Have Apple not heard of the Global Warming

Discussion in 'Apple, Inc and Tech Industry' started by woody74, Sep 1, 2010.

  1. woody74 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2008
    #1
    So now with the new Apple TV to see your pictures and video you have to have both your Mac running and your Apple TV. Two devices burning lots of power whereas with the old Apple TV you needed to have just one. Since when was syncing your Apple TV an issue. When you go into iTunes it syncs automatically and moves your content.

    I would say the best thing about the old Apple TV is that it holds your pictures and video and you can view them without being huddled around your computer. Oh yes and you don't have your Mac constantly on and running.

    New gadgets are great but come on Apple power usage is a massive issues
     
  2. Jaro65 macrumors 68040

    Jaro65

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2009
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    #2
    Can't you just stream the photos from flickr? I understand that you may not have your entire photo collection online, but this would work to show off some photos to guests and friends.

    As you know, the current Apple TV is always pretty warm and so it is not exactly energy efficient. The new model will be much more efficient, considering that the most popular use for it is likely to be to stream the content from iTunes.
     
  3. gnasher729 macrumors P6

    gnasher729

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2005
    #3
    Six Watt. Do I need to say more?
     
  4. snberk103 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Location:
    An Island in the Salish Sea
    #4
    How many hours of 'on' time for these two devices to equal one saved trip by car to the video store? I think that is the big savings.... reduced car trips.
     
  5. R94N macrumors 68020

    R94N

    Joined:
    May 30, 2010
    Location:
    UK
    #5
    New tech is getting more and more power efficient all the time - every refresh cycle the battery life of the portable stuff keeps getting better and better.
     
  6. iHeartapple2 macrumors 6502

    iHeartapple2

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2010
    #6
    Really?? It seems no matter what Apple does someone will find something to bitch about. Only a few hours after the keynote and just look at the forum. Full of bitching and complaining already! If you don't like what Apple makes don't buy it. It's that simple!
     
  7. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #7
    I'm guessing you shut down your computer every time you step away from this?
     
  8. heehee macrumors 68020

    heehee

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2006
    Location:
    Same country as Santa Claus
    #8
    What's next, are you going to complain about Apple not building a solar powered ipod? :rolleyes:
     
  9. chown33 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    #9
    I was hoping they'd build one powered by complaints. It's one of the few things in this world that seem to be inexhaustible.
     
  10. ARF900 macrumors 65816

    ARF900

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2009
    #10
    Global warming is BS anyway, its proven to be a naturally cycle and that humans contribute very little to it.
     
  11. snberk103 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Location:
    An Island in the Salish Sea
    #11
    "Proven" is such a..... black & white word. Despite the bulk of evidence pointing at human activity being the major contributor to climate change - yes, there is also some evidence showing that perhaps the natural cycles are the primary factor.

    It's not really "proven" either way.... it's just what the balance of evidence indicates.
     
  12. *LTD* macrumors G4

    *LTD*

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2009
    Location:
    Canada
    #12
    OP fail.

    Unplug your fridge from the wall, then, genius. Enjoy.
     
  13. G4er? macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2009
    Location:
    Temple, TX
    #13
    If you mean adjusting past temperatures downward to show more warming, manipulating data, deleting cooler weather stations to show warming, etc... then yes, human activity is the major contributor.
     
  14. snberk103 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Location:
    An Island in the Salish Sea
    #14
    No, actually I meant the clear cutting of most of the boreal forest, the temperate rain forest and the tropical rain forest. Also the forests in Pakistan... note the flooding, the mid-east that didn't use to be entirely desert, the great plains and prairies that wouldn't have turned into dust-bowls in the 20's if it wasn't for agriculture. The near extinction of the bison, the extinction of the carrier pigeons, the near extinction of the many of the west coast wild salmon runs, the extinction of some of those runs, the dumping of the mega-tonnes of green-house gases into the atmosphere, the dumping of hormone altering pollutants into the water.... etc etc etc

    And if you want to know which bit of the climate changed (notice I didn't say 'warming') by the extinction of the carrier pigeons.... well, we'll never know... but there was a small, localized, change to the local environment in the foothills of the American Rockies when the ranchers extirpated the wolves. Thankfully the Canadians didn't, and now things are getting back to 'normal' in the foothills with some imports. Wonder if they needed visas?

