Apple developing "active packaging" for iPods and iPhones

[AppleInsider]

Known for thinking outside the box, electronics maker Apple Inc. is now apparently working on an in-the-box concept that could provide power to iPods, iPhones and other electronics devices still inside their retail packaging, allowing them to display demo videos and receive firmware updates while hanging unopened on a shelf in a retail store.

In a new patent filing discovered this week by AppleInsider, the Cupertino-based company notes that traditional packaging for an electronic media devices includes plastic or cardboard containers and boxes that house the electronic media device. The outside of the container or box is typically printed with various labels, advertising, device specifications, and other useful information that allows the consumer to make an informed decision whether or not to purchase the electronic media device.

Meanwhile, the inside of the device packaging is typically designed to securely house the electronic media device, where the main design consideration may be to prevent damage to the device during shipping, storage, or consumer handling. And although this typical packaging for an electronic media device may be designed to adequately protect the device from shock or damage, the packaging is extremely limited in other respects.

"For example, the ability to fully view or interact with the electronic media device while still inside the packaging is severely limited in most packaging designs," Apple says. "In addition, typical packaging designs do not enable the electronic media device or devices housed within the packaging to present content (e.g., media content or advertising) while inside the packaging and without draining battery power. Other functionality, such as firmware or software upgrades, are also typically not available while the electronic media device is housed within the product packaging (e.g., at a retail location). This is primarily due to the inability to provide external power or data to the device while still housed within the packaging."

To solve this problem, Apple proposes what it calls "active packaging," or retail packaging that provides "power, data, or both power and data to one or more electronic media devices housed within the packaging. The power may be provided by a direct power connection to an external power supply or by one or more wireless power techniques. A data signal may be provided by one or more direct data lines to the electronic media device within the packaging, or the electronic media device may enable an integrated wireless network interface to receive a data stream while housed in the packaging."

Such data streams could take the form of promotional information (e.g., advertising) or media content (e.g., digital audio or video content) for presentation on the electronic media device while inside the active packaging, the company explains. The data signal may also include firmware or software updates, bug fixes, or application customizations to be applied to the electronic media device.

Today, most iPods sold by Apple are secured in their retail packaging with help of a plastic of polymer "backing." Therefore, the company suggests these backings could be "printed (or in-molded) with one or more wire traces to supply power, ground, and data to the device. In some embodiments, the wire traces are routed to the appropriate pins or connectors on the electronic media device through the hooks or clasps that hold the device onto the backing."



For example, Apple goes on to say in the filing, "one hook or connecter may interface with a dock connector interface (or other suitable interface) on the electronic media device. The dock connector may include four pins to communicate over a Universal Serial Bus (USB) interface. One pin may be included for USB power (e.g., +5 VDC), one pin may be included for USB ground, one pin may be included for USB data (negative differential, for example, -3.3 VDC), and one pin may be included for USB data (positive differential, for example, +3.3 VDC)."

To provide power to the electronic media device or devices housed within the encasing, at least two wire traces may be printed onto or within the encasing or backing. Alternatively, the electronic media device may also be powered via magnetic induction or other wireless power techniques.

"The active packaging may include at least one antenna for receiving an RF signal from an RF power transmitter,"Apple says. "The antenna may be external to the packaging or integrated with the packaging. The RF power transmitter may output an amplified continuous wave (CW) or pulsed RF signal. If a pulsed RF signal is used, each pulse of the pulsed RF signal may exhibit a different amplitude, which may vary over the duration of the pulse. As such, the amplitude may take several shapes over the duration of the pulse including, for example, a straight line, an increasing or decreasing ramp, a square-wave, a sine-wave, or any other suitable shape."



Non-resonant or resonant inductive coupling could also be used to transfer power from an external shared magnetic field to the active packaging, according to the filing. In some embodiments, one active package may be positioned near or stacked upon another active package in order to transfer energy using mutual electromagnetic induction. By this method, one active package may include the primary circuit of a transformer while another active package may include the secondary circuit of the transformer. In this way, multiple active packages may be stacked together (or positioned next to one another, for example, on a peg or product shelf) to transfer power through a chain of active packages, thereby allowing an active package to power the next package via mutual induction.

In other cases, both direct power and electromagnetic induction could be used to power a row or cluster of active packages. In this example, the last active package in the row or cluster (e.g., the package positioned to be picked up last by a purchasing consumer) may be directly powered by an external power source. The other packages in the row or cluster may then be powered by electromagnetic induction, an RF signal from an RF power transmitter, or any combination of the aforementioned power techniques.

In yet another example, Apple says that media devices may also include (or be attached to) at least one position, orientation, or movement (POM) sensor. The POM sensors may include, for example, single-axis or multi-axis accelerometers, angular rate or inertial sensors, linear velocity sensors, RF triangulation detectors, proximity sensors, motions sensors, and ambient light sensors. After the device is powered, one or more of these POM sensors may determine the position or orientation of the electronic media device.

With the location of each device known, pegged or stacked displays in retail stores may be organized on a grid structure with each stack or row of active packages being assigned the same coordinate location value. In grid mode, each stack or row could then be individually addressable using a programmable switch or other suitable device.



"For example, an (x,y) coordinate system may be defined in some embodiments. In addition to sending location information to each electronic media device while in the active packaging, custom media content and advertising for display may also be transmitted to each electronic media device in a stack or row," Apple says. "The electronic media device at the front of each stack or row may continuously display content or only display content when the device detects some threshold level of motion. For example, a POM sensor integrated with or attached to each electronic media device may detect movement or acceleration in one or more directions. After a sufficient movement event is detected (e.g., a consumer handling the active package), the device may automatically display advertising, media content, or a custom message to the consumer. If the active package is picked up and removed from the display unit, the next device in that stack or row may automatically become the active device for that stack or row. The new active device may then automatically begin presenting media content or advertising."

Apple goes on to say that other coordinated or synchronized display effects may also be presented on a set of devices within a display unit. For example, each active electronic media device may periodically synchronize the presentation of media content or advertising with other devices. A synchronization routine executing on each active electronic media device may periodically enable a wireless interface to synchronize each device's internal clock with the internal clocks of all other devices in a display unit.

