Apple Issues Statement on EPEAT Registry Withdrawal

[faroZ06]

I'll take "San Francisco thinking" over most of the "red state thinking" any day.

Wait - does using "red state" and "thinking" in the same sentence constitute an oxymoron? I think that it does....

Oh man, don't start the left vs right wing thing here. You might think that it does constitute an oxymoron, but there are plenty of people who think that left-wing policies are retarded.

----------

So you'll hand a blank check over to your governor so that he can build a high speed rail between those bustling metropolises of Bakersfield and Fresno?

Go Austin Beutner!

Really, I'd put those tens of billion dollars (or more like only 1 billion) into public start-up company investment, not a useless train. They could have bought a car and gas for all of the people here without transportation with that much money, not that they should have. These guys don't care about wasting money that's not theirs.

----------

smallest and lightest is what the consumer want. do you want your portable gadget to be heavy and bulky?

He was being sarcastic.

----------

This sort of "your standards aren't good enough so we're withdrawing" isn't atypical of Apple.

I don't have their entire PR archive in front of me, but they've used this line before.

Flash...

 

[admanimal]

One of the really great value propositions for customers purchasing a Macintosh is, much like BMWs they retain much of their value on the used market. If Macs become appliances that you just hand in to Apple for refurbishing, or more to the point if the used market dries up because Macs have a shorter lifespan due to limited upgradeability and limited repairability, then the overall value of a Macintosh will be significantly diminished.

The resale value of a Mac has nothing to do with its upgradeability (or lack thereof). Macs have high resale values compared with PCs for several (highly related) reasons:

1. There is only one company that makes Macs.
2. The price of a new Mac stays pretty constant from year to year.
3. There is at most one major new iteration of a model per year.

 

[jnpy!$4g3cwk]

Very disappointed

I'm very disappointed that Apple has made the EPEAT decision, and, I'm equally very disappointed regarding Apple's new (non-user-serviceable) Retina Display design. In my opinion, the mechanical design of the mid-2007 to early-2008 models were the best (too bad about the Nvidia chip problems). I don't understand why Apple is obsessed with "thin" and extremely light designs for the new Retina display MBP.

 

[MacPhilosopher]

Apple products are environmentally smarter, in my opinion, just by not going obsolete in as short a time as most other tech.

 

[firewood]

They pulled out of the EPEAT standard because they can't meet it.

You seem to be assuming that all of EPEAT's standards are actually good for the environment. A lot of environmental standards and regulations, as well as public assumptions about what is good for the environment, have turned out not to be.

 

[BlueParadox]

That's the lamest excuse I have ever heard from a company. They are attacking a standard as an excuse for pulling there products from attempting to follow that standard.

They should just face it that they can't meet EPEAT environmental standards. I love Apple products, but come on and stop trying to make excuses.

I'm almost certain you didn't actually read the post.

 

[MacDav]

You're a recyling expert?

That's the lamest excuse I have ever heard from a company. They are attacking a standard as an excuse for pulling there products from attempting to follow that standard.

They should just face it that they can't meet EPEAT environmental standards. I love Apple products, but come on and stop trying to make excuses.

Do you know what the EPEAT environmental standards are? If you do,
would you please explain them to everyone. Please explain how the evironment
will be better off if Apple continued to adhear to them. It will be very interesting.
If you don't really know, then your post is nothing more than a loud mouthed jackass braying at the moon. So, I hope you'll enlighten us.

 

[rocknblogger]

It also prevents illegitimate(?) service providers from taking the old battery and slinging it in the bin, or from fitting the battery badly and causing incidents on commercial flights.



I suspect if this was the case then Apple would be charging a lot more than $200 to replace the batteries. Besides which, I'm not sure why I care as long as the battery gets disposed of correctly and the chassis gets recycled.



I think that in return for money off Apple kit, folk will not only return Apple's stuff to them, but also send them old Dell and HP kit for recycling too.

You go to the Apple site, click about, they send you a shipping parcel, you pack up the machine and take it to your nearest postal depot. Not sure how they could have made it any easier.

Not everyone is illegitimate. There are plenty of Apple authorized service centers around the world so let's not now start saying they are all bad. That's just unfair.

You're missing my point. Regardless of how easy it is to return devices to Apple there are people that simply won't. The reason doesn't matter but the fact remains that X percentage of devices will end up in a trash pile somewhere. However if the battery was easy to remove that number would be lower.

 

[Fortimir]

Just chiming in to say the EPEAT standards are BS. Okay, maybe the standards in general are fine, but I've got to agree with everyone who thinks "the ability to be taken apart by the consumer" is pointless.

