I have a perfectly working 24" 2007 iMac running El Capitan.
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 Issues $1 Billion Green Bond Sale to Fund Renewable Energy
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I was really talking about iOS but even with Mac, you have to have previously "purchased" the older version in the App Store or it won't show up... Only the latest version will show up otherwise, unless I'm mistaken.
Then you really don't get it.
When the vast majority of users are done with a product they wouldn't consider opening, it's not the end of life of the product. There are plenty of people who buy used electronics, upgrade it, and sell it at a profit.
If *anyone* is using your old Mac/iPhone/etc, rather than it being scraped and the other person buying a cheap low-end new product, it's a win for the environment.
Totally wrong. In the end, the same amount of tech is in users hands regardless of whether it's old high end stuff or cheap new stuff. Keeping the products in circulation as long as possible reduces the total amount of tech to be scrapped.
Case in point, a 2004 iPod mini (originally priced at $200 with a 4 gig microdrive) is still worth about $120 with a 64 gig flash card installed, and nearly the original $200 with 128 gig. Of course that's also with a new battery installed at the time the disc was replaced. 13 year old *upgradable* apple products have held most of their value to this date. If it had soldered memory and a glued battery, it would have been in the landfill many years ago.
It doesn't matter if you can open the hardware or not.
Look at the crime banks involved in this.
[doublepost=1497379890][/doublepost]
[doublepost=1497379890][/doublepost]
You need to study tax policies of nations and the banks that control them are based in Germany.
Didn't Apple INVEST money in manufacturing facilities, raw materials, employees and financial deals with overseas companies, or did the money just fall from the sky and new computers just started cranking out of the factories?
Before the age of the notebook people used to upgrade their computers all the times, even non-tech savvy users. My mom still brings her PC to the local "PC guy" when something doesn't work, and they always upgrade a single component. They never sell her an all new PC.
Are you saying companies like Apple, Samsung, BMW, etc., should only pay taxes in their home countries?
No on the contrary- they should pay taxes on money they earn, whether it is held in a domestic bank or overseas bank. I don't see it as fair that money earned overseas should not count as income just because its held offshore.
Corporations directly subtract any foreign tax paid under most circumstances. It's not as clear as 35%.
My mechanic is happy to tell me I don't need to buy a new car when he can replace the starter for only $94 an hour, but Chevy still tells me when they release new cars.
Likewise, my doctor won't make me a cyborg, but he sure is happy to swap out the parts as they fail.
Right but the 35% is the statatory income rate. You are talking about the effective income rate. Both statuatory and effective rates exist in both individual and corporate. No person or entity pays the full statuatory rate on all their income because of deductions and credits.
I just find it very interesting Apple/Cook/Gore is cost shifting their religious ferver about being green, against the traditional interest of stockholders, which might be changing as well, to the bond market. The bond market is made up of a huge variety of buyers, some of which themselves have a policy of green projects. So this meets a market need. No doubt at a substantial discount to regular bonds. Again good for Apple/Cook/Gore in their religious efforts.
Interesting confluence of events, largely made possible by extraordinary crazy policies of LIBERAL central banks to print money and buy assets at a truly unprecedented rate.
Apple gets a bunch of equipment at all levels paid for on the cheap. By other people. OPM.
See my links.
The US 10 year Treasury currently pays 2.11%. Apple leaks claim it will pay 95 basis points higher or 3.06% or thereabouts. So in 10 years they will pay $306m in interest. Trivial.
The offering states clearly they are free to release another truanch(es) as desired.
Interesting confluence of events, largely made possible by extraordinary crazy policies of LIBERAL central banks to print money and buy assets at a truly unprecedented rate.
Apple gets a bunch of equipment at all levels paid for on the cheap. By other people. OPM.
See my links.
The US 10 year Treasury currently pays 2.11%. Apple leaks claim it will pay 95 basis points higher or 3.06% or thereabouts. So in 10 years they will pay $306m in interest. Trivial.
The offering states clearly they are free to release another truanch(es) as desired.
Last edited:
The name's Bond. Green Bond. 00-Billion, licensed to kill (energy inefficiency).
...
Villain: You'll never win Mr. Green Bond! I am Auric Gluefinger, and I will replace your upgradeable computers with sealed units full of GLUE! Ahahahahah
[Bond is placed in a tub of industrial glue that slowly fills as computers roll past on the assembly line being glued together]
Bond: Gluefinger, that's monstrous!