Alternatively, the internal clock of each device within a display unit may be synchronized with a network time server. A set of the electronic media devices within the same display unit may then be configured to display the same frame or portion of media content or advertising at the same time.

The 40-page filing made last January is credited to Apple employee Michael Rosenblatt.[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ] (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=11492)

[bigmc6000]

They seriously wrote "Best of Garth Brooks" in a patent application? I'd reject it just for that! ;) haha

[chinnian]

errr... does it mean that the iPod i'll be getting is already "used" even before i buy and open it?
so the lifespan of the screen and battery will somewhat be shorten even before it's opened.

[Footloose301]

errr... does it mean that the iPod i'll be getting is already "used" even before i buy and open it?
so the lifespan of the screen and battery will somewhat be shorten even before it's opened.

You wouldn't even notice it considering the shelf life is probably just a couple days until somebody comes in to buy it.

[DonSqueak]

Remember when Apple started lying about being "green" and stuff? Yeah, waste more energy, sounds like a good idea to me.

[charlituna]

You wouldn't even notice it considering the shelf life is probably just a couple days until somebody comes in to buy it.



you mean steals it.

seriously. those things are too easy to pocket as it is. putting them on the floor for hands to have better access.

[anantksundaram]

Remember when Apple started lying about being "green" and stuff? Yeah, waste more energy, sounds like a good idea to me.

Hmmm... maybe the packaging will spontaneously disintegrate and turn into compost.....

[aaarrrgggh]

Outside the box- :lol:

Reminds me of those cheapo battery operated talking key rings that everybody presses and wears down.

Actually they are calling out a charging mechanism; pretty slick idea. It is a good idea to make things functional, but I agree that there is a fine line between "active advertising" and "used."

[nite41]

Remember when Apple started lying about being "green" and stuff? Yeah, waste more energy, sounds like a good idea to me.

Well, Apple wasn't lying about being 'green'.

http://www.thestandard.com/news/2009/06/19/apple-finds-silver-lining-verdict-green-claims

[DonSqueak]

Well, Apple wasn't lying about being 'green'.

http://www.thestandard.com/news/2009/06/19/apple-finds-silver-lining-verdict-green-claims

So how does this make the enormous energy-waste this new patent implies any greener?

[AdamIIGS]

Remember when Apple started lying about being "green" and stuff? Yeah, waste more energy, sounds like a good idea to me.

Remember how great this site was before trolls, oh wait that would be a paradox concerning you.

[Cubert]

I've got an active package for you (he, he, he, he).......

[Magic_Al]

The consumer is just a participant in the iPod's existence. You don't own it, it owns you.

[DonSqueak]

Remember how great this site was before trolls, oh wait that would be a paradox concerning you.

Tell me again, what exactly made me a troll here? My use of argumentation (waste of energy)? My citing Apple? My caring for the environment? My distaste of hypocrisy?

[OC4Theo]

Sounds like a good idea, but who would want to buy a product that has been operating for while?
Not me for sure. I will consider that used, not new.

If this ever happens, it should be limited to displayed items only. In that case, people will have the option to ask for units not on display. :no:

[solipsism]

I don’t see such a patent to ever work as stated in the patent. This seems like it would only be viable as a vending machine in an area where people are traveling. This way the contents are protected, corralled and can be delivered to the purchaser with a full charge.

However, to make this work there would also need to be a way to get content fast and easily. THe OTA iTS downloads but I think a kiosk system for USB2.0(3.0?) transfers would be much better paired with this patent in a real world use, as there just isn’t a point to the point of buying a fully charged iPod Touch at a train station/airport just to lose your battery DLing a movie over there congested WiFi hotspot.


So how does this make the enormous energy-waste this new patent implies any greener?

He never said it did, he was just countering your claim that Apple has fabricated their attempts to go green.

[DonSqueak]

I don’t see such a patent to ever work as stated in the patent. This seems like it would only be viable as a vending machine in an area where people are traveling. This way the contents are protected, corralled and can be delivered to the purchaser with a full charge.

However, to make this work there would also need to be a way to get content fast and easily. THe OTA iTS downloads but I think a kiosk system for USB2.0(3.0?) transfers would be much better paired with this patent in a real world use, as there just isn’t a point to the point of buying a fully charged iPod Touch at a train station/airport just to lose your battery DLing a movie over there congested WiFi hotspot.




He never said it did, he was just countering your claim that Apple has fabricated their attempts to go green.

Apple itself countered their claim they've gone green. Leaving energy flowing into unused boxed items at all times? Seriously? How is that green? The laptops have improved, granted, but why this mess?

They have the demo-units on at all times, why the boxed items? Whom does that help? Please, anybody a good reason for that?

[solipsism]

Apple itself countered their claim they've gone green. Leaving energy flowing into unused boxed items at all times? Seriously? How is that green? The laptops have improved, granted, but why this mess?

They have the demo-units on at all times, why the boxed items? Whom does that help? Please, anybody a good reason for that?

One, it’s a patent. Don’t make some hyperbolic, Teckstudian claim that the paper used to process the patent is bad for the environment. Most patents never come to fruition and the ones that do are almost never presented as they appear. You don’t put your business plan into the patent!

I’ve created a scenario where a pre-powered device would make sense. From your PoV creating anything is bad for the environment so Apple should just close up shop and give the money back to the shareholders to truly be green. :rolleyes:

What part of these links are a lie:• http://www.apple.com/hotnews/agreenerapple/
• http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/environment.html

[DonSqueak]

From your PoV creating anything is bad for the environment so Apple should just close up shop and give the money back to the shareholders to truly be green. :rolleyes:

No, I'm just claiming that using that patent would not do much in terms of PR and waste a lot of energy. Explain to me how I'm wrong please.

[rnp1]

Anyone who buys a new iPhone GI, can be located any time. The iPhone GI can be activated by an external source to locate the individual anywhere in the world. With GPS, their exact position can easily be ascertained. Their data can be scanned, in case they are listening to Terrorist podcasts such as Alex Jones, or watching YouTube subversive material!
Yah-go for it! Sounds more like a Steve Balmer idea. Running Ads perpetually.