 

[Rivix]

I honestly dont care if their stuff qualifies. Paying for the qualification is one less cost to apple now.

LOL I think they can afford it.

 

[AppleScruff1]

Gotta get a kick out of all the apologist's in these two threads. No matter what Apple does they sing it's praises.

 

[sailmac]

One thing to remember is that we don't have any idea what went on before this happened. Apple helped start the standards for this company, and for all we know Apple could have been trying to get these standards updated, but were unsuccessful, so they pulled there products.

We may never know.

Thanks for saying this -- I was thinking the same thing.

 

[Rivix]

Do you know what the EPEAT environmental standards are? If you do,
would you please explain them to everyone. Please explain how the evironment
will be better off if Apple continued to adhear to them. It will be very interesting.
If you don't really know, then your post is nothing more than a loud mouthed jackass braying at the moon. So, I hope you'll enlighten us.

It only hurts their image by not being in it. Sure Apple could be just as green without being a member, but now they don't have to be accountable to anyone so people will question their creditability.

PS, you come across as sounding like a bit of a jackass :/

I don't think Apple pulled out of this because they wanted higher standards or update them (unless updating them meant loosening them). This was a decision based on 'innovation'. They've even said it. Basically they want to be less environmentally consious because they think it's an obstacle. That's why you would pull out of something like this.

 

[dra]

apple to di world

 

[faroZ06]

Honestly, how many consumers tear apart their computers on their own? Most people that don’t just trash their computers or sell them as is on ebay are taking them as is to the local trash company and pay to dispose them in with other computers. They don’t tear them down themselves.

Yeah. I rarely recycle stuff, reusing instead, but I'd just take it in to Apple. They're making a big fuss about nothing.

----------

Just chiming in to say the EPEAT standards are BS. Okay, maybe the standards in general are fine, but I've got to agree with everyone who thinks "the ability to be taken apart by the consumer" is pointless.

Yeah. Honestly, if you're a consumer who takes apart computers (presumably to sell the parts), you probably know what you're doing

----------

Apple products are environmentally smarter, in my opinion, just by not going obsolete in as short a time as most other tech.

Yes, but their parts are also harder to replace unless you are talking about an iMac G5 (easier to open and access than a Dell tower), PowerMac, or Mac Pro. And why the @#$% can't you use a dead iMac as a monitor unless it is a new one with a working motherboard??!?!?! Still, not very many people go and replace their CPU or something when it breaks.

----------

The resale value of a Mac has nothing to do with its upgradeability (or lack thereof). Macs have high resale values compared with PCs for several (highly related) reasons:

1. There is only one company that makes Macs.
2. The price of a new Mac stays pretty constant from year to year.
3. There is at most one major new iteration of a model per year.

Macs have great resale value, making them cheaper to own than other PCs in many cases. For about $100/year, probably even less, (selling every 2 years) you can have a shiny new MacBook Pro at all times. If you're good at buying and selling on eBay, you can even make money buying from bad sellers and selling to bad buyers.

----------

When I first saw the article about Apple and EPEAT, I was disappointed in Apple. Then I actually read the article.

People who say stuff like "Apple is dodging questions!" or "Apple is getting away with less environmentally-friendly computers!" have not read the article. They do not qualify for EPEAT because their computers cannot be easily taken apart by consumers. You should only post those comments if you think that the ease of disassembly by consumers matters to the environment.

I'm not saying that Apple is environmentally friendly, and their own comments that basically say "We are green!" can be discounted as marketing tactics, but this EPEAT situation is not something to get worked up about.

 

[MacDav]

Gotta get a kick out of all the apologist's in these two threads. No matter what Apple does they sing it's praises.

While I don't assume that everything Apple does is a good thing. I also don't assume everything Apple does is a bad thing. Each policy decision needs to be looked at objectively. It appears you think Apple made a bad decision regarding EPEAT. Am I correct? I am not familiar with the EPEAT guidelines. Could you explain the process and guidelines, also how and why Apple withdrawing from EPEAT will adversely affect the environment? It will be very enlightening for everyone. Thanks in advance.

 

[faroZ06]

While I don't assume that everything Apple does is a good thing. I also don't assume everything Apple does is a bad thing. Each policy decision needs to be looked at objectively. It appears you think Apple made a bad decision regarding EPEAT. Am I correct? I am not familiar with the EPEAT guidelines. Could you explain the process and guidelines, also how and why Apple withdrawing from EPEAT will adversely affect the environment? It will be very enlightening for everyone. Thanks in advance.