Bond: [nervous] I think you made your point. Thank you for the demonstration...
Gluefinger: Choose your next witticism carefully Mr. Bond, it may be your last. Now Let's see what happens when we drop support for old hardware altogether...
Bond: Do you expect me to keep buying upgrades at inflated prices for proprietary interfaces no-one asked for?!
Gluefinger: No Mr. Bond, I expect you to dispose of the device and buy a whole new one!
Later...
Attractive stranger: Hello there.
Bond: Who are you?
Attractive stranger: I'm Mac Pro.
Bond: I must be dreaming...
My 2000 truck has a design defect in the starter that the car company knew about early on and they made an updated part available but did not issue a recall. Last year, the design defect 'showed up' in my truck but the updated part is no longer available. A new truck is $70,000. Shouldn't the car company support vehicle repairs until the last vehicle of that model is off the road?
I think the point being made by some is there is a percentage of that population that does open the case and upgrade and so they do 'prolong' the obsolescence of their computer. I guess the falsity in this position is the percent who don't times the additional hardware (connectors, ports, accessible busses, panels, etc.) required to allow this seldom used option is a far greater waste on our 'green' resources. In other words for everyone who doesn't use that ram socket that is one more ram socket in the trash that otherwise wouldn't need to be there if the ram was soldered down.
I would say a 35% tax rate is evil regardless of who it is levied upon. Bad for Apple, bad for our country, bad for our souls. It enriches the most evil amongst us.
[doublepost=1497397801][/doublepost]
35% wasn't even fare share in the middle ages. Your priorities are wacked.
Whatever floats your boat. It's not like Apple has been pushing hard at green initiates for years now.
Nobody including users of Samsung products even remotely thinks Samsung would do anything to reduce their product obsolescence. Everyone knows Samsung devices slow down after six months, and barely receive one update to software.
Apple gets flack because they actual try to do something good.
Why? My retina MacBook Pro is 5 years old and I do not plan to replace it. I have 16GB of RAM, and even 16GB of RAM is not entirely standard today.
Lots of my apple devices still work, like my 10 year old iPod 5.5 generation.
If you want upgradability, then spec everything out. But if specs and upgradability is your thing, then maybe Apple isn't right for you.
As for regular consumers like me, it's fine.
Oh where to start...
Ok, well going $1B in debt for a silly initiative is a bit irresponsible. Contrary to what Wallstreet type pundits will tell you, debt is almost never a good thing. If you have the cash to spend, then fine, do that. Yes, I know the corp. tax rate in the US is insanely high. Thank you democrats. Apple is a corporate citizen, so if they want to waste money, that is perfectly fine in a free market (what's left of the free market anyway). I wonder how most shareholders feel about this?
Speaking of cash, most of which Apple holds overseas, why doesn't Apple spend $1B in cash for a green initiate overseas? No repatriation necessary. Since China, India, and other "developing" countries are the world's biggest polluters, would it not make more sense to run green initiatives where the pollution is, instead of in the US which, contrary to global warming alarmists, is the cleanest country on the planet?
Oh Parie, Parie, Parie... The Paris climate accord does nothing to curb "greenhouse emissions," rather all it does is further fleece America of its wealth and creates a path to undermine the sovereignty of the United States. Thank God there's an adult in the room smart enough to remove the US from that disaster of an "agreement." I could go on, but 'nuf said.
One has to question the decision making ability of a CEO who says "climate change is real." Well, okay, he's right in the sense that the climate is always changing; it's been changing for the past billion+ years - but of course what he's referring to is the "climate change" agenda, formerly the "global warming" agenda, which is nothing more than a political operation for the redistribution of wealth. Hell, if you believe what Al Gore has been spouting, then Miami should have been under water 10 years ago. Funny, my favorite beach down there is, oh my gosh, wait for it... IT IS STILL THERE!!
Follow the money. Everyone who pushes the climate change agenda falls into one of two categories - beneficiaries or useful idiots. Apple stands to make gobs of cash in the energy sector, as well as from product sales through the marketing of "green" products. And that's fine, there is not a damn thing wrong with building solar arrays and "green" products, just be honest about it. Build whatever kind of products you want, but don't get wrapped up in a deceitful agenda.