[DonSqueak]

One, it’s a patent. Don’t make some hyperbolic, Teckstudian claim that the paper used to process the patent is bad for the environment. Most patents never come to fruition and the ones that do are almost never presented as they appear. You don’t put your business plan into the patent!

I’ve created a scenario where a pre-powered device would make sense. From your PoV creating anything is bad for the environment so Apple should just close up shop and give the money back to the shareholders to truly be green. :rolleyes:

What part of these links are a lie:• http://www.apple.com/hotnews/agreenerapple/
• http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/environment.html

Sorry for calling them liars. They weren't necessarily before. But this patent makes them turn around. That's what I claim. They should not do this, as it's a waste of energy. That's all I wanna say.

[DonSqueak]

Oh no- here comes the diatribe.

How's that? I honestly don't wanna fight, I'm curious about how that can be perceived in any way but being a waste of energy? The demo-units show of everything you need, right? Why does anybody need the functionality described in the patent?

[Chris_CA]

"The active packaging may include at least one antenna for receiving an RF signal from an RF power transmitter,"Apple says. "The antenna may be external to the packaging or integrated with the packaging. The RF power transmitter may output an amplified continuous wave (CW) or pulsed RF signal.
In other news, Walmart and Apple employees have been reporting 10 times the average rate of cancer."

each active electronic media device may periodically synchronize the presentation of media content or advertising with other devices
Wait till someone figures out how to hijack/simulate the signal and dumps porn/their own advertising/virii onto the iPods sitting on the shelves.
:wow:

[solipsism]

Sorry for calling them liars. They weren't necessarily before. But this patent makes them turn around. That's what I claim. They should not do this, as it's a waste of energy. That's all I wanna say.
It is a waste of energy, but I bet that vending machine of iPod Touches (my idea above) with only the front device in demo mode, would be considerably less than the giant iPhone display they have in Apple Store windows.

Then there are the Apple Stores themselves with glass windows that aren’t as good for insulating as other materials. And then there is Apple’s excessive use of halogen bulbs instead of the efficient compact fluorescent bulbs, but they don’t help sell product with their unnatural light so they won’t be used.

The fact is, there are plenty of ways in which Apple can reduce their carbon footprint, but their goal right now —for better or for worse— is aimed at reducing the toxins in their products and the size of their packaging. Eventually they will tackle other areas just like other CE companies will move toward making their entire product line as EPEAT complaint as Apple’s*, but that will be awhile.

In the grand scheme of things, this isn’t a big deal as handheld devices do use very little power, especially compared to the huge displays I mentioned above. If you replace a huge display with an area to sell product that is also advertising in real time you can easily argue that you are using less power overall. My biggest issue with this would be getting a product that has gone through a few power cycles before purchase, which is why I feel the vending machine is a more likely solution for this patent. Worrying about a little power use is just making a mountain out of a mole hill without looking at the big picture of where the real power drains are being made by companies.

* Note that there are PC companies that are more EPEAT compliant (aka: greener) than Apple for a model line but not for their entire product line.

[Cubert]

Of course, there is always the Micro$ucks way to make packaging.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeXAcwriid0

[DonSqueak]

It is a waste of energy, but I bet that vending machine of iPod Touches (my idea above) with only the front device in demo mode, would be considerably less than the giant iPhone display they have in Apple Store windows.

Then there are the Apple Stores themselves with glass windows that aren’t as good for insulating as other materials. And then there is Apple’s excessive use of halogen bulbs instead of the efficient compact fluorescent bulbs, but they don’t help sell product with their unnatural light so they won’t be used.

The fact is, there are plenty of ways in which Apple can reduce their carbon footprint, but their goal right now —for better or for worse— is aimed at reducing the toxins in their products and the size of their packaging. Eventually they will tackle other areas just like other CE companies will move toward making their entire product line as EPEAT complaint as Apple’s*, but that will be awhile.

In the grand scheme of things, this isn’t a big deal as handheld devices do use very little power, especially compared to the huge displays I mentioned above. If you replace a huge display with an area to sell product that is also advertising in real time you can easily argue that you are using less power overall. My biggest issue with this would be getting a product who has gone through a few power cycles before purchase, which is why I feel the vending machine is a more likely solution for this patent.

* Note that there are PC companies that are more EPEAT compliant (aka: greener) than Apple for a model line but not for their entire product line.

S##t, couldn't they just commit to saying they'll use solar energy for that? Put solar panels on every store? THAT would be PR.

[AdamIIGS]

Not you- that who you ask. Of course it's a waste of energy! Electricity used on any way, shape or form is. Let's wait to hear the excuse for this one. Even I'm curious how he'll explain it. Solipistic explanations can be quite entertaining at times- like a sword swallower -except substitue foot for sword.

Shush you, let Mr. Gore speak.

Hey Al I do have a question, it's concerning how green you are and yet you had $40k in electric bills A MONTH at your mansion.

p.s. sorry about the election but well the popular vote doesn't really mean much.

[solipsism]

S##t, couldn't they just commit to saying they'll use solar energy for that? Put solar panels on every store? THAT would be PR.

It would be, but is solar power cost effective yet? For all we know this patent could be utilized to be powered off a solar grid. There is no mention either way. Maybe it runs off the bottled screams of tortured baby seals. It’s not like a bunch of handheld devices are going to a be a major draw

[brucep]

Tell me again, what exactly made me a troll here? My use of argumentation (waste of energy)? My citing Apple? My caring for the environment? My distaste of hypocrisy?

You have no idea how green apple is now
or you would not have spoke so out of turn.

[cwfrederick]

Remember how great this site was before trolls, oh wait that would be a paradox concerning you.

haha +1

donsqueak clearly has some emotional issues that he's avoiding by trying to make everyone else miserable with his "green" whining. get a life buddy.

you know how much of a difference to the environment it would make if apple had their products run active displays in their stores? NONE! if you want to do something for the environment go buy some rainforrest (http://www.conservation.org/Pages/default.aspx). the only thing this latest environmental movement has achieved is to manipulate a bunch of predictable people into a sense of self-righteous empowerment.

if anyone is interested:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6

[solipsism]

Sorry for calling them liars. They weren't necessarily before. But this patent makes them turn around. That's what I claim. They should not do this, as it's a waste of energy. That's all I wanna say.

