Apple Issues Statement on EPEAT Registry Withdrawal

[jmgregory1]

I never said they can't. EPEAT is a rating system that defines a given set of criteria. It doesn't define all criteria though, and it's purely optional. No one is forced to adhere to these criteria.

Point being, EPEAT does not necessarily equal the best environmental position.

Never said the contrary, read the quote and answer in context again.

I know you didn't say so - that's why I posed the question because it's the segue to what's happening in the computer industry.

Couldn't be more wrong. It spawned a whole new industry :

http://www.hondata.com/

Again, the point is that what was once a part of a car that people could and did mess with changed. And that change forced people to do things differently. Let's see, isn't that EXACTLY what we're talking about here? Apple has changed the game and the other players and even the "rules" makers haven't caught up yet.

Sure, but requirements asking that local recyclers be able to seperate and sort materials don't.

I won't pretend to know much about how recyclers work, other than what I've personally seen. I've been to an electronics recycler where what I saw was tables of computers where they ripped and hammered apart the cases, then passed the guts to another station where wires and boards were separated. No one, not one single person that I saw, was using a screwdriver to disassemble anything. It was fast moving and the goal was to get through the mountain of crt's, desktops and laptops they had. Coincidentally, I didn't see any Apple products in the pile, although it was a mountain and easily could have had them buried somewhere.

And again, how recyclers are taking apart and separating parts today is different than what was done 10 years ago. How they do things in 10 years will most likely be different than what they're doing today. So do we set the bar at how things were done 10 years ago and just call it a day?

 

[divinox]

Cute green-washing!

 

[KnightWRX]

Fix your quoting of my post. It's confusing, your answers are in the quote block of my post.

Again, the point is that what was once a part of a car that people could and did mess with changed. And that change forced people to do things differently. Let's see, isn't that EXACTLY what we're talking about here? Apple has changed the game and the other players and even the "rules" makers haven't caught up yet.

Apple has changed their game, not the game. Standard bodies shouldn't just adjust Standards to Apple, they should update and adjust standards to reflect their policies (in this case environnemental). There is no garantee that an updated EPEAT standard would cover Apple's new EPEAT incompatible policies though.

For all we know, Apple is taking a step backwards in sustainability with the MBPR. Also, why did they pull EPEAT certification for products that still meet the criteria ?

Anyway, it's all moot. Optional rating system is optional. Apple just exercised their option. Why must this result in people saying the rating system is obsolete and that Apple is somehow being victimized ? I'll never know.

 

[york2600]

Energy efficiency and being recyclable are not the same thing. This is PR fluff. I've volunteered at a large scale computer cycling center before and having computers that cannot be easily disassembled destroys the ability to recycle them. If they can't be disassembled they will instead be crushed and melted down, with recovery of only a few basic metals. The rest will be thrown away. It's a real shame. A crap Dell is fully recyclable in the US, using safe methods. A Mac will get shipped abroad and melted down for metals in China in a giant fire pit.

 

[divinox]

This whole issue is ridiculous. I've never pulled apart a computer in order to recycle it. When I'm done with it, I sell it or donate it.

I don't know anyone who breaks their computers down in order to recycle them. Hell, even my company simply donates their outdated equipment to various charities (and trust me, we are talking incredibly old stuff).

If the computer is energy efficient and there are available recycling programs in place, that's good enough for me. I don't give a damn if it takes a screwdriver or a sledgehammer to pull the thing apart.

Open your eyes... you think all the junk we consume just magically disappear, or that it would be efficient use of resources even if it did? For obvious reasons things that are easily to disassemble are easier to recycle. That you don't give a damn goes hand in hand with you thinking the issue is ridiculous. Shocker.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0xpRk7MYNg

 

[jmgregory1]

Fix your quoting of my post. It's confusing, your answers are in the quote block of my post.



Apple has changed their game, not the game. Standard bodies shouldn't just adjust Standards to Apple, they should update and adjust standards to reflect their policies (in this case environnemental). There is no garantee that an updated EPEAT standard would cover Apple's new EPEAT incompatible policies though.

