...but the companies making billions of Android devices are not going round preaching to the world about how green they are. If you do that, expect someone to question it. Or should we just believe all of Apples environmental claims because they said so?
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's 'Environmental Obligations Are Not Taken Seriously Enough,' Say British Lawmakers
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
...but the companies making billions of Android devices are not going round preaching to the world about how green they are. If you do that, expect someone to question it. Or should we just believe all of Apples environmental claims because they said so?
But we are the end users making guesses about such things.
I think we might not know the true costs of putting new batteries into used AirPods. The man hours needed and the design compromises and the costs of shipping and processing and the cost of batteries themselves. Oh - and the environmental costs!
what you say comes across as common sense, but maybe it is not so simple.
maybe the best solution is decommissioning and recycling. New AirPods can replace the old ones we recycled.
I get what you’re saying, but I just don’t believe it’s very productive to attack the leader of the pack. They’re not perfect, but they do spend the most on ensuring their environmental footprint is minimized. Even though they produce a lot of e-waste, buying apple is still by far the most eco friendly way to purchase electronics. I don’t see how lumping apple with all the other companies does the environment any favors
Doesn't matter who preaches and who doesn't. What is the environmental footprint and "green-ness" of all the smartphone manufacturers? If one is questioning Apple, then all should be questioned.
As far as believing Apple's environmental claims, yes, we should believe them because they say so. Lying or fudging numbers would be a PR disaster for them. See Volkswagen for an example.
All true. But I'd still say my iPhone trash per decade (which would be about three iPhones, or so, so they would all three fit in my front pocket) is minuscule compared to my total trash (which is literally bags of trash every week). Better if they get recycled, but not going to make any difference to world's trash issues.
Maybe. Beats me. I would certainly accept any analysis by anyone who did a scientific comparison.
Generally you can't make something an open standard if it is encumbered by burdensome patent requirements which given the actions of the patent troll, I'd say there is burdensome patent requirements that would require someone to pay those license fees. Who knows if they truly went to make it an open standard* but the moment that patent case showed up any process would have been put on hold and when they lost it essentially would have killed it entirely.
To work around the patent, Apple had to re-architect FaceTime to move from being a peer to peer platform to rely on a relay server hosted by Apple. An Ars Technica article from 2013 covered how Apple moved to 100% relay servers otherwise they'd be liable for royalty payments on it. At the time of the article, Apple was paying $2.4 million per month to run Facetime's relay servers. The article mentions that previously only 5% to 10% of the calls were running via the relay with everything else being peer to peer. That meant they didn't have to pay for the majority of the traffic so that's a much cheaper bill to foot if you're going to help host and make it a cross platform reality. I can only imagine that cost has increased over the years and if they'd truly opened it up to everyone it'd be even more again.
* I'm inclined to believe that Steve wanted to make it an open standard, it's actually a fit for his personality.
You have a great point. I don't know whether it would be a costly process to replace the batteries in something so small and meticulously constructed. I agree that it would not be easy. The reason it occurred to me was that in past years you could replace the batteries in large (over the ears) headphones. But, no matter what, for such a small product as true wireless earbuds like the APPs, it would take a commitment from Apple to refurbish them, and the cost would probably be at least half the cost of an entirely new pair. Or perhaps they could recycle them and offer a trade in value. It just to me seems wasteful that these are going into the garbage-stream once their batteries give out but the product is otherwise fine.
BREXIT means they now get to stand in front a new committee and new regulations for a small part of their business, I can't imagine it's much of a priority right now.
It's a sad situation isn't it? I'd love an open standard solution for internet communications.
Perhaps Apple doesn't want to do this with Brits.
But Apple are more vocal and "consider" the environment in "other countries" just fine. claiming 100% renewable energy, wind-farms, and the like are all considered ,helping the climate anyway, even if only Apple thinks they are wanting to do it for themselves.
But Apple are more vocal and "consider" the environment in "other countries" just fine. claiming 100% renewable energy, wind-farms, and the like are all considered ,helping the climate anyway, even if only Apple thinks they are wanting to do it for themselves.
Last edited:
So you are saying because Apple is claiming to be being environmentally friendly they are in fact going after Apple to audit them?