak]

What are you talking about? They have gotten their compensation years ago.

He is 100% correct. Just ask Google, Chat GPT or whichever search you prefer if it'ss true. It is resoundingly true that many are still in court lacking settlement with VW.

 

[Dirk Pieters]

That mother nature movie from some time ago was probably the most cringeworthy thing Apple has ever done.

Although I do think that Apple does more than the average company towards carbon neutrality, it conflicts seriously with their yearly, like-clockwork, products dumps to have bigger, faster, whatever hardware to fullfil their greed for cash.

Every thing that is made comes with a cost. Even if that aluminium is recycled, that recycling came with a cost as well. Even if that factory is covered with solar, the creation of that solar came with a cost.

I bought my first Rolex watch new in 1966 for $345. It has been serviced a few times. It has a third hand so two time zones can be displayed (I was in the Navy so GMT was shown plus the local time) and had the date function and was self winding and water proof.

I can put it on and set the time and it functions today just like it did when new. 59 years later it still functions as a time piece.

My Ultra 2 Apple Watch may be supported for seven years and then parts and battery will not be available from Apple and it cost $799 when new. The whole device goes into the scrap pile as there will be no way to keep it working.

Even all of Apple's products have finite lifespans. The G4 Cube in my office can still boot up, but there is no connection capability for today's homes and certainly no "new" software for that "mature" device so it is now just decoration. It cost me over $3,000 then.

My Rolex can be considered a green product. None of Apple's products can be considered green products after seven years.....

Agreed.

Everything that is made comes with a cost. We don’t have Rolexes in our family but all our iPhone purchases have replaced iPhones that were older than 5 years. I personally went from a 6 to a 14 Pro … and that was only because the 6 died on me.

My work laptop is the 2018 model 15” MacBook Pro, bought in 2019. Looks like it won’t run macOS Tahoe so I’ll need to update if I want that. I’m still kicking the can forward because, in the end, running Tahoe won’t make much of a difference when it comes to work. If/when I replace my MBP I’ll probably buy a fully spec’d Mac Studio to last - hopefully - 6/7/8 years.

I replaced both my Apple Cinema Displays (both non-Thunderbolt and Thunderbolt) when they were +10 years old with 2 shiny new Studio Displays and I hope to get 10 years out of those.

The only thing you can do to have the tiniest impact is *not* buy every new Apple product.

 

[bmark]

Hey, you say that, but the most recent ones just got sleep apnea detection

I feel like with all of the medical technology that we've packed into these watches like the blood oxygen detection and others (except if you have the newest watches, which after another workaround sounds like they're going to disable the feature AGAIN), we have hit a plateau as to what else can be done with these

One thing I won't understand though is why we can't play music or whatever through the built-in speaker; it kind of annoys me that you need to have headphones for when you do a Time to Run or Time to Walk workout, but I guess beggers can't be choosers

Sleep apnea detection might help some people not me. Blood oxygen detection is going to disabled again shortly once the ITC intervenes on the case.

Garmin is far more advanced in the watch space. They have blood oxygen saturation levels, stress tracking, body battery to track body's energy levels.

 

[dotnet]

My Ultra 2 Apple Watch may be supported for seven years and then parts and battery will not be available from Apple and it cost $799 when new. The whole device goes into the scrap pile as there will be no way to keep it working.

That's on you. Instead of throwing it onto the scrap pile you should return it to Apple so it can be recycled and its various materials reused for making new products.

 

[name99]

Buy into idiotic hype.
Win stupid prizes.

Hopefully Apple will learn from this and give up trying to please these sorts of people, who can never be pleased.

 

[Dirk Pieters]

That's on you. Instead of throwing it onto the scrap pile you should return it to Apple so it can be recycled and its various materials reused for making new products.

Recycling itself comes with a cost and/or pollution.

 

[djphat2000]

The whole idea of forests binding CO2 is based on the premise that they will persist. However, in the present case, based on the contracts 75% of the plantation could be burned after four years to repurpose the area for a different use, and Apple wasn’t able to present any assurances to the contrary.

Still has nothing to do with the present fact. The watch is made already. The carbon is storing continuously for at least the next 4 years!!! If in 4 more years they can't release the land again. Anything from that moment on could be refused of claiming carbon neutrality. But, not now for something that could certainly come in another form at least 4 years from now...