For all we know, Apple is taking a step backwards in sustainability with the MBPR. Also, why did they pull EPEAT certification for products that still meet the criteria ?

Anyway, it's all moot. Optional rating system is optional. Apple just exercised their option. Why must this result in people saying the rating system is obsolete and that Apple is somehow being victimized ? I'll never know.

I'm not sure why it came out that way - I didn't do anything different than reply with quote, although things have been a bit wonky since I installed ML - especially with Safari.

I'm not saying EPEAT should be changing to reflect Apple's changes - but that overall, how things were done in the past is the past. Production methods, consumer needs, recycling methods all change over time. If EPEAT isn't reviewing and revising their program (or in this case ieee making the revisions) then at some point it will be more than just Apple pulling out.

Knowing what I do about rating groups, my guess is that EPEAT is more concerned with their own justification than they are making any real and significant changes to what they do or what they suggest electronics manufacturers do. They've sold a bill of goods to such a broad audience (like the US government) that they will resist change due to the issues it will cause down the line.

As far as whether the rmbp is better or worse for being environmentally friendly through end of life is a question neither of us can answer today. Why they pulled approved products from EPEAT is yet another question we can't answer. We make assumptions and argue to support those assumptions.

The piece that makes me not believe there is some nefarious reason for them to pull out is the fact that Apple is so BIG and in the limelight for just about everything they do. They're not likely to make a change because they're doing something wrong, which will be exposed by the change itself. I just don't see that being the case.

 

[Swift]

Tempset in a Teaspot

So, the aim of EPEAT was to make sure that anybody and his brother could disassemble a device with a screwdriver so that parts of it could be recycled? Well, if Apple still will accept their own computers for recycling, and I believe this is still true, who cares? Answer: fussbudgets who carry an alphabet soup of agencies around in their heads, who probably don't like iPhones, etc. The battery is glued in in the new MacBook Pro Retina, and the screen as well. No other change, right? Oh, and the Flash memory is soldered in? Well, this makes a difficult job for 3rd-party repairs, true. So? Apple will do it for you. What do you get for that? A fast, thin, light computer with superior battery reserves and a screen with incredible detail and contrast. Terrible! I want a crappy computer I can take apart in my basement lab! I need to get some expensive tools to disassemble it? Waah! My recycling business will make less money!

B-But... what about toxic chemicals? Well, what if they don't get put in the computer in the first place? What about if the release of toxics by a MacBook Air is far, far less than the recyclable ones?

I bet there will be a change of heart in SF when they see the new standards that Apple will in fact present.

----------

Energy efficiency and being recyclable are not the same thing. This is PR fluff. I've volunteered at a large scale computer cycling center before and having computers that cannot be easily disassembled destroys the ability to recycle them. If they can't be disassembled they will instead be crushed and melted down, with recovery of only a few basic metals. The rest will be thrown away. It's a real shame. A crap Dell is fully recyclable in the US, using safe methods. A Mac will get shipped abroad and melted down for metals in China in a giant fire pit.

So it's bad for the recycling industry, you're saying. Shrug. What if there are far fewer toxics, they consume less energy, etc. Then you're probably putting more carbon in the atmosphere melting down metals to recycle.

 

[divinox]

So, the aim of EPEAT was to make sure that anybody and his brother could disassemble a device with a screwdriver so that parts of it could be recycled? Well, if Apple still will accept their own computers for recycling, and I believe this is still true, who cares? Answer: fussbudgets who carry an alphabet soup of agencies around in their heads, who probably don't like iPhones, etc. The battery is glued in in the new MacBook Pro Retina, and the screen as well. No other change, right? Oh, and the Flash memory is soldered in? Well, this makes a difficult job for 3rd-party repairs, true. So? Apple will do it for you. What do you get for that? A fast, thin, light computer with superior battery reserves and a screen with incredible detail and contrast. Terrible! I want a crappy computer I can take apart in my basement lab! I need to get some expensive tools to disassemble it? Waah! My recycling business will make less money!

B-But... what about toxic chemicals? Well, what if they don't get put in the computer in the first place? What about if the release of toxics by a MacBook Air is far, far less than the recyclable ones?

