The Ad is very "Apple", glad to see they are concerning themselves with the environment. Shows class on Apple's part to even make an AD, no denying other companies will feel the pressure to start making their products more "Green".
I wish they'd have stuck to the grass.haha they finally found a use for that grass desktop that they were using for Leopard before its release
Isn't that styrofoam in the corners of the box that held my macbook box when it shipped? Has styrofoam suddenly become green?
As a toxicologist, this is a serious pet peeve of mine. Mercury and arsenic are toxicants, not toxins. A toxicant is a poison, a toxin is a poison of biological origin (e.g., snake venom). All toxins are toxicants. Not all toxicants are toxins. If you are unsure, use toxicant. Thank you for your time.
p.s.
For lovers of the tv show House, despite what Dr. House tells us every single week, his crew does not search people's homes for toxins, but toxicants.
This is your first post, too.Good info.
...no denying other companies will feel the pressure to start making their products more "Green".
How about energy and water used making it? (actually, lifetime energy estimate). Making a brick of aluminum, and boring out almost all of it seems quite inefficient (presumably excess material is melted and recycled, which is energy intensive, but does recycle).
no...
Do you expect apple to use flash for their video?
Considering Quicktime is THEIR technology...
-----
I really enjoyed this ad, I only wish they would have focused on the performance factor a little, then they could target the ad at more than just the niche market of the green people...![]()
Seriously, does anyone really believe this "environmentally friendly" crap from Apple (and other companies) promoting how "green" they are?
If they really cared about the environment they would make computers that lasted for more than a couple of years and make it possible to have them repaired like in the old days of electronics. Sure, that would mean less income, but that's the price you have to pay.
It pisses me off that it's close to impossible to replace a defective component instead of replacing the whole motherboard, or buying a complete upper part of the laptop just because the trackpad button is worn out. Now, Apple -is that thinking about the environment?
And like someone else pointed out earlier in the thread: how about all the energy, resources and pollution generated when actually producing a computer? "Think different", huh? Apple's just about the $$$$ like all other companies. Being environmentally concerned means less $$$$. You can't get both.
I'll be keeping my 3 year old Powerbook G4 until I can no longer use it even though it's considered a "dinosaur" by most people these days.
And is this whole "Green is In" movement old hat in light of the "PRICE sells" attitude of the 2008-2009 Great Depression?
-Mariusz1977
I love how Apple was able to eliminate mercury, arsenic and firewire all in one fell swoop... Take that Dell!
To hell with green this and green that.
I'll club a baby seal and burn down a forest for Apple to make a small notebook that doesn't suck.
- 6.9 Nokia Scores maximum points for its comprehensive voluntary take-back programme.
- 5.9 Sony Ericsson Scores points for its new environmental warranty, guaranteeing take-back and recycling for individual products regardless of location.
- 5.9 Toshiba- Toshiba climbs to 3rd gaining extra points on the energy criteria; it is now reporting its use of renewable energy.
- 5.9 Samsung - Good on toxic chemicals and energy but very poor on recycling.
- 5.7 Fujitsu Siemens - Good on energy, scores poorly on electronic waste.
- 5.7 LGE - Improved score on recycling and energy.
- 5.3 Motorola - Improved score on energy, waste and recycling.
- 5.3 Sony - Still has room for improvement on energy.
- 5.1 Panasonic - Scores maximum points on energy but still scores poorly on all e-waste criteria.
- 4.9 Sharp - Improved energy policy but reporting of energy efficiency of its products continues to be weak.
- 4.7 Acer - Needs to improve on reducing toxic chemicals and recycling.
- 4.7 Dell - Loses points for withdrawing from its commitment to eliminate all PVC plastic and brominated flame retardants (BFRs) by the end of 2009.
- 4.5 HP - Still needs to improve on e-waste.
- 4.3 Apple - Now reporting product carbon footprint and new iPods are free of both PVC and BFRs.
- 4.1 Philips - Scores well on toxics and energy but scores zero on most other e-waste criteria.
- 3.7 Lenovo - Scores well on toxic chemicals, poor on recycling and energy.
- 2.9 Microsoft - Still scores poorly on recycling and energy.
- 0.8 Nintendo - Zero on most criteria except chemicals management and energy.
The aluminum uni-body would look sweet in colors: green, purple, orange, blue, red, yellow.
Does Apple plan to launch 'colored' MacBooks in 2009?
Now all Apple need to do is use conflict-free Coltan and promote it. That should get other manufacturers thinking.
As a toxicologist, this is a serious pet peeve of mine. Mercury and arsenic are toxicants, not toxins. A toxicant is a poison, a toxin is a poison of biological origin (e.g., snake venom). All toxins are toxicants. Not all toxicants are toxins. If you are unsure, use toxicant. Thank you for your time.
p.s.
For lovers of the tv show House, despite what Dr. House tells us every single week, his crew does not search people's homes for toxins, but toxicants.
The aluminum uni-body would look sweet in colors: green, purple, orange, blue, red, yellow. Does Apple plan to launch 'colored' MacBooks in 2009?