Finally, a closed-loop supply chain is impossible. This is due to the law of entropy. There is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine. Even our sun will eventually burn out. Due to decay and loss (in many forms) it is not possible to recycle enough components to manufacture a complete new component. If Apple is lucky, they may be able to obtain up to 70% - maybe 80%? of the material needed to manufacture a device from a previous device. To make up the deficit, they will have to obtain material outside of the loop. With careful planning and execution, they may be able to obtain the extra material by recycling products made by other manufacturers. Eventually the supply of these materials will run out, particularly if other manufacturers start their own "closed-loop" supply chains. At some point (sooner rather than later), it will be necessary to obtain 20-30% raw material to continue manufacturing new products. Again, just be honest. There is nothing wrong with recycling, it's a worthy effort, worthwhile, and with the right technology it can even be economically profitable, just don't lie and tell people that "closed-loop supply" is possible, because it isn't.
Ok, well going $1B in debt for a silly initiative is a bit irresponsible. Contrary to what Wallstreet type pundits will tell you, debt is almost never a good thing. If you have the cash to spend, then fine, do that. Yes, I know the corp. tax rate in the US is insanely high. Thank you democrats. Apple is a corporate citizen, so if they want to waste money, that is perfectly fine in a free market (what's left of the free market anyway). I wonder how most shareholders feel about this?
Speaking of cash, most of which Apple holds overseas, why doesn't Apple spend $1B in cash for a green initiate overseas? No repatriation necessary. Since China, India, and other "developing" countries are the world's biggest polluters, would it not make more sense to run green initiatives where the pollution is, instead of in the US which, contrary to global warming alarmists, is the cleanest country on the planet?
Oh Parie, Parie, Parie... The Paris climate accord does nothing to curb "greenhouse emissions," rather all it does is further fleece America of its wealth and creates a path to undermine the sovereignty of the United States. Thank God there's an adult in the room smart enough to remove the US from that disaster of an "agreement." I could go on, but 'nuf said.
One has to question the decision making ability of a CEO who says "climate change is real." Well, okay, he's right in the sense that the climate is always changing; it's been changing for the past billion+ years - but of course what he's referring to is the "climate change" agenda, formerly the "global warming" agenda, which is nothing more than a political operation for the redistribution of wealth. Hell, if you believe what Al Gore has been spouting, then Miami should have been under water 10 years ago. Funny, my favorite beach down there is, oh my gosh, wait for it... IT IS STILL THERE!!
Follow the money. Everyone who pushes the climate change agenda falls into one of two categories - beneficiaries or useful idiots. Apple stands to make gobs of cash in the energy sector, as well as from product sales through the marketing of "green" products. And that's fine, there is not a damn thing wrong with building solar arrays and "green" products, just be honest about it. Build whatever kind of products you want, but don't get wrapped up in a deceitful agenda.
Finally, a closed-loop supply chain is impossible. This is due to the law of entropy. There is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine. Even our sun will eventually burn out. Due to decay and loss (in many forms) it is not possible to recycle enough components to manufacture a complete new component. If Apple is lucky, they may be able to obtain up to 70% - maybe 80%? of the material needed to manufacture a device from a previous device. To make up the deficit, they will have to obtain material outside of the loop. With careful planning and execution, they may be able to obtain the extra material by recycling products made by other manufacturers. Eventually the supply of these materials will run out, particularly if other manufacturers start their own "closed-loop" supply chains. At some point (sooner rather than later), it will be necessary to obtain 20-30% raw material to continue manufacturing new products. Again, just be honest. There is nothing wrong with recycling, it's a worthy effort, worthwhile, and with the right technology it can even be economically profitable, just don't lie and tell people that "closed-loop supply" is possible, because it isn't.
Good question. I can see an argument for no, after all the truck has survived past its expected life of 6 +- 4 years. I mean, if it's a pickup truck then definitely not. If it is I could see them offer the value of the truck or as much as $2000 in rebates towards a new one if you push hard enough.
I'm not sure how that is related to my point. Mechanics fix cars and manufactures sell them. They have different agendas because they have different object objectives. Your hypothetical $70,000 Apple truck has people who learned to fix it. That's totally fair, but apple isn't expected to train them and supply parts.