 

[djphat2000]

I bought my first Rolex watch new in 1966 for $345. It has been serviced a few times. It has a third hand so two time zones can be displayed (I was in the Navy so GMT was shown plus the local time) and had the date function and was self winding and water proof.

I can put it on and set the time and it functions today just like it did when new. 59 years later it still functions as a time piece.

My Ultra 2 Apple Watch may be supported for seven years and then parts and battery will not be available from Apple and it cost $799 when new. The whole device goes into the scrap pile as there will be no way to keep it working.

Even all of Apple's products have finite lifespans. The G4 Cube in my office can still boot up, but there is no connection capability for today's homes and certainly no "new" software for that "mature" device so it is now just decoration. It cost me over $3,000 then.

My Rolex can be considered a green product. None of Apple's products can be considered green products after seven years.....

This would apply to every computer there ever was. From any manufacture.
As for the battery. Well you can trade in your Apple Watch (and many other Apple items as well), back to Apple. Which will in some cases provide you with money for that trade in. AND recycle the parts. Including the battery. Which goes towards closing the lop in making a new sustainable device.

 

[klasma]

Still has nothing to do with the present fact. The watch is made already. The carbon is storing continuously for at least the next 4 years!!! If in 4 more years they can't release the land again. Anything from that moment on could be refused of claiming carbon neutrality. But, not now for something that could certainly come in another form at least 4 years from now...

My understanding is that the CO2 offset of the trees that is counted towards the carbon neutrality requires the trees to live their full natural lives. If they don’t, then the actual CO2 savings are less than claimed by the certificate.

 

[Happy_John]

One thing I won't understand though is why we can't play music or whatever through the built-in speaker; it kind of annoys me that you need to have headphones for when you do a Time to Run or Time to Walk workout, but I guess beggers can't be choosers

You can (on an AW10 at least). Click the three dots in the upper right hand corner of the music app, then click the airplay icon, then click the Apple Watch icon, sound will be sent to the watch's internal speaker.

 

[Happy_John]

My understanding is that the CO2 offset of the trees that is counted towards the carbon neutrality requires the trees to live their full natural lives. If they don’t, then the actual CO2 savings are less than claimed by the certificate.

That is correct. With carbon credits, companies can offset carbon emissions they are releasing now with potential carbon "trapping" by growing biomass in the future. if that biomass doesn't grow as well as expected in the future e.g. floods, wildfires, droughts, all the things that are happening more frequently, or if simply the estimates of growth were over-optimistic, or, this this case, the land or biomass is not secured into the future time), that doesn't change the fact that the company can claim to be carbon neutral now. That's a problem, and that's exactly why the court ruled Apple cannot claim the Apple Watch is carbon neutral. Because the means of offsetting might not be realized, but Apple are claiming it as fact now. It's this part of the story, not simply that it is Apple, that makes the story so newsworthy. It is not possible to accurately quantify how much carbon really will be "trapped" in the future, only in biomass that has already grown. The carbon credits are aspirational.

 

[Happy_John]

.

 

[rafark]

Using anything but native trees for reforestation is bad. Let alone eucalyptus, that genus is native to Australia only. It’s been planted in several parts of the world and it becomes invasive very quickly, it requires too much water and it changes the ph of the soil.

 

[henrikhelmers]

I understand that being an early mover in this space is not easy. If Apple products were all carbon neutral it would make the purchase decision easier. As a premium brand they should be well positioned to offer this.

 

[tranceme]

Ironic how the biggest car company from Germany once cheated at emissions. Not they are all about over correcting.

What is so crazy about this is how environmentalist group feels this is a win. Apple advertising green initiatives gets people thinking about this and helps their cause. Regardless if Apple was bending the truth. I think this backfires on them. Great job.

 

[paradox00]

Still 75% carbon neutral isn’t bad. Does any other smartwatch manufacturer have that high a rating? 🤔

Carbon neutral is a complete misnomer in the first place. At best it can be referred to as an offset.

Apple Watch production releases CO2 to the atmosphere. It’s not neutral with respect to not producing the watch. Period. End of story.

Apple buying credits for the carbon stored in trees planted by others doesn’t change this reality. Those trees don’t store more carbon after a credit was sold for them. Nor is there a guarantee those trees won’t be burned down in 2029 and release the captured carbon back into the atmosphere anyway.