I bet there will be a change of heart in SF when they see the new standards that Apple will in fact present.

----------



So it's bad for the recycling industry, you're saying. Shrug. What if there are far fewer toxics, they consume less energy, etc. Then you're probably putting more carbon in the atmosphere melting down metals to recycle.

Are you honestly comparing energy needed to recycle metals with energy needed to mine them? If so, wow.

 

[Technarchy]

I don't care. Make cool stuff, Apple.

 

[RWinOR]

Apple has changed their game, not the game. Standard bodies shouldn't just adjust Standards to Apple, they should update and adjust standards to reflect their policies (in this case environnemental). There is no garantee that an updated EPEAT standard would cover Apple's new EPEAT incompatible policies though.

For all we know, Apple is taking a step backwards in sustainability with the MBPR. Also, why did they pull EPEAT certification for products that still meet the criteria ?

Anyway, it's all moot. Optional rating system is optional. Apple just exercised their option. Why must this result in people saying the rating system is obsolete and that Apple is somehow being victimized ? I'll never know.

Everyone is assuming that Apple did not try to work with EPEAT to upgrade the standards. Perhaps Apple wanted tougher standards and EPEAT would not act on it, or the other contributors flat refused to update the outdated standards. No one will ever really know why they pulled out. All anyone can do is speculation.

Times change, standards should as well. There was a time when a 5 1/4 inch floppy was standard in all PC's. Should we still want that? How about 3 1/2 floppies? The list goes on. As manufacturing processes improve and products become greener, the standards should reflect this.

As far as special tools go, there was a time not long ago when Americans were screaming about buying metric tools to work on their imported cars, and other imported goods. Guess what, most of us went out and bought that specialized tool, now it is considered normal to have.

 

[samcraig]

Everyone is assuming that Apple did not try to work with EPEAT to upgrade the standards.

Where do you get that idea? Who suggested that Apple did or did not try to work with EPEAT?

Everyone is certainly not saying that. I don't even think that notion was brought up maybe more than once or twice.

 

[Mad-B-One]

So, the aim of EPEAT was to make sure that anybody and his brother could disassemble a device with a screwdriver so that parts of it could be recycled? Well, if Apple still will accept their own computers for recycling, and I believe this is still true, who cares?

It's not always about recycling but life cycles as well. The city of San Francisco faces probably the same problem our agency faces: They want to replace equipment and have to follow guidelines the legislature set. Up until recently, Apple probably was for the EPEAT certification becaue their products were on the list. I'm working with an HP tablet/laptop hybrid. It is quite some years old but our IT can repair them as needed because you can in fact take them appart to a certain degree as an IT department. That means, buying them was smart because even though there is no warranty anymore, you can prolong the life cycle. You also have to have mostly the same machines as a big agency so your software roll-out and updates run smoothly. Having the 5 year life cycle certification helps them. Having the repairability helps them as well. In other words, I will never hold an iPad in my hands other than one of my private ones. Furthermore, I won't hold an Apple laptop in my hands either because they don't want to be certified. Remember - they pulled their certifications themselves. Now, what they do is limit the disaster they caused because Apple might have thought that nobody will realize, but they did! And now, the y have to explain some things. Apple supported EPEAT for quite a while. If EPEAT was so backwards, why didn't Apple help them to change? After all, most of their products still qualifies.

 

[The Final Cut]

i lost some respect for apple here, but then again the standards it broke are still not clear so I'm not hating just yet.

 

[samcraig]

Apple supported EPEAT for quite a while. If EPEAT was so backwards, why didn't Apple help them to change? After all, most of their products still qualifies.

It's pretty clear that Apple no longer considers EPEAT beneficial to them. And that is their right. That doesn't make EPEAT any more or less valid just because Apple doesn't hold their certification. All it means is that Apple doesn't hold their certification.

 

[Mad-B-One]

It's pretty clear that Apple no longer considers EPEAT beneficial to them. And that is their right. That doesn't make EPEAT any more or less valid just because Apple doesn't hold their certification. All it means is that Apple doesn't hold their certification.