You’re falling into the all-or-nothing, black-or-white of Teckstudian logic.1) They aren’t liars if the claims they made are true. According to the links above they are doing what they stated in removing toxic chemcials, reducing packing and using recyclable materials. Expecting a company to go completely green is ridiculous, excessive and impossible. You never even mentioned Apple already having every single Mac, iPhone, iPod Touch and 3rd-party accessory on display being powered up all day, every day, in every Apple Store. How many charging iPod Touches would it take to equal the power use of a single Mac Pro and 30” ACD on display at an Apple Store?

2) This is just just patent. Again, you are jumping to conclusion. It states nothing about the power source. It states nothing about what power could be saved by utilizing this method.

You jumped to and erroneous an absolute conclusion based on zero evidence and a false understanding of what Apple means by going green with their product line while screaming foul in the vein of Teckstud. That is why someone mentioned troll earlier (which i don’t agree with, BTW).

[DonSqueak]

haha +1

donsqueak clearly has some emotional issues that he's avoiding by trying to make everyone else miserable with his "green" whining. get a life buddy.

you know how much of a difference to the environment it would make if apple had their products run active displays in their stores? NONE! if you want to do something for the environment go buy some rainforrest (http://www.conservation.org/Pages/default.aspx). the only thing this latest environmental movement has achieved is to manipulate a bunch of predictable people into a sense of self-righteous empowerment.

if anyone is interested:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6

Shouldn't respond to insults. Will not say anything more.

[cwfrederick]

Shouldn't respond to insults. Will not say anything more.

hahaha, way to take the high-road

[DonSqueak]

You’re falling into the all-or-nothing, black-or-white of Teckstudian logic.

1) They aren’t liars if the claims they made are true. According to the links above they are doing what they stated. Expecting a company to go completely green is ridiculous, excessive, all-or-nothing logic (as stated above).

2) This is just just patent. Again, you are jumping to conclusion. It states nothing about the power source. It states nothing about what power could be saved by utilizing this method.

You jumped to an erroneous an absolute conclusion based on zero evidence and a false understanding of what Apple means by going green with their product line while screaming foul in the vein of Teckstud. That is why someone mentioned troll earlier (which i don’t agree with, BTW).

1) If they claim they save the environment with their laptops and then patent some energy sucking PR gig, that makes them borderline hypocrites in my view.

2) A patent that should have been put down as a waste of development money and potentially energy in the first place. Not published.

3) Anybody who says that has no impact energy-wise should open calc, run a hundred iPod-touches energy times the number of Apple-Stores times 360 and see how much that adds up on a conservative estimate of what would be powered by that. Of course Apple stores could save alot more on other areas, but will they do that once they launch this?

[solipsism]

1) If they claim they save the environment with their laptops and then patent some energy sucking PR gig, that makes them borderline hypocrites in my view.

2) A patent that should have been put down as a waste of development money and potentially energy in the first place. Not published.

3) Anybody who says that has no impact energy-wise should open calc, run a hundred iPod-touches energy times the number of Apple-Stores times 360 and see how much that adds up on a conservative estimate of what would be powered by that. Of course Apple stores could save alot more on other areas, but will they do that once they launch this?

You’re missing the point entirely, you are still jumping to false conclusions about a patent (for christ’s sakes), making odd statements about MacBooks that save the environment, and you are ignoring too many rational points for me to continue this discussion as a rational adult.

[DaveGee]

I'm far from a green zealot... in fact I'm not green at all... I'm of the opinion that this planet will survive just fine no matter what we mere humans manage to do to it. Its survived (speculated) planetary collisions that gave birth to our moon... Its survived ice events on the order of which covered the entire globe (also speculated). Its survived mega volcano explosions that blackened the sun for countless years. It survived the ripping apart of entire land masses multiple times to bring us the view we now have of the globe.

The earth will do just fine... we really can't hurt it in any meaningful way... US however... people, animals, plants, you know the living stuff... yea we can sure bring a world of pain down on our heads... no doubt about it. In fact... if 'green freaks' would wise up... they would stop with this whole silly self important 'save the earth' media campaign... Save the earth... how arrogant are these people... we can't even take care of ourselves in much of the globe, and WE are gonna 'save the earth'... :lol:

/rant

So where was I.. oh yea.. no green agenda here but this is a STUPID and DANGEROUS idea and I actually have a hard time thinking Apple would have even admitted to something so wrong on so many levels.

1. Batteries have been known to combust... I'm pretty sure Apple has seen its fair share of lawsuits to know this.

2. Heat! Lets imagine for a minute... a huge electronic department at your local wall-mart chock-full of every gadget you can imagine, end-cap to end-cap ceiling to floor and all of them being powered!!!! Can you just imagine the heat that wall-o-death must be producing?

3. Product life... Hey Joe... I got a great idea... let me take my iPod, hermetically seal it in plastic and then wirelessly power it 24 hours a day 7 days a week... I got a better idea why not just preheat an oven to 325 and do the job right!

4. Liability... A wall of iPods was identified as the cause of a 6 alarm fire in midtown today... lost of life and property are still unknown.

Not a green reason to be found... but all the same still a really stupid idea... something that I'd expect from a company found far to the north of cupertino.

Dave

[SuperMacGuy]

Boxes should be compostable, recyclable, small as possible yet efficient enough to protect its contents. Nothing more. No charging is needed, no "self demo" needed etc. Apple, and ALL manufacturers need to cut packaging waste. This idea sounds like an easy way to create more single use crapola packaging.
Despite the green/enviro chatter above, it's proven that INDUSTRIAL and manufacturing waste is a greater percentage of waste/garbage/inefficiency than any 1 person. So it's a company's job to waste less. The packaging decisions made about 1 iPod box can be multiplied by 10million, and even 1 extra ounce of packaging adds up to tons of waste and transportation costs.

[solipsism]

I'm far from a green zealot... in fact I'm not green at all... I'm of the opinion that this planet will survive just fine no matter what we mere humans manage to do to it. Its survived (speculated) planetary collisions that gave birth to our moon... Its survived ice events on the order of which covered the entire globe (also speculated). Its survived mega volcano explosions that blackened the sun for countless years. It survived the ripping apart of entire land masses multiple times to bring us the view we now have of the globe.