    Humans are arguably making the climate 'warmer'... I do believe that. But there is not much argument that humans do more to 'change' the climate, whether cooler or warmer, in everything they do.

    [When the wolves were eliminated, the deer population exploded, and they ate the aspen shoots that grow along the streams, never becoming adult trees that protected the streams from summer heat and evaporation. When the streams dried up the ponds and lakes downstream also dried up. All the natural grasses and vegetation that grew along the streams and ponds and lakes also dried up and died, making the area hotter and drier. And dustier. Climate change (localized) because the wolves did what wolves do - they predated sick and weak cows and the ranchers wanted to sell those cattle so they shot the wolves.]
     
  15. R94N macrumors 68020

    R94N

    Joined:
    May 30, 2010
    Location:
    UK
    #15
    Exactly! Paying for something is like a vote. If you don't agree with some of Apple's business practices, don't buy their products.
     
  16. SingaporeStu macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2009
    #16
    If your TV is more than 3 or 4 years old or is a CRT, then probably leaving it on standby arguably consumes more power than the new Apple TV + streaming from an iPhone/ iPod Touch/ iPad/ MacBook/ MacBook Pro/ Mac Mini/ iMac. Probably not Mac Pro, though.

    Honestly, the only person I know that turns the TV main switch off is my father-in-law. Everyone else leaves it on cos they don't wanna lose their setting.

    In any case, you are aware that you can stream from a MobileMe account? That should save some power on your end. The server farms would be switched on whether or not you're accessing content.
     
  17. PerfSeeker macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2010
    #17
    This. 90% of power usage is from big appliances, heating and A/C. Cutting down on PC/gadget power consumption is laudable but fairly pointless in the grand scheme of things.
     
  18. 87vert macrumors 6502

    87vert

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2008
    Location:
    Pittsburgh, PA
    #18
    lol global warming.:rolleyes:

    believe in the boogey man also?
     
  19. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #19
    Apple is always looking to get the best performance per watt, so I don't really see what you're getting at.
     
  20. notjustjay macrumors 603

    notjustjay

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2003
    Location:
    Canada, eh?
    #20
    According to this thread the old Apple TV consumed 17 watts of power on standby and 22 watts when in operation.
     
  21. OllyW Moderator

    OllyW

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2005
    Location:
    The Black Country, England
    #21
    Yet still managed to give off more heat than a 2 bar electric fire. :D
     
  22. Gav2k macrumors G3

    Gav2k

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2009
    #22

    Ok so it's like this

    6 watts for the atv.
    10 - 85 watts for a mac mini

    Or

    48 watts for the older atv.

    I can honestly say you will save money as the mini as an example dosnt even cough when streaming media over wifi or wired networks.
     
  23. belvdr macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2005
    #23
    48 watts is what the power supply was rated for, not necessarily what was used. That would vary depending on what was being done at the time.

    I think the additional cost of the Mini, plus any other things you might need for it (keyboard, monitor, or mouse), might put your ROI in the red for quite some time.

    For existing ATV users, the second generation is a step backward. For those new to the ATV, it might fit the bill. I watch a lot of Netflix, but would rather buy a BR player with Netflix built-in before buying this. The decision really revolves around how much iTunes content you have to stream. I can see streaming video, but streaming audio to a TV is just weird, in most cases.
     
  24. snberk103 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Location:
    An Island in the Salish Sea
    #24
    Leaving global warming aside - if everyone woman/man/child in Pennsylvania could reduce their power consumption by one small lightbulb, a 60 watter, on average..... One medium sized or several small coal fired power plants in the PA could be closed. If you lived downwind of one those plants, or down stream, or next to the rail line delivering coal or taking the slag away; would that be worth saving 60 watts to you? Just one small light bulb. That is the power [no pun intended] of spreading a small energy savings across a broad population base.
     
  25. cantthinkofone macrumors 65816

    cantthinkofone

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2004
    Location:
    Missouri, USA
    #25
    End thread, this guy gets a cookie. Global warming was BS from the beginning. I said, but can't prove it here, it was years ago. The ice age was what, 200k years ago? wouldn't it make sense that the earth has been warming slowing since then?
     

Share This Page