Exactly what I was getting at. Problem is that the press and the rules for agencies thinks it is a bad move - which results in bad press - no matter how much fans of Apple want to put that on EPEAT, it is how Apple reacted. Sure, if Apple does not need the certification, they can opt out. It's their choice. Apperently though, they will loose business due to guidelines which got them the business in the first place: The certification from EPEAT. That certification is not Flash. You might not get rid of it by preaching HTML5.
In my eyes, the whole thing was just a move Apple underestimated in impact off.

 

[MacDav]

I see

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 pretty much believe that most of the people on MacRumor forums are mindless zombies. When they hear or see the word Apple they say: "Apple good". When they hear or see the words Samsung, Microsoft, or Google they say: "Bad Companies". Well good for you. Unfortunately, you still haven't explained anything about what the EPEAT standards are, or how the environment will be negatively affected by Apple not following them. I never really expected you to explain anything to me, because it's very doubtful that you know anything about it. It would be nice if you actually knew what you were talking about before you posted. Maybe now you'll do some research and try to shoot me down. Really, I hope you can teach me something. I like to learn new things.

 

[sulliweb]

I still wonder why it has to be an Apple vs. ___ on these forums...

Anywho, my perspective, for whatever that is worth is this. I'm a computer tech. It's my job. I work for a school that has a limited budget. A lot of times, we hang onto computers and scavenge them for older parts. I have a 250 GB drive go out in a machine, a slightly older 40 or 80 GB drive will probably work just fine. While Apple is making devices, not "PCs" as we've come to think of them, what some techs like me are seeing is a rise in cost over the long run of a computer life cycle. I can't work on it, or I have to have special tools... That costs money. Money I'd rather spend putting equipment in the hands of kids.

For the crew I'm with, we can work on all PCs, and probably half the Macs out there. I tend to steer clear of stuff I can't work on, and warranties aren't worth the money in he long run IF you can repair the machines yourself, so add in warranty pricing....

The only issue EPEAT has brought up that I've seen is making things easy to disassemble. That's good in my book. If you can't repair or easily repair a device, you're more likely just to chunk it and get a new one, at some point. That's probably means more overall trash getting thrown away. And more stuff being produced (using resources) in the long run.

If I'm a tech at SF, I'd probably see things the same way, and that may be why they're sticking with their policy. City budgets are limited just like schools...

Is Apple right or wrong? Don't know, don't care honestly. My concern is that I can't fix or reuse parts, and that means I won't be using many of the hard to fix Apple products. We haven't even done major iPad deployments for similar reasonings.

We just have to see the impact on our finances and budget as best we can to educate kids. At least that's my opinion. Right or wrong. No hate on Apple, but for all the folks asking who still takes computers apart? That would be the IT staff wherever you work. Scavenging parts can be a significant savings on repairs over time.

Just something to think about...

 

[thewap]

lets see, if I count all my macbook pros since 2006 till 2011 the repairs
I have done myself out of warranty were;

3 battery replacements $300 apprx
2 screens $250
2 keyboards $120
1 modem $45
failed ram $80
1 motherboard $180 aftermarket ($apple quote i think was over $1,000)
1 motherboard cleaned by me (Apple genius incorrectly assessed fried MB and quoted $1400 replacement, or buy new comp).

Total out of warranty maintenance costs estimated $ 1,000 for 4 macbook pros since 2006 with all still working most passed on to my kids.

Now that Apple has made the line virtually non-repairable for any of the above out of warranty estimate for same would be-- $6,000 to $7,000?
or a new MBP every time some component breaks ? no sense repairing out of warranty or buying second hand at 75% of the cost if any kind of failure will cost over $1,000. So no, I don't think a secondhand Rmbp is a good invest in the resale market better to buy a new one. This in my mind at least doubles the amount of macs that will end up in the landfills. It also doesn't help getting funds in the secondary market to help buy the next best thing.

just IMO..