The earth will do just fine... we really can't hurt it in any meaningful way... US however... people, animals, plants, you know the living stuff... yea we can sure bring a world of pain down on our heads... no doubt about it. In fact... if 'green freaks' would wise up... they would stop with this whole silly self important 'save the earth' media campaign... Save the earth... how arrogant are these people... we can't even take care of ourselves in much of the globe, and WE are gonna 'save the earth'... :lol:

/rant

Even if we find that we are not the cause for the global climate change, that this is all just a natural cycle, we have a responsibility to ourselves to maintain the current global environmental homeostasis that we find most habitable.

[mstone]

How's that? I honestly don't wanna fight, I'm curious about how that can be perceived in any way but being a waste of energy? The demo-units show of everything you need, right? Why does anybody need the functionality described in the patent?

I don't think Apple will ever use this concept. They patent all kinds of things that never see the light of day. Don't waste your energy on arguing that it is a waste of energy.

BTW: Our business cards are printed on 100% recycled material from sustainable resources produced using wind power by vegetarian minority workers who ride bicycles to work.;)

[DaveGee]

Tell me again, what exactly made me a troll here? My use of argumentation (waste of energy)? My citing Apple? My caring for the environment? My distaste of hypocrisy?

My distaste of hypocrisy?

Hmmm you mean like Celebrates and Politicos calling for all of us to modify our lifestyle to behave in a more ecologically sound way and then take a private jet to one of their many summer homes in places like France, Hawaii or some privately owned island in the Caribbean?

Yep.. you're right, can't stand the lot of em...

D

[anantksundaram]

It would be, but is solar power cost effective yet?

No, not yet. From data that I've seen (don't have the links offhand, but could get it to you if you're really interested), it would cost about $0.25 - $0.30 per kWhr for solar (compared to the average retail $0.10/kWhr in the US today).

[anantksundaram]

BTW: Our business cards are printed on 100% recycled material from sustainable resources produced using wind power by vegetarian minority workers who ride bicycles to work.;)
:lol:

[Jimzip]

Maybe I'm of a minority here, but I love having opening a product and turning it on for the first time.

I don't see how having racks and racks of packaged iPods all showing an advert or running through the functionality is better than simply having a floor model that's there for people to use and try out themselves.

Interesting idea, but unless Apple has some far-out, life-altering gameplan to go with it (and they have once or twice), I don't see it as anything special.

Jimzip :D

[solipsism]

No, not yet. From data that I've seen (don't have the links offhand, but could get it to you if you're really interested), it would cost about $0.25 - $0.30 per kWhr for solar (compared to the average retail $0.10/kWhr in the US today).

I appreciate the info, but I do think I would read it. That cost seems much closer than I recall, from 5 years ago.

[DaveGee]

Even if we find that we are not the cause for the global climate change, that this is all just a natural cycle, we have a responsibility to ourselves to maintain the current global environmental homeostasis that we find most habitable.

Hey I never said one way or the other if we were to blame for the current condition of the planet we live on... All I'm saying is the earth will continue on, period end of sentence. We can explode all the nuclear weapons ever made, unleash the worst man made plagues, mate dogs with cats, you name it... and guess what... the world will continue.. life as we know it today... not a chance in hell.. but life has been all but wiped from the face of the earth not just once but TWICE (that we know about) and guess what.. We're here now having this debate...

"The Earth doesn't need saving... We do!" (tm)

Edit: In fact THIS should be the new GREEN CATCH PHRASE...

Dave

[solipsism]

Hey I never said one way or the other if we were to blame for the current condition of the planet we live on... All I'm saying is the earth will continue on, period end of sentence. We can explode all the nuclear weapons ever made, unleash the worst man made plagues, mate dogs with cats, you name it... and guess what... the world will continue.. life as we know it today... not a chance in hell.. but life has been all but wiped from the face of the earth not just once but TWICE (that we know about) and guess what.. We're hear now having this debate...

The earth... doesn't need saving... WE need saving!

Dave

I didn’t mean to imply that. I was working off your statement —which I completely agree with— and moving even further stating we may need to warp the planet to do thy bidding if we want to survive.

[AdamIIGS]

Maybe I'm of a minority here, but I love having opening a product and turning it on for the first time.

I don't see how having racks and racks of packaged iPods all showing an advert or running through the functionality is better than simply having a floor model that's there for people to use and try out themselves.

Interesting idea, but unless Apple has some far-out, life-altering gameplan to go with it (and they have once or twice), I don't see it as anything special.

Jimzip :D

I think the part of this patent we would actually see would be the updating of software while products were still on store shelves, that would reduce the load on servers, especially when there is a product launch like the iPhone. Oh and I'm guessing that might actually SAVE ENERGY, because people wouldn't have to power up home computers (even though they would most likely already be on), send and receive data over the interweb (even through they probably already are) such as page graphics and things that make the load larger (giggle .. larger load :lol: ). So in a way this is a green practice in the works.

=D

[success]

Remember when Apple started lying about being "green" and stuff? Yeah, waste more energy, sounds like a good idea to me.

exactly....what a Fn joke

[AdamIIGS]

Hey I never said one way or the other if we were to blame for the current condition of the planet we live on... All I'm saying is the earth will continue on, period end of sentence. We can explode all the nuclear weapons ever made, unleash the worst man made plagues, mate dogs with cats, you name it... and guess what... the world will continue.. life as we know it today... not a chance in hell.. but life has been all but wiped from the face of the earth not just once but TWICE (that we know about) and guess what.. We're here now having this debate...

"The Earth doesn't need saving... We do!" (tm)

Edit: In fact THIS should be the new GREEN CATCH PHRASE...

Dave

But dude .. one of my favorite shows is "Life Without People", so if these Green nazis were really smart they'd want us all to die off faster so the planet can mend itself, right?

[DaveGee]

But dude .. one of my favorite shows is "Life Without People", so if these Green nazis were really smart they'd want us all to die off faster so the planet can mend itself, right?

Zaaactly!

