Nothing that has not already been said, but I too get sick of having "green crap" shoved down my throat. Despite how it started, it has become a political, popularity, marketing campaign for most companies. The government is going to tax companies that don't "go green" so why would a company not do it? Its not because they love the planet so freaking much, it all boils down to cash.
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 Launches New Environmental Publicity Initiative
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Never mind the materials contained in Apple products. I am talking about the amount of energy and resources Apple products help me save.
iPhone gives me driving directions, restaurant reservations, product purchases, etc, saving me numerous trips and from wasted time.
iPhone gives me driving directions, restaurant reservations, product purchases, etc, saving me numerous trips and from wasted time.
Don't you know shameless public relations BS when you see it?
I swear, this "Green" campaign crap is the most ingenious marketing tool for businesses since the invention of the T.V.
iPhone toxicity
Apple continues to NOT address the issue of toxins in the iPhone and touch iPod. These particular items are especially toxic. While Apple has made strides with other products, they keep ignoring the issues with these items. I have contacted Apple repeatedly about this but of course they do not respond. I like Apple products, but Apple has become just another large corporation that puts profits first at the expense of the Earth. Personally I do not now nor do I plan to ever own an iPhone or touch iPod.
Apple continues to NOT address the issue of toxins in the iPhone and touch iPod. These particular items are especially toxic. While Apple has made strides with other products, they keep ignoring the issues with these items. I have contacted Apple repeatedly about this but of course they do not respond. I like Apple products, but Apple has become just another large corporation that puts profits first at the expense of the Earth. Personally I do not now nor do I plan to ever own an iPhone or touch iPod.
It's called Greenwashing and it has become de rigeur in the corporate world. An interesting interview about this can be heard at http://www.healingmagic.org/wbkm/paradigms/august232009.html
Exactly, and i feel like the cost to make sure people know "how green we are" is ultimately passed on to the customer.......me.
I don't know how much you've traveled or are in touch with people around the world, but climate change is real. Extinctions, changing weather patterns, losses of fresh water, new insects, crop blights; these are facts, not theories.
Yes greenwashing by businesses is BS, but that doesn't mean that there are not very real environmental issues to pay attention to, and to do something about.
I agree with this too. Also, remember who is on Apple's Board of Directors: the Big Inconvenient One, Al Gore.
Please read George Monbiot's book 'Heat' and see if that changes your opinion on global warming. It has mine and I had your attitude until then - and I'm generally quite sceptical and in need of real proof before I believe something.
Yes, it is a very tough challenge but if you look at air and water pollution in the rich world, most pollutants have at least stabilized in the last couple of decades with quite a number showing drastic decreases (eg, lead). Globally that is not true, but it shows that if there sufficient money and will it can be done.
Just because something is difficult does not mean we do not have to try to do it (raising children comes to mind, not we should raise too many, but raising none will have some very drastic consequences).
Wow, so helping reduce waste, CO2 emissions and toxic materials in products is "extremist". And Apple is being "dictated to"? That's pretty funny. I guess that means Steve Jobs is really working for Greenpeace, huh.
I don't recall ever having a green product "shoved down my throat". But then, I don't go around thinking that I am a victim of some vast green conspiracy.
yes, it would be nice if we actually had the choice of not using these products at all, but unfortunately most of us are required to by our jobs.
I'd be happy to. Consider it done!
Well said.
Good point.
Another good point.
No strong arming involved. Jobs can chose not to do anything, like most companies currently do.
Finished that for you.
Wow, so much anti environmentalisms in this thread based on "I thinks" and opinions.
Yep, because most anti-environmentalism is based on opinions instead of fact.
I'm as environmentally-conscious as the next person; I recycle fanatically, use low-energy lightbulbs exclusively, have reduced my auto usage, and yes I do believe in global warming I do I do I do. But these corporate moves are 95% about PR and have minimal real impact on the environment. No knock on Apple; that's just how the world is in the 21st Century-- bloviating and posturating for the benefit of an incurious, over-excitable, short-attention-span public.
I bought my Mac Mini largely because of its status as a super energy-efficient desktop.
It's used largely as a media server for my Apple TV. Since Snow Leopard came out, it wakes itself up from its 1W sleep state whenever Apple TV demands media from it, so not only does it run efficiently when awake, but it's smart enough to sleep most of the time and save TONS of energy!
Apple's focus on the environment is one of the biggest selling points for me.
It's used largely as a media server for my Apple TV. Since Snow Leopard came out, it wakes itself up from its 1W sleep state whenever Apple TV demands media from it, so not only does it run efficiently when awake, but it's smart enough to sleep most of the time and save TONS of energy!
Apple's focus on the environment is one of the biggest selling points for me.
You really need to watch this video.
... and thanks Apple!
Now, how about powering the entire Apple Campus with your very own windmill. I'm pretty sure Vestas or Siemens will be glad to help. Why not? You are serious about the environment, right. Everything counts.