 

[flipnap]

I dont understand why people go on and on about a glued battery. first off, its not meant to be removed.. like ever. a properly charged battery should last about 5 years. Do you know how many parts in your car are glued? Everyone hears the word "glue" and thinks of some elmer glue sloppy job. Its an industrial epoxy meant the secure the battery from bracket wear and exploding!! Its the BEST solution available for security. Why would apple put it in a metal bracket? that doesnt make a lick of sense..

----------

lets see, if I count all my macbook pros since 2006 till 2011 the repairs
I have done myself out of warranty were;

3 battery replacements $300 apprx
2 screens $250
2 keyboards $120
1 modem $45
failed ram $80
1 motherboard $180 aftermarket ($apple quote i think was over $1,000)
1 motherboard cleaned by me (Apple genius incorrectly assessed fried MB and quoted $1400 replacement, or buy new comp).

Total out of warranty maintenance costs estimated $ 1,000 for 4 macbook pros since 2006 with all still working most passed on to my kids.

Now that Apple has made the line virtually non-repairable for any of the above out of warranty estimate for same would be-- $6,000 to $7,000?
or a new MBP every time some component breaks ? no sense repairing out of warranty or buying second hand at 75% of the cost if any kind of failure will cost over $1,000. So no, I don't think a secondhand Rmbp is a good invest in the resale market better to buy a new one. This in my mind at least doubles the amount of macs that will end up in the landfills. It also doesn't help getting funds in the secondary market to help buy the next best thing.

just IMO..

i have had multiple laptops from multiple manufacturers and never had a single problem with ram or breakage. in fact, i have a 6 year old dell with the same battery and its running strong. how do we know you just dont treat your gear like garabage. get my point?

 

[AppleScruff1]

So, you pretty much believe that most of the people on MacRumor forums are mindless zombies. When they hear or see the word Apple they say: "Apple good". When they hear or see the words Samsung, Microsoft, or Google they say: "Bad Companies". Well good for you. Unfortunately, you still haven't explained anything about what the EPEAT standards are, or how the environment will be negatively affected by Apple not following them. I never really expected you to explain anything to me, because it's very doubtful that you know anything about it. It would be nice if you actually knew what you were talking about before you posted. Maybe now you'll do some research and try to shoot me down. Really, I hope you can teach me something. I like to learn new things.

I read the forum every day. I stand by what I said. How could I teach you anything you don't already know? You're the expert, not me.

----------

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.

Again, I just read the forum everyday. What I posted is quite accurate.

 

[Rend It]

I dont understand why people go on and on about a glued battery. first off, its not meant to be removed.. like ever. a properly charged battery should last about 5 years. Do you know how many parts in your car are glued? Everyone hears the word "glue" and thinks of some elmer glue sloppy job. Its an industrial epoxy meant the secure the battery from bracket wear and exploding!! Its the BEST solution available for security. Why would apple put it in a metal bracket? that doesnt make a lick of sense...

If you're referring to my post, I'm quite familiar with all manner of industrial adhesives, especially those designed for aerospace applications. As such, I'm also familiar with the difficulty of removing these adhesives. It usually requires extremely high temperatures (in excess of 200°C) or toxic chlorinated solvents. In the case of the rMBP, if one of the cables breaks under the batteries (or devices attached to said cables), then the batteries are toast, which is a waste of energy on many levels. The aluminum frame can probably withstand heat, but if solvents are used, they would likely attack that as well.

Who said a battery bracket has to be metal? It could be carbon fiber (which would add as much weight as the adhesive). Furthermore, it would cost little extra weight or cost to add a thin foamed gasket to absorb shock and prevent wear on the cells. However, these solutions, unfortunately, require a modest amount of engineering innovation.

Finally, if batteries are supposed to last 5 years, why isn't that fact reflected in Apple's warranty? Even if there were a separate one just for batteries.

The one caveat to all of this is if Apple has actually engineered an adhesive that can withstand the usual consumer temperature range (-40 to 85°C), but can actually be readily dissolved with non-toxic, non-polluting solvents, or can be released by application of heat just slightly in excess of 85°C. It's doubtful to me, but if so, Apple could simply choose to: (A) share the removal process with recyclers, or (B) at least explain that this is the case to its customers.