We need to stop teaching our youth that we can save the planet... Its almost as if some unknown force came along and screwed things up and **THIS** is what we can do to **FIX** it.

Bzzzzzt... Marry, Jimmy... You're Mom & Dad, Dear old Grandma and Grandpa and everyone else in your family are to blame for the current conditions on this planet not just them but your friends next door and people in another state and even people half way around the world they are all to blame. Perhaps they didn't know any better or more than likely the public as a whole will do whatever is most convenient but they messed things up and now we have to put a stop to it.

We are not saving the world we are (trying to) correct millennia of bad and irresponsible behavior and if we fail... the earth will clean up the mess we made after we're gone.

D

[solipsism]

Zaaactly!

We need to stop teaching our youth that we can save the planet... Its almost as if some unknown force came along and screwed things up and **THIS** is what we can do to **FIX** it.

Bzzzzzt... Marry, Jimmy... You're Mom & Dad, Dear old Grandma and Grandpa and everyone else in your family are to blame for the current conditions on this planet not just them but your friends next door and people in another state and even people half way around the world they are all to blame. Perhaps they didn't know any better or more than likely the public as a whole will do whatever is most convenient but they messed things up and now we have to put a stop to it.

We are not saving the world we are (trying to) correct millennia of bad and irresponsible behavior and if we fail... the earth will clean up the mess we made after we're gone.

D

So all these green inititives are just prolonging our stay, increasing our long-term damage thereby making it take longer to heal after we are gone? So GreenPeace is really hindering the Earth, not helping it? :D

[mstone]

I think the part of this patent we would actually see would be the updating of software while products were still on store shelves, that would reduce the load on servers, especially when there is a product launch like the iPhone. Oh and I'm guessing that might actually SAVE ENERGY, because people wouldn't have to power up home computers (even though they would most likely already be on), send and receive data over the interweb (even through they probably already are) such as page graphics and things that make the load larger (giggle .. larger load :lol: ). So in a way this is a green practice in the works.

=D

Yeah, and the universal charger adapter is already plugged into the dock and is exposed on the bottom of the package. The point of purchase display is rows of micro USB plugs and the device only comes alive when the accelerometer detects that it is being handled by a customer.

[m2002brian]

Now I got the munchies!!
Seriously. It's an idea and that's all. God forbid we ever come up with new and interesting ideas. So if any more of your companies out there are listening. Please stop coming up with new and interesting ideas that require power usage. You will regret it Sincerely Teck and Dan.

[DaveGee]

So all these green inititives are just prolonging our stay, increasing our long-term damage thereby making it take longer to heal after we are gone? So GreenPeace is really hindering the Earth, not helping it? :D

To put it bluntly... YES.

The human race is responsible for 100% of the 'damage' done to the face of the earth. No other life form, in the countless number of different creatures that have come (and gone) has had such an impact... Its quite remarkable how badly we've been able to throw things out of whack given the relatively short time we've been here.

We want to 'save the planet' but we don't want to do what's really needed.

Stop the burning of carbon based fuels.
Stop the dumping of waste in our waters.

Thats it... implement those two measures and the planet will do the rest. Fact is, we don't **really** wanna stop those two simple things do we? If you're being honest with yourself.. the answer is no. So what can we do (short of what REALLY needs to be done) to make ourselves feel like we are making a difference. Just ask the green movement... they have volumes of ideas on what you can do to 'sorta help things, but not really'.

D

[iVlad]

Remember when Apple started lying about being "green" and stuff? Yeah, waste more energy, sounds like a good idea to me.

Being green is just another PR for any company.

[iVlad]

But dude .. one of my favorite shows is "Life Without People", so if these Green nazis were really smart they'd want us all to die off faster so the planet can mend itself, right?

Ummm, no green nazis just want to TAX the hell out of people so they can get fortunes. They don't care about human life.

[solipsism]

Being green is just another PR for any company.

Ummm, no green nazis just want to TAX the hell out of people so they can get fortunes.

I agree with the first statement completely. The second one has some truth but it’s a bit hyperbolic to swallow completely.

The simple truth is that Apple is green, in a certain regard, because it’s good for business.

[solipsism]

Cut the bull- Apple wasn't green for years. Only got green once Al Gore got on the Board. We should all thank Al Gore for the glossy mess we're in.

It appears that you are in a masochistic mood today and wish to get your ass whooped by your betters. In your infinite wisdom, what is bullshit about the statement, "The simple truth is that Apple is green, in a certain regard, because it’s good for business.”?

[itistoday]

Shush you, let Mr. Gore speak.

Hey Al I do have a question, it's concerning how green you are and yet you had $40k in electric bills A MONTH at your mansion.

p.s. sorry about the election but well the popular vote doesn't really mean much.

Stop trolling. The situation is more nuanced than your amped-up bullshit.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore:

Gore was criticized by the TCPR again in June 2008, after the group obtained his public utility bills from the Nashville Electric Service and compared "electricity consumption between the 12 months before June 2007, when it says he installed his new technology, and the year since then."[193][194] According to their analysis, the Gores consumed 10% more energy in the year since their home received its eco-friendly modifications. TCPR also argued that, while the "average American household consumes 11,040 kWh in an entire year," the Gore residence "uses an average of 17,768 kWh per month –1,638 kWh more energy per month than before the renovations."[194] Gore's spokeswoman Kalee Kreider countered the claim by stating that the Gores' "utility bills have gone down 40 percent since the green retrofit." and that "the three-year renovation on the home wasn't complete until November, so it's a bit early to attempt a before-and-after comparison."[195] She also noted that TCPR did not include Gore's gas bill in their analysis (which they had done the previous year) and that the gas "bill has gone down 90 percent [...] And when the Gores do power up, they pay for renewable resources, like wind and solar power or methane gas."[196] Media Matters for America also discussed the fact that "100 percent of the electricity in his home comes from green power" and quoted the Tennessee Valley Authority as stating that "[a]lthough no source of energy is impact-free, renewable resources create less waste and pollution."[197]

So the Gores household is not only more ecofriendly than the vast majority of the country's, they even "pay for renewable resources, like wind and solar power or methane gas", i.e. carbon offsets. So... they can have a huge electric bill, and it's still eco-friendly, get it?