Even if Apple were actually responsible for the trees being planted why stop at a 1:1 ratio? Why not plant enough trees to capture 5x the emissions of the Apple Watch production? They don’t do that because it’s about marketing, not the environment.

Tree planting simply isn’t an effective substitute for emissions reductions. The best way to reduce Apple’s carbon footprint is to make electronics repairable, upgradable and long lasting and simply make less new stuff every year (reduce is the first R for a reason). But that runs counter to Apple and every corporation’s obligation to stakeholders. At the end of the day they only care about the climate to the extent that it can improve their profits.

 

[SFjohn]

Carbon neutral is a complete misnomer in the first place. At best it can be referred to as an offset.

Apple Watch production releases CO2 to the atmosphere. It’s not neutral with respect to not producing the watch. Period. End of story.

Apple buying credits for the carbon stored in trees planted by others doesn’t change this reality. Those trees don’t store more carbon after a credit was sold for them. Nor is there a guarantee those trees won’t be burned down in 2029 and release the captured carbon back into the atmosphere anyway.

Even if Apple were actually responsible for the trees being planted why stop at a 1:1 ratio? Why not plant enough trees to capture 5x the emissions of the Apple Watch production? They don’t do that because it’s about marketing, not the environment.

Tree planting simply isn’t an effective substitute for emissions reductions. The best way to reduce Apple’s carbon footprint is to make electronics repairable, upgradable and long lasting and simply make less new stuff every year (reduce is the first R for a reason). But that runs counter to Apple and every corporation’s obligation to stakeholders. At the end of the day they only care about the climate to the extent that it can improve their profits.

It’s never as simple as you make it sound. As far as Apple goes when it comes to smartwatches, they emit 75% less CO2 into the atmosphere than other brands. 😮‍💨

 

[dotnet]

What is so crazy about this is how environmentalist group feels this is a win. Apple advertising green initiatives gets people thinking about this and helps their cause. Regardless if Apple was bending the truth. I think this backfires on them. Great job.

The message that this sends to corporations everywhere is: don't try to be carbon neutral – most people don't give a damn and those who do would rather drag you into court than appreciate what you do.

 

[Shirasaki]

Apple telling half-truths and downright lying in people's faces until someone drags them to court.

Very representative of Cook-era Apple.

Yeah seems about right. Tbh though I doubt Steve Jobs cared about this either even though at his time greenwashing wasn’t as prevalent as it is today.

no one cares about carbon neutral anyways. it doesn't sell phones 🤷‍♂️

Yeah but you sell phones to people no? If enough people simply can’t afford to buy your iPhone short of giving away for free, I wonder how Apple can earn money. I know Apple has a large group of die hard loyal fans willing to give money to Tim even if they can’t afford to eat but still.

Carbon Neutral is just taxes and a play word for politics.
Carbon based life forms are everywhere live or dead.
Not neutral anything.

Carbon Neutral means we don’t generate more CO2 than what we already have today, in a bid to halt the negative effects of global warming and associated extreme weathers and whatnot. Clearly capitalism turns it into some sort of tax but that doesn’t mean carbon neutral as an idea isn’t valid.

That's what you get when you try to please these people.

They are already happy, they just like to complain, they'll never be happy.

Other companies don't bother one bit with those things, still sell their watches, including to these people complaining.

This pushes companies to stick with what's barely legal and return the savings/profits to their investors.

Are they happy tho? Why they complain if they are happy? Besides, I believe companies can’t survive if they have no customer base. Wonder if Apple is any different or they will transition to a B2B.
Yes other companies don’t care about these stuff one bit but the effect of increasingly extreme weathers can’t be ignored by anyone either, including your precious investors.

Those Tree-huggers and their crazy logic.

Edit: Wow! So many Tree-hugger supporters... 🌴

Yeah let’s cut down all the trees on this planet and see how the earth reacts to it. I’m sure you will LOVE IT SO MUCH.

And yet people still defending them 🤡

That’s I suppose an extremely unique position for Apple: their die hard fans will defend Apple in every turn, for free, while also giving Apple their hard earned money even if they can’t afford to eat or drink water.

Carbon credits always seemed funny to me. Applying accounting trickery to environmentalism makes as much sense as it does to childcare.

It's ok if I starve one of my kids because I overfed the other one - on average, I'm doing a great job!

Lmao imagine this analogy got used in big media more often. We should let more people know this comparison.