Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
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".
 
Um....styrofoam?

Isn't that styrofoam in the corners of the box that held my macbook box when it shipped? Has styrofoam suddenly become green?
 
haha they finally found a use for that grass desktop that they were using for Leopard before its release
I wish they'd have stuck to the grass.

Possibly the tackiest, most glaringly ugly part of the Mac design these last years is that horrible purple smear that they are using for a desktop. I think that it's a creation of the Apple ad department that was somewhat forced.

Jobs has always asserted that Apple's differentiating factor is "taste." Perhaps that's why he used the grass screen for when he demoed Leopard? It's certainly the better looking one of the two.
 
Isn't that styrofoam in the corners of the box that held my macbook box when it shipped? Has styrofoam suddenly become green?

Yesterday.... ;)

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. :D Good info.

Is that anything like a "Replicant" vs. a "Replicator"?

(sorry, to much Science Fiction...) :eek:

:D
 
...no denying other companies will feel the pressure to start making their products more "Green".

Other companies have already been making greener products, look up at #97 (https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/6664354/).

http://www.dell.com/html/global/topics/pure_earth/index.html?&~ck=anavml

"Dell’s goal is to become the greenest technology company on the planet.

We believe it’s important to consider the environmental impact at every stage in the product life cycle."​

and

"HP’s Green Business Technology Initiative

HP helps you address your green IT needs through energy-efficient solutions for the data center and beyond – where better business outcomes equal better environmental outcomes."

http://h71028.www7.hp.com/enterprise/cache/331475-0-0-0-121.html?jumpid=reg_R1002_USEN
 
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).

The average drinks can, made of aluminium, weighs about 0.48 ounces or slightly above 13 grams. By drinking forty glasses of water instead of forty cans of diet coke you saved more aluminium than is used in a MacBook.

Your complaint about the process of taking a brick of aluminium and removing all the unneeded parts shows a complete lack of understanding of the matter. What is costly and energy intensive is the process of converting bauxite into aluminium. If you take a 2000 gram block of aluminium and cut out a four hundred gram frame for a MacBook, then collecting the 1600 remaining grams of scrap and turning the scraps from 5 MacBooks into four new 2000 gram blocks costs almost nothing.
 
They should have shown all the people who had to dispose of all their perfectly fine firewire devices, since they are useless with the new Macbooks.
 
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... :cool:

Hey, Firewire was their technology too, but they ditched that, right?
 
No...

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.

I have a whole bunch of Apple and Mac computers starting from about 1982 that still work just fine---//e, SE30s, PowerBook 145, MacBooks, MacBook Pros, G3s, G4s, Gs, glossy iMacs, etc. What do you do to yours that they don't last "for more than a couple of years"? I've replaced some ram, a couple of hard drives, a couple of fans, and a power supply, but that's it.

As far as the energy, resources and pollution---should they make them out of sustainably harvested forest products? Of course those trees are harvested using big chain saws and diesel logging trucks and huge sawmills powered by non-renewable energy. All human activity, indeed all biological activity--including yours, Weedhopper--creates waste products. It's a question of controlling the impact.

As far as being environmentally concerned meaning less $$$$ (by $$$$ I assume you mean profits), BS. There is no correlation. And there's that childish "Apple is greedy" crap again. Get a job and figure it out.

And one more thing: ALL PLASTIC IS RECYCLABLE / REUSABLE, JUST AS ALL PAPER IS RECYCLABLE / REUSABLE. It's just that lesser quality mixes can't be sold for nearly as much money, so they are economically much less desirable for the recycling firms to handle. But all that polystyrene, polypropylene and such that your waste collectors don't want in the recycle bin can be reused, but it just would go for lesser quality plastic items. Same with glossy papers, etc. It really comes down to economics. When economic critical mass is reached (or political will), all these materials will be reused.
 
And is this whole "Green is In" movement old hat in light of the "PRICE sells" attitude of the 2008-2009 Great Depression?


-Mariusz1977

Just like Apple to release a product according to last years specifications/requirements a year or so later and overpriced. Apple is no longer the technology leader they are just followers, though they do a half decent job if you are willing to pay for it.
 
i guess they want to get more credit for this by having ads and everything? i mean, i think it's great that they are driving for greener computers, and hopefully saving money at the same time
 
I love how Apple was able to eliminate mercury, arsenic and firewire all in one fell swoop... Take that Dell!
 
So what about a truly 'Green' MacBook?

The aluminum uni-body would look sweet in colors: green, purple, orange, blue, red, yellow. Does Apple plan to launch 'colored' MacBooks in 2009?
 
Greenpeace rankings

  • 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.

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/toxics/electronics/how-the-companies-line-up
 
What a load of crap do apple have any idea how much energy is required to recycle glass? No idea on aluminium but it has a pretty high melting point as well.

And how many poor congolese did it take to build? Enough of the environmental moral panic what's the human cost of these toys? :rolleyes:
 
Now all Apple need to do is use conflict-free Coltan and promote it. That should get other manufacturers thinking.

Hear, hear I've had enough of the greenwash i'd like to see proper action on this issue from ALL manufacturers who's products need coltan to produce.

The idea of saving on energy emissions is frankly ******** when you have human beings held in effective slavery to mine the resources needed to produce said goods.

:apple::rolleyes:
 
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.

I hear you a pet hate of mine is 'carbon' emissions when the correct term is carbon dioxide. I'm not a climatologist, I'm a graphic designer. And I understand the power of ambiguous language. It is worrying when scientific terminology is spun by people in similar professions to mine.

Very worrying.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.