[solipsism]

Because that's utter BS. The "simple truth that Apple is green" is because it's simply politically correct (read AL Gore) to be green. Do you really think the captalistic society gives a crap about green?
So much for your wisdom.

Al Gore is a member of a capitalistic society yet he is pushing Apple to be green (which contradicts what you just said), yet you feel that he and he alone is pushing this politically correct green inititive at Apple. Why would he do that and why would Apple allow him to do that?

[anantksundaram]

The simple truth is that Apple is green, in a certain regard, because it’s good for business.

Some folks have the view that, somehow, "doing good" is tainted because it was the effect of "doing well."

That is such hypocrisy and snobbery. Many of the issues affecting the natural environment have to be solved in the private realm by producers (companies) and consumers (us). Companies have little long-term incentive to do 'good' unless it is also consistent with their doing 'well.'

My view is: it should be the role of public policy and consumer behavior (assuming we as consumers really care about this stuff) to make it worthwhile for business to do the right thing, so that we can solve -- at least mitigate -- these problems, and move on.

In other words, I am happy that Apple is "green"(-ish) than not.

[itistoday]

Because that's utter BS. The "simple truth that Apple is green" is because it's simply politically correct (read AL Gore) to be green. Do you really think the captalistic society gives a crap about green?

It's certainly possible, take a look around you, it's already taking place. America, a capitalist society, is going green.

Apple is not "green" because of "political correctness" (where'd you get that from?), they're green because of their actions (http://www.apple.com/hotnews/agreenerapple/).

No other computer company is taking such a progressive stance on the issue.

Being green is not in conflict with capitalism (whatever gave you that idea?). In fact, right now, it's damn smart business.

[Rot'nApple]

Hmmm... maybe the packaging will spontaneously disintegrate and turn into compost.....

You mean, spontaneously combust... :D

In other news, The Apple Store in New York burned down, as the song "Burning down the house" was heard being played on the ITMS!

[Boogerman2000]

Being green is just another PR for any company.

It's really true although you get the sense that Jobs and co. really believe it. I mean look, Apple products are manufactured in China which is currently one of, if not THE worst global environmental offenders. So yes, the whole "green" campaign...it's mostly bullshit .:\

[anantksundaram]

It's really true although you get the sense that Jobs and co. really believe it. I mean look, Apple products are manufactured in China which is currently one of, if not THE worst global environmental offenders. So yes, the whole "green" campaign...it's mostly bullshit .:\

You are trivilaizing an important issue.

Sustainability efforts (I am using "green" and "sustainability" interchangeably) in many companies are motivated by wanting to enhance shareholder value. In many instances, 'un-green' practices (e.g., excessive carbon emissions, pollution, waste generation etc) are likely to be correlated with wasteful processes and sloppy business practices within the company. There could be major opportunities for cost reductions -- for example, from finding greater energy efficiency or less fossil fuel use that simultaneously reduces GHGs -- that come from improving one's practices. Similarly, being seen as 'green' could be good PR if that enables you to charge a premium for your product compared to your competitors and thereby enhance your revenues and your margins, because it attracts a particular type of clientele.

Additionally, if governments start to impose a price on some of these things -- e.g., a price on your carbon emissions -- then becoming less carbon-intensive is just a smart thing to do. Otherwise, you are going to be incurring additional costs associated with such emissions, compared to your competition.

Apple appears to be positioning itself to benefit on both the revenue and cost fronts, from being "green". For instance, I recall that one of SJ's presentations talked at length about how the drive to eliminate excessive use of raw materials (incl. toxic materials) led to better design and less wasteful manufacturing processes, and thereby to the unibody aluminum structures in the new MBPs. Similarly, Apple's positioning itself as a 'green' company may enable it to continue to charge a higher price (much as some consumers may not like it).

These would be -- from the company's and shareholders' standpoint -- very sound business practices.

(PS: See also the related post by SuperMacGuy #44 above).

[AdamIIGS]

Stop trolling. The situation is more nuanced than your amped-up bullshit.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore:

Gore was criticized by the TCPR again in June 2008, after the group obtained his public utility bills from the Nashville Electric Service and compared "electricity consumption between the 12 months before June 2007, when it says he installed his new technology, and the year since then."[193][194] According to their analysis, the Gores consumed 10% more energy in the year since their home received its eco-friendly modifications. TCPR also argued that, while the "average American household consumes 11,040 kWh in an entire year," the Gore residence "uses an average of 17,768 kWh per month –1,638 kWh more energy per month than before the renovations."[194] Gore's spokeswoman Kalee Kreider countered the claim by stating that the Gores' "utility bills have gone down 40 percent since the green retrofit." and that "the three-year renovation on the home wasn't complete until November, so it's a bit early to attempt a before-and-after comparison."[195] She also noted that TCPR did not include Gore's gas bill in their analysis (which they had done the previous year) and that the gas "bill has gone down 90 percent [...] And when the Gores do power up, they pay for renewable resources, like wind and solar power or methane gas."[196] Media Matters for America also discussed the fact that "100 percent of the electricity in his home comes from green power" and quoted the Tennessee Valley Authority as stating that "[a]lthough no source of energy is impact-free, renewable resources create less waste and pollution."[197]

So the Gores household is not only more ecofriendly than the vast majority of the country's, they even "pay for renewable resources, like wind and solar power or methane gas", i.e. carbon offsets. So... they can have a huge electric bill, and it's still eco-friendly, get it?


Maybe you should read back a little further in your history, than picking out something that happened AFTER THE FACT, and your 3rd post is an attack? Oh welcome to the site, glad you have nothing to contribute. Have a short stay.

[Boogerman2000]

You are trivilaizing an important issue.

Sustainability efforts (I am using "green" and "sustainability" interchangeably) in many companies are motivated by wanting to enhance shareholder value. In many instances, 'un-green' practices (e.g., excessive carbon emissions, pollution, waste generation etc) are likely to be correlated with wasteful processes and sloppy business practices within the company. There could be major opportunities for cost reductions -- for example, from finding greater energy efficiency or less fossil fuel use that simultaneously reduces GHGs -- that come from improving one's practices. Similarly, being seen as 'green' could be good PR if that enables you to charge a premium for your product compared to your competitors and thereby enhance your revenues and your margins, because it attracts a particular type of clientele.

