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.
Greenpeace Gives Apple a B- in 'Guide to Greener Electronics'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Indeed.
I'd love to see Apple fans be told their car they have bought, Ford, Chrysler, Mercedes etc etc etc......
Was glued shut, and used propitiatory screws and that no third parties were allowed to repair it, they had to use the main dealers.
You could imagine the uproar
Meh. Just more PR stunt by Greenpeace to attempt keeping themselves relevant.
If Greenpeace was really serious about the environment, maybe they should talk to Oppo/Vivo, Huawei, or Samsung (as they are the majority in the international market) and see if those companies care.
If Greenpeace was really serious about the environment, maybe they should talk to Oppo/Vivo, Huawei, or Samsung (as they are the majority in the international market) and see if those companies care.
If Apple wants to be really green and ecological...
Let´s start: stop making all-in-one computers. Instead, make headless computers allowing to use the standalone display for decades!
Let´s continue: stop making wireless things as much as possible. Instead, make wired things, and save battery and energy: keyboards, wireless charging, etc.
Let´s start: stop making all-in-one computers. Instead, make headless computers allowing to use the standalone display for decades!
Let´s continue: stop making wireless things as much as possible. Instead, make wired things, and save battery and energy: keyboards, wireless charging, etc.
No, it wasn't due to Tim. I am not a fan of the guy, but it is due to how the market is, that drove things to become as such. How much of the population do you think actually upgrade their laptops compared to how much of the population appreciate a smaller laptop footprint/lower price point at the expense of such limitation that they would probably seldom utilise.
They'll never get over that.
"Hey. Who are these guys? Are they related to The Black Eyed Peas or sum'tin?"
Keep taking the cash, Tim.
"Hey. Who are these guys? Are they related to The Black Eyed Peas or sum'tin?"
Keep taking the cash, Tim.
They do and yes, those companies are even harder to deal with. Apple maintains an image of a company that works at sustainability, so understandably fans don't like it when Apple isn't given a perfect score but let's face it: Apple's bottom line is number one on their priority list. What they are doing with optimising production and recycling is very good, but that doesn't really change the inherently harmful nature of disposable consumer electronics.
And just to reiterate: recycling an entire device because a part of it has failed is incredibly wasteful. Repairing the part would be ideal, but replacing a part is still far preferable to replacing the whole device. A 2–3-year lifespan for a phone is just insane. They should last at least triple that, easily.
And as far as an iPhone 8 being impossible to manufacture as a modular phone… well, nobody has ever seriously put any effort in it. Put Apple's engineers to work and in ten years time they will have that for you, guaranteed. But the culture surrounding consumer electronics makes that very difficult. Nobody actually NEEDS a phone that's as thin and elegant as an iPhone, it's a matter of convenience, not need. As long as we put convenience above the environment, Greenpeace will pretty much hold us responsible, as it should.
Greenpeace's goal is not to aggravate tech geeks, that's just a side-effect, but to make sure we still have a future for using tech.
Trumpians should not exist.
I take green peace over ignorant self serving evil every day.
Why should the size of an organisation disqualify it from appearing on a such a list? And really, Apple's environmental efforts are the equivalent of curing cancer?
You also seem flabbergasted how it is possible to have a grading scale where nobody receives the top grade. You also seem offended by Apple de facto receiving the best-of-class award (among all bigger companies) just because the top grade is only a B-. I know that in the U.S. everything has to have five stars or it is really bad but other countries are not as inflationary with top grades and follow more a bell curve with very, very few (and sometimes nobody) receiving the top grade. For example, the German lens test site Photozone has conducted over 600 lens test, only a single lens managed to received top grades in all categories.
[doublepost=1508236162][/doublepost]
Do you not care that Apple is getting better marks than all other big 'electronics' companies?
[doublepost=1508237796][/doublepost]
Yeah, saying that Apple is clearly the best among all big companies is singling out Apple and 'attacking' it. How dare Greenpeace put Apple in such a prominent position on this ranking. They only gave Apple the best grades [among all big companies] because they needed its brand recognition to create attention to this report. This is really unfair to all the other companies that got unfairly demoted.
I give a D to Greenpeace study because who the **** is Fairphone? Obviously this was contrived to promote awareness of some vapid irrelevant project Greenpeace probably has an investment in instead of a real review of corporate responsibility to the environment.
Does even ONE consumer have a Fairphone product? I mean it should be an Easy A to suggest that if nobody has your product its obviously good for the environment, and even then it didn't even get an A rating.
Fantasy is always better for the environment then reality.
Does even ONE consumer have a Fairphone product? I mean it should be an Easy A to suggest that if nobody has your product its obviously good for the environment, and even then it didn't even get an A rating.
Fantasy is always better for the environment then reality.
Earlier this year, in Greenpeace's annual green report, Apple was ranked the most environmentally friendly technology company in the world. That report focused on factors like energy transparency, energy efficiency, renewable energy commitment, and advocacy.
You'll notice that you don't actually have to DO anything environmental to actually be 'ranked the most environmentally friendly'. You just have to pretend to be 'transparent' by making a 'commitment' and doing 'advocacy'.
In reality, if you were actually getting your energy from renewable sources, energy efficiency is irrelevant.
Greenpeace is not an environmental organisation, they are a political organisation, which is why 3 of the 4 things they focused on in their 'green report' had nothing to do with actively improving the environment or even reducing environmental impact.
Apple are equally as environmentally destructive as the others, and that is fine.
Yup, they are so irrelevant that you didn't even bother to comment.
[doublepost=1508244237][/doublepost]
Nobody getting an A rating really seems have twisted a lot of peoples' panties.
[doublepost=1508244432][/doublepost]
So, if a class takes a test at school and nobody manages to give correct answers to all questions, the top 20% should get an A nevertheless? Nobody getting top marks really seems to blown the minds of a lot of people.
[doublepost=1508244625][/doublepost]
You are right, the really exaggerating with regard to Apple by putting it so far ahead of all its other big rivals.
What are you suggesting? Not to include Apple in any such rankings because if you include it, whether you give it the best marks among its (big) rivals or not have at the top, you are exploiting the fame of the Apple name?
Correct, because targeting the largest, most vulnerable to criticism, leader-of-the-pack (so to speak) company, will have the widest ranging impact on Greenpeace's objectives, as other companies eventually have no choice but to follow the example set by the first company to comply.
Glad i got away from Samsung products this year. I still have a 5 year old Samsung TV that i will be using for a while, other than that im an Apple user.