Standby Apple TV
One Apple product the Apple TV is very un-environmentally friendly. You can put them on standby but only by going through menus using the remote. We sell home control solutions and we replace the Apple remote with other products. The problem is there is no way to shut down the system, using a discreet command, or we would. This would be a very easy problem for Apple to solve with a software update and discreet IR off command.
As it is, these boxes get red hot, waste energy and die early.
This is just one example of simple things companies like Apple could easily do for very little cost.
One Apple product the Apple TV is very un-environmentally friendly. You can put them on standby but only by going through menus using the remote. We sell home control solutions and we replace the Apple remote with other products. The problem is there is no way to shut down the system, using a discreet command, or we would. This would be a very easy problem for Apple to solve with a software update and discreet IR off command.
As it is, these boxes get red hot, waste energy and die early.
This is just one example of simple things companies like Apple could easily do for very little cost.
Crap
Because when I try to use the service, it doesn't work. It sends me the email, but the resulting link for the prepaid postage returns an Application Error. It says to email so and so with details, which I did, and it bounced saying no such address exists. Nice.
When that's fixed, I'll change my attitude. But for now, it's crap.
Because when I try to use the service, it doesn't work. It sends me the email, but the resulting link for the prepaid postage returns an Application Error. It says to email so and so with details, which I did, and it bounced saying no such address exists. Nice.
When that's fixed, I'll change my attitude. But for now, it's crap.
I think its great that we are at least developing these tools -- but rather foolish to think we can solve the problem by *only* using less toxic substances to manufacture goods, controlling emissions and recyling.
One day, I believe the world will be faced with the prospect of either legal limits on how many natural children a couple can have or, more regretfully, mass starvation, poverty, and wars over dwindling resources.
The best thing anyone can do for the environment right now is to have fewer kids. A person that doesn't exist is the ultimate environmentalist.
Quite probably (that cardboard is cheaper than plastic), but what is often overlooked is that one needs to be holistic and compare the total cost, not just compare 'components'. For example, a smaller (but more expensive) package can be less expensive to ship, which may result in it being the less expensive overall choice.
Again, it comes down to the holistic question. For example, it certainly is cheaper to manufacture product X if the nasty waste products are put in 55gal drums and buried behind the factory, instead of disposed of properly. Or if the cost of the Superfund cleanup that occurs 20 years later is included in the math.
Sounds like someone needs a class in lifecycle cost management.
Historically, the general resistance for 'green' by industry has been simple: it is clearly more expensive upfront, so because companies didn't see a tangible ROI (Return on Investment), they didn't want to be less competitive in the near term, so they didn't do it.
However, this doesn't mean that it isn't cheaper in the long run: it comes down to the question of just which "long run" we're talking about ... and the "What's In It For Me?" question for industry is who has to pay for it.
Quite simply, once the Warranty is over, the manufacturer doesn't have much motivation to make the disposal cost of a product lower for the consumer - - its considered to be the consumer's problem, not their's.
A lot of 'green' is really about the long term, and one thing that the USA's Wall Street has shown us repeatedly is that they simply don't care about the long term.
And what makes this topic a harder one to address is that many of the subsequent lifecycle costs are hard to measure. Thus, the costs either don't get measured, or if someone is able come up with a proposed result, it gets attacked (and hopefully discredited) by parties who are generally opposed to the dialog of the overall lifecycle costs. The common reason why these parties are opposed is because they are afraid of a legal precidence being established back to the manufacturer, which may incur a cleanup liability (and more importantly, an expense) that they do not want to have.
To a certain degree, this opposition is understandable and tolerable, but what it really comes down to is a question of Best Business Practices: one shouldn't necessarily ask a company to pay for a clean-up of something 20 years after the fact, if "everyone else was doing it too". However, it is an expense that is going to be paid (eventually) by society in one way or another, which is the flip side of this coin, and things are (in theory) fair if we ask each entity to accept responsibility for their respective historical errors.
Naturally, whoever's running the company today would still rather have the bill not be paid until next Fiscal Quarter...and then the one after that, and the one after that, ad infinitum.
Case in Point.
The simple bottom line is that every single tiny little thing that hurts the overall environment incurs a 'Cost to Society', which if we were able to do a perfect total product lifecycle cost analysis would all be included. However, because this is 'too hard', we have a generalized Societal acceptance of these costs on a generally non-attributional basis. However, that doesn't make the cost go away ... it simply means that we're not too terribly concerned with tracking down who was responsible for it.
For an analogy, consider the medical cost to society of an overweight population (more diabetes, etc)...in theory, every source of nutritional calories is partly to blame, as well as technology devices which allow us to avoid exercise - - but we've not proposed a "fat tax" on automobiles, nor have we put one in place on McDonalds (despite suggestions to do so)...but this doesn't mean that the cost to Society doesn't exist. It does exist and is being paid for by Society, "hidden" within our healthcare costs instead of in the retail price of a McBurger lunch.
-hh