"The Loop's Jim Dalrymple notes that even EPEAT acknowledges that many of its standards are outdated, with Apple apparently believing that those criteria have become too restrictive and do not address the full gamut of the company's environmental commitments."

Really, this sounds accurate. It is unsurprising that US government guidelines are outdated. Heck, it would probably take a lot of time to change the guidelines even if they wanted to. A disadvantage of this kind of government is that it's slow, not that I am ignoring the advantages.

From a marketing standpoint, this is very risky for Apple. Many people will see this and think "Apple ≠ green", and the whole "green" thing is a big marketing tactic itself. I really don't like how abused this term is because it leads people into thinking that many things are good for the environment, like "ecoslim" plastic bottles, hybrid Escalades, and The Princess and the Frog on DVD (which has been marketed to me as a "green" product). Our school's idiotic Green Committee printed a bunch of posters that say "Going Green!!" and "Save Paper!!" (ironic) on them.

 

[DoNoHarm]

This is such an awesome and important point. Actually, perhaps this is a hidden cost advantage to buying one of these old style bodies. If this is one of the last generations they sell that is repairable, the resale value will remain high while all the people who go retina will be stuck with a computer that can't even smoothly display facebook. I was already leaning to getting an old style body and this point has me completely switched. Too bad my current Macbook pro is running so smoothly. I hope they still offer the old body style when it finally gives out.

I'm going to sidestep the EPEAT business a bit and speak to something that's been rattling in my head about this movement by Apple towards non-serviceable computers.

One of the really great value propositions for customers purchasing a Macintosh is, much like BMWs they retain much of their value on the used market. If Macs become appliances that you just hand in to Apple for refurbishing, or more to the point if the used market dries up because Macs have a shorter lifespan due to limited upgradeability and limited repairability, then the overall value of a Macintosh will be significantly diminished.

Right now, you can reasonably sell a used Mac for 75% of its value within the first three years of ownership. Dropping that down to maybe 25% due to a diminishing used market is something both customers and Apple should consider and be concerned about.

 

[MacDav]

"The Loop's Jim Dalrymple notes that even EPEAT acknowledges that many of its standards are outdated, with Apple apparently believing that those criteria have become too restrictive and do not address the full gamut of the company's environmental commitments."

Really, this sounds accurate. It is unsurprising that US government guidelines are outdated. Heck, it would probably take a lot of time to change the guidelines even if they wanted to. A disadvantage of this kind of government is that it's slow, not that I am ignoring the advantages.

From a marketing standpoint, this is very risky for Apple. Many people will see this and think "Apple ≠ green", and the whole "green" thing is a big marketing tactic itself. I really don't like how abused this term is because it leads people into thinking that many things are good for the environment, like "ecoslim" plastic bottles, hybrid Escalades, and The Princess and the Frog on DVD (which has been marketed to me as a "green" product). Our school's idiotic Green Committee printed a bunch of posters that say "Going Green!!" and "Save Paper!!" (ironic) on them.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply

 

[Mr. Gates]

This is such an awesome and important point. Actually, perhaps this is a hidden cost advantage to buying one of these old style bodies. If this is one of the last generations they sell that is repairable, the resale value will remain high while all the people who go retina will be stuck with a computer that can't even smoothly display facebook. I was already leaning to getting an old style body and this point has me completely switched. Too bad my current Macbook pro is running so smoothly. I hope they still offer the old body style when it finally gives out.

Give it some time.

Pretty soon ( 5-10 years ) you will no longer be able to "buy" Macs. A lease program will be implemented and you will pay on the wear and tear decided by a "Genius" (LOL) at an Apple store. A monthly fee of $149.00 and you can have the best laptop in the local Starbucks. Yayyyyy !

Anyhoo.

For me, a sweet top of the line gaming rig with a nice Hackintosh on VM Ware is all I need.

 

[AppleScruff1]

While I don't assume that everything Apple does is a good thing. I also don't assume everything Apple does is a bad thing. Each policy decision needs to be looked at objectively. It appears you think Apple made a bad decision regarding EPEAT. Am I correct? I am not familiar with the EPEAT guidelines. Could you explain the process and guidelines, also how and why Apple withdrawing from EPEAT will adversely affect the environment? It will be very enlightening for everyone. Thanks in advance.

Everyone is enlightened. If Apple does it, it's good. Even when it's not. Replace Apple here with Samsung, Microsoft, Google, etc and it would be a terrible thing. No explanations would be needed, would they?

 

[autrefois]

Kudos to Apple for standing their ground!

Apple will take care of the recycling, don't worry!

EPEAT was outdated anyway, so screw them!