 

[MuppetGate]

Apple working with EPEAT on new standard

According to this article on Fortune

http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/07/11/apple-working-to-refresh-the-green-pc-standards-it-dropped/

And it looks as if the new standard will cover a wider range of devices

 

[thewap]

I dont understand why people go on and on about a glued battery. first off, its not meant to be removed.. like ever. a properly charged battery should last about 5 years. Do you know how many parts in your car are glued? Everyone hears the word "glue" and thinks of some elmer glue sloppy job. Its an industrial epoxy meant the secure the battery from bracket wear and exploding!! Its the BEST solution available for security. Why would apple put it in a metal bracket? that doesnt make a lick of sense..

----------



i have had multiple laptops from multiple manufacturers and never had a single problem with ram or breakage. in fact, i have a 6 year old dell with the same battery and its running strong. how do we know you just dont treat your gear like garabage. get my point?

Some people work in the field on locations, and also have kids..get it?

 

[gnasher729]

Energy efficiency and being recyclable are not the same thing. This is PR fluff. I've volunteered at a large scale computer cycling center before and having computers that cannot be easily disassembled destroys the ability to recycle them. If they can't be disassembled they will instead be crushed and melted down, with recovery of only a few basic metals. The rest will be thrown away. It's a real shame. A crap Dell is fully recyclable in the US, using safe methods. A Mac will get shipped abroad and melted down for metals in China in a giant fire pit.

So you claim that Apple is lying? That's a big claim if you don't have evidence.

And EPEAT is about "being able to disassemble with commonly available tools". A device that can be easily disassembled using an unusual or purpose built tool doesn't meet EPEAT. So since Apple is adamant that everything you return to them is recycled _in the country where it is returned_, why wouldn't they design a laptop, together with the tools to recycle it?

There are so many posts here how it is impossible to remove the batteries, and I could probably find half a dozen ways to remove them easily and safely (while using some simple, but not "commonly available" tool, which a recycler getting 100,000 Retina MBPs from Apple surely would have).

Finally, if batteries are supposed to last 5 years, why isn't that fact reflected in Apple's warranty? Even if there were a separate one just for batteries.

A car is supposed to last for more than 10 years. Try finding one with ten years warranty. The battery doesn't last 5 years, it lasts 1000 charges. How long that is in years depends on your usage. Many people can drive a car with a full tank for weeks. Others empty a full tank in two days.

 

[jnpy!$4g3cwk]

Are you really telling us you recycle your electronics based on the EPEAT standards?
(If you recycle at all)

Let’s see:

I get myself a screwdriver. Wait don’t have TORX, so off to Home Depot to buy one.
Darn! Only available in a set of 5 .

Okay, got the computer open. What am I looking at?

:

All cables clipped out (Don’t ask, had to go to get a small clipper ☺
Pulled the plastic coatings off all the cables. If I save the copper wires maybe in 25 years I may have a pound
of it to get $ 1.29 at the local scrap yard.

That disk drive/burner still looks good. Who knows if I can use it later. Put that one into a drawer.
Same for fan (dusty) and loud speakers.

Battery, still held a charge. Maybe if I buy another computer that uses that size I can reuse.
Into the drawer with that one too. Hard Drive is a little slow and old technology, but I’ll keep it as a backup.
Into the drawer will buy a case for it, whenever. (Note: the word NEVER is in whenever!)

Memo to self into cloud to remember what drawer and that I have that stuff at all!

:

This really looks like something 99% of all consumers would do.

All that hubbub when everybody knows you can just give the stuff back to Apple.

Really?

Amusing, I have to admit. Yet, I'm not mechanically adept at all, and yet, I replaced a battery in one Mac, two disks in two different Macs, and upgraded the memory in three. No big deal, but, serviceability is a big deal, these components still fail, and should be repairable by the consumer or the IT department. And, if they are as well made as the 2007-2008 models, they should last indefinitely-- which, in practice, means 5-6 years before the hardware and software no longer match, not the 3 years you get with Apple support. Spreading the Apple tax over 5-6 years makes it much more justifiable than over three years.

As for EPEAT, Apple seems to be trying hard to look arrogant.