Additionally, if governments start to impose a price on some of these things -- e.g., a price on your carbon emissions -- then becoming less carbon-intensive is just a smart thing to do. Otherwise, you are going to be incurring additional costs associated with such emissions, compared to your competition.

Apple appears to be positioning itself to benefit on both the revenue and cost fronts, from being "green". For instance, I recall that one of SJ's presentations talked at length about how the drive to eliminate excessive use of raw materials (incl. toxic materials) led to better design and less wasteful manufacturing processes, and thereby to the unibody aluminum structures in the new MBPs. Similarly, Apple's positioning itself as a 'green' company may enable it to continue to charge a higher price (much as some consumers may not like it).

These would be -- from the company's and shareholders' standpoint -- very sound business practices.

(PS: See also the related post by SuperMacGuy #44 above).

Your point is taken but..
I understand why Apple has positioned itself as such. I think that's fairly obvious. It's was strategic on their part to embrace the green movement when it became popular to do so, and then spin it to work in their favor through their brilliant marketing/advertising campaign. I believe it when they say that Apple products are manufactured with less harmful toxins and such. However, my point stands; why manufacture these products in a country known for it's refusal to comply with global standards? Doesn't that fact negate their argument, effectively rendering them hippocrates of sorts? I am not by any means an Apple hater, in fact I love their products. However, I can't stand here and listen to them try to justify the outsourcing through greener tech. Just my opinion and appreciative of the dialogue.

[anantksundaram]

Your point is taken but..
I understand why Apple has positioned itself as such. I think that's fairly obvious. It's was strategic on their part to embrace the green movement when it became popular to do so, and then spin it to work in their favor through their brilliant marketing/advertising campaign. I believe it when they say that Apple products are manufactured with less harmful toxins and such. However, my point stands; why manufacture these products in a country known for it's refusal to comply with global standards? Doesn't that fact negate their argument, effectively rendering them hippocrates of sorts? I am not by any means an Apple hater, in fact I love their products. However, I can't stand here and listen to them try to justify the outsourcing through greener tech. Just my opinion and appreciative of the dialogue.

At this point, the cliches about China have almost become uninformed, and basically, silly: you (and people with similar views) should really attempt to educate yourself at least a little bit on what countries like China are up to today on the green/clean/renewable energy front. The US runs the risk of rapidly falling behind, and frankly, has much to learn. It might even make sense to approach it with a bit of humility.

I won't bother to give you any links. If you are really interested, start finding out more and start reading about it.

Otherwise, stay content to be uninformed -- there's no law against that. It'll catch up with you soon enough.

[iLad]

seriously Apple don't waste your time an money and focus on making your current products better.

some suggestions:

Media card reader that reads more then just SD
7200 RPM drives for 13" macbook pro
Same graphic card for the 13" macbook pro as in the 15 and 17 inch macbook pro
Nehalem chips in your laptops
Quad core nehalem imac
mac mini with hdmi and apple tv interface integrated and display port with sound support
Blu-ray drives and OS support
USB 3.0
Bluetooth 3.0
Support for sound via display port
Mac mini netbook
A new mac model that has the power of mac pro but in a smaller form factor and more affordable

[solipsism]

seriously Apple don't waste your time an money and focus on making your current products better.

some suggestions:

Media card reader that reads more then just SD
7200 RPM drives for 13" macbook pro
Same graphic card for the 13" macbook pro as in the 15 and 17 inch macbook pro
Nehalem chips in your laptops
Quad core nehalem imac
mac mini with hdmi and apple tv interface integrated and display port with sound support
Blu-ray drives and OS support
USB 3.0
Bluetooth 3.0
Support for sound via display port
Mac mini netbook
A new mac model that has the power of mac pro but in a smaller form factor and more affordable

:lol::lol::lol:

[Boogerman2000]

At this point, the cliches about China have almost become uninformed, and basically, silly: you (and people with similar views) should really attempt to educate yourself at least a little bit on what countries like China are up to today on the green/clean/renewable energy front. The US runs the risk of rapidly falling behind, and frankly, has much to learn. It might even make sense to approach it with a bit of humility.

I won't bother to give you any links. If you are really interested, start finding out more and start reading about it.

Otherwise, stay content to be uninformed -- there's no law against that. It'll catch up with you soon enough.

Really? uneducated? uninformed? It's ok, I understand that the issue may hit a bit close to home for you. However your attempts to skirt the issue by focusing on the United States gives us all a real idea of the level of your character. Why not provide the links showcasing China's stellar environmental record? Seriously, why not? How about this, I'll provide you with ONE link and we can go from there. Namaste ;) http://www.cfr.org/publication/12608/

[itistoday]

Maybe you should read back a little further in your history, than picking out something that happened AFTER THE FACT

:???:

and your 3rd post is an attack? Oh welcome to the site, glad you have nothing to contribute. Have a short stay.

You were flinging poo, I was just pointing that out, don't sound so surprised.

[anantksundaram]

Really? uneducated? uninformed? It's ok, I understand that the issue may hit a bit close to home for you. However your attempts to skirt the issue by focusing on the United States gives us all a real idea of the level of your character. Why not provide the links showcasing China's stellar environmental record? Seriously, why not? How about this, I'll provide you with ONE link and we can go from there. Namaste ;) http://www.cfr.org/publication/12608/

Oh please. Spare me the stale stuff from CFR. If you'd cared to read, most of the hard data are from 2004. (That is typical for journals like that.) Given the phenomenal pace of changes taking place in that country, the info there is dated. You really need to find out what's going on in China in 2009, and the serious efforts that they are making.

Enough said.

[matrim108]

Because that's utter BS. The "simple truth that Apple is green" is because it's simply politically correct (read AL Gore) to be green. Do you really think the captalistic society gives a crap about green?
So much for your wisdom.Yes, it's politically correct to be green. Clearly, a segment of society does give a crap about being green - or at least they want to look like/pretend that they do. Those people will be more likely to buy from a company they feel is doing right. Apple's obviously only doing it to improve their bottom line. This is exactly what solipsism said, so what are you on about?