I love how people supporting Apple on this in thread upon thread are just ignoring the fact that Apple made their MBPs less recyclable and less serviceable than they used to be. Just because Apple will take them back (and give you some small pittance in the form of a gift card for the parts they can sell or re-use: do you REALLY think they're losing out on the deal?) doesn't mean they're as environmentally friendly as the previous, non-retina MBPs.

So people are basically saying, screw the environment! Screw the consumer! Screw third-party Apple dealers! If Apple wants to glue a battery to their motherboard and make it so that only Apple can do anything to repair the machine, it must somehow magically be a good idea!

I love Apple products, but I do actually still use critical thinking when faced with new information. It's not good for consumers or the environment to suddenly come out with a product that is less eco-friendly and less serviceable, and also pull the rest of your products out of consideration as well for the environmental standard that you've been bragging about until recently.

 

[inkswamp]

In these posts I've seen the following:
1) People attacking San Francisco because Apple products no longer fit their policy (if they bend the policy, what is the point of the policy?) or saying their tax dollars shouldn't be wasted on Macs (despite 1-2% of all computer being Macs) or the fact that it's a hippie town (what does that have to do with anything?)

The 12 posts before yours contain nothing of the sort.

2) People attacking Apple for no longer caring about the environment when there is evidence in the past for the exact opposite.

Of the 12 posts before yours, I see only one that tangentially fits this description.

3) People attacking EPEAT for having outdated standards (though I don't think most people even know what those standards are), though Apple proudly touted their logo for the last 5 years. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

Of the 12 posts before yours, I see only one person making this suggestion and it's nothing even remotely like an attack.

Honestly, I wish people would act rationally about discussing this topic instead of ad hominem attacks against people.

You know, I wish people would create strawman arguments and then criticize others (ironically, an ad hominem argument) for not staying on topic. Now, that would be great!

 

[jontech]

My two main concerns are that they use environmentally friendly materials when they built the computer and also when the computer has reached its end of lifespan that they can recycle it responsibly if they can continue to meet these two criteria I will continue to give them my business

If the main concern was the serviceability requirements of the certification and I can understand why they pulled their products most consumer should not be opening up their computers to service them it should be left to service technicians that can responsibly repair and dispose of any parts an recycle

In the end I believe Apple will work out details with the certification process to ensure that their products comply

 

[gnasher729]

That's the lamest excuse I have ever heard from a company. They are attacking a standard as an excuse for pulling there products from attempting to follow that standard.

They should just face it that they can't meet EPEAT environmental standards. I love Apple products, but come on and stop trying to make excuses.

What is helpful for the environment is to do things that are good for the environment. What is not helpful for the environment is following standards about the environment.

Apple is saying here "we could follow EPEAT standards, but it would make our products worse, and it wouldn't help the environment". It is common sense tbat if there is an "environmental standard" demanding things from you that are not actually beneficial for the environment, then yes, you attack the standard. Or do you want the environment to be damaged because companies blindly follow standards that don't help the environment?

You seem to be assuming that all of EPEAT's standards are actually good for the environment. A lot of environmental standards and regulations, as well as public assumptions about what is good for the environment, have turned out not to be.

As an example, EPEAT requires that a product contains 25% recycled plastic. So if one product has 1000 grams of plastic of which 250 gram come from recycled sources, and another has 200 grams only with none coming recycled, think about which is more environmentally friendly, and guess which one follows EPEAT standard.

When I first started buying Apple products in the mid-2000's, I remember that Apple was having a hard time getting certified as "green" by anyone. Their products at the time had higher than average levels of toxic materials. Looking back on those days as "the good old days" is like thinking fondly of our childhood when we'd collect the mercury from broken thermometers so we could roll the pretty, harmless, liquid metal across our palms.

I think you are talking about the infamous Greenpeace report. Greenpeace didn't compare levels of toxic materials. Greenpeace compared companies promises to remove toxic materials. In one case (bromide flame retardants) they marked HP up for promising to get rid of BFRs within two years, and marked Apple down for not making any such promise. They just failed to notice that Apple had removed BFRs two years earlier so obviously wouldn't make any promises to do so in the future. (They also didn't get that Apple preferred actions to words, so they wouldn't announce plans, they would just do it. Get's you negative points when Greenpeace finds it easier to judge companies by their promises).

Everyone is enlightened. If Apple does it, it's good. Even when it's not. Replace Apple here with Samsung, Microsoft, Google, etc and it would be a terrible thing. No explanations would be needed, would they?

So you make some blind accusations without any shred of evidence, and when you are called to actually show evidence, you follow by more blind accusations without any shred of evidence, and you get voted up. Brilliant.