TomTom for iPhone lives; Jobs' true health; green iPhone 3G?

[AppleInsider]

Despite reports to the contrary, TomTom is still working on a GPS app for the iPhone. Meanwhile, Steve Jobs' thin look may be permanent evidence of his cancer cure, Greenpeace is concerned about a toxic iPhone 3G. And a growing number of would-be iPhone programers are attacking Apple's backlog in approving their full developer status.

TomTom iPhone still in the works

Dutch GPS maker TomTom is still very much involved in developing its own GPS utility for the iPhone, the company's French press chief Yann Lafargue said in an interview on Friday.

Contradicting unofficial reports that the company had nothing official, Lafargue says that TomTom has been developing a version of its Navigator software for the iPhone ever since the release of the SDK and that the software works "very well."

Whether or not it will be releasable is still up in the air, he warns. The company could find itself blocked from offering the software through the App Store either as a potential competitor to Apple's own software or else as a rival to a chosen partner of the iPhone maker.

TomTom doesn't foresee a clause in the SDK guidelines against real-time tracking as affecting its development: Apple is simply protecting itself against legal threats from users who land themselves in trouble using navigation software, the representative claims.

Jobs' thin frame the result of treatment: report

Apple co-founder Steve Jobs' "common bug" and resulting gaunt appearance at this year's WWDC may have been compounded by the steps taken to eliminate his pancreatic cancer years ago, Fortune magazine's Philip Elmer-DeWitt explains.

Jobs is believed to have received a special treatment, known as a Whipple, that cuts off the tumorous part of the pancreas and reattaches the rest to the small intestine while also connecting the bile duct and stomach in a new manner.

This allows the remaining pancreas to perform normally but has a number of potential side effects, according to doctors, including the tendency to lose between five and 10 percent of body mass regardless of the patient's diet.

Crucially, however, the loss is not a sign of a worsening condition. Proper exercise and diet can let these cancer survivors "live a normal life," according to Dr. Dilip Parekh of the University of Southern California.

Apple has never publicly described how Jobs' cancer was cured or whether it would produce adverse reactions.

Greenpeace raises concerns over iPhone 3G

When Apple pledged that it would illustrate its environmental improvements, the assumption was made that this would carry through to every new product. That wasn't the case with the iPhone 3G, Greenpeace tells ZDNet France.

The activist group's toxics campaign head Zeina Al-Hajj notes that Apple has been curiously silent on progress (if any) made in eliminating harmful substances in the new iPhone. It suggests that Apple hasn't evolved its design to be more eco-friendly, she says.

A lack of progress would be worrying to Greenpeace, as the organization found late last year that cabling in the iPhone contained toxic chemicals, albeit in small amounts.

Observers have noted that the iPhone 3G's plastic back is a step backwards in recyclability for the Apple handset, whose shell was originally made of the same aluminum that Apple has touted as being desirable for recycling.

Critics blast Apple's continued iPhone dev program backlog

Over the more than three months since Apple first began accepting applications for its iPhone development program, the company still hasn't shown signs of coping with the large number of applicants., according to observations by Rogue Amoeba's Paul Kafasis.

Although his company has a longstanding history of developing for Macs, it and "a number of other respected Mac software companies" still haven't been accepted as official developers and received the signing certificate needed to test code on an actual device and thus bring the software closer to completion.

The delay would be understandable given unprecedented demand but is simply frustrating given the inconsistency and lack of communication from Apple, Kafasis says. The Cupertino-based electronics maker has so far fast-tracked individual applications while leaving teams at larger companies without answers. Little if any communication arrives from Apple regarding the status of the projects, leaving prospective companies wondering whether they should continue development or back out earlier.

"We don't know if we should invest our time in a platform for which we may not even be allowed to release software," Kafasis says.

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

[BdeRWest]

"When Apple pledged that it would illustrate its environmental improvements, the assumption was made that this would carry through to every new product. That wasn't the case with the iPhone 3G, Greenpeace tells ZDNet France."

Wow, talk about regurgitating a press release, AI. Don't give these publicity mongers fuel! Here's a hint: Apple is not, as Greenpeace would have us believe, making things especially toxic! ALL ELECTRONICS HAVE THIS STUFF IN THEM. So stop trying to jump on the Apple bandwagon to try and sell us your snakeoil!

Go "witness" a whale hunt.

[Jimzip]

"Critics blast Apple's continued iPhone dev program backlog"

This was a silly idea on the part of Apple.
I assume the whole reason Apple is doing this is a two-parter. One, so Apple can control the content allowed on the iPhone (perhaps to protect future interests? Or just to stop malware..) and two, so that they can earn a little extra cash.

I think it should work in reverse, and remove that bottleneck. Devs should upload the programs they make for the iPhone to some kind of central Apple repository (like widgets and to a greater degree the iTunes Store) that iPhone users have a mechanism to download from. If something is considered 'dangerous' it's simply flagged, reviewed by apple, and removed if necessary.

This would stop all this nonsense of Apple having to approve people before development starts. That just doesn't make sense...

Thoughts?

Jimzip

[Dlux]

I guess Greenpeace will only be satisfied when Apple produces a phone made out of yak dung. What do they say about Nokia, Motorola, SE, etc.? Are those manufacturers so clean that they don't warrant complaints, or does Greenpeace just whine about everyone?

As for the plastic back - sorry, Apple hasn't invented a magical alloy of aluminum that is completely transparent to radio signals yet. I assure you that they are throwing every resource at their disposal at the problem though...

[JeffDM]

Originally Posted by Dlux

I guess Greenpeace will only be satisfied when Apple produces a phone made out of yak dung. What do they say about Nokia, Motorola, SE, etc.? Are those manufacturers so clean that they don't warrant complaints, or does Greenpeace just whine about everyone?

As for the plastic back - sorry, Apple hasn't invented a magical alloy of aluminum that is completely transparent to radio signals yet. I assure you that they are throwing every resource at their disposal at the problem though...

I agree. And it's not as if plastic isn't recyclable. WTF? I'd like to see comparisons in the energy consumption and environmental impact of aluminum vs. common industrial plastics. I do know that a tremendous amount of energy is needed to convert ore to aluminum, that's why it's so expensive. Aluminum is more common than iron in the crust, yet iron & steel are so much cheaper because of this difference in turning ore into a useable metal.

[Tantrum]

JeffDM and Dlux,
The iPhone is a phone first and needs good signal strength. I agree with you that Greenpeace may be complaining about the wrong thing when it comes to aluminum casings on iPhone but dismissing them in the way you just have is exactly the wrong thing to do. Greenpeace is as sophisticated as Apple in shaping public opinion and dismissiveness on Apple's part could hurt the Apple brand in Europe.

[JeffDM]

Originally Posted by Tantrum

JeffDM and Dlux,
The iPhone is a phone first and needs good signal strength. I agree with you that Greenpeace may be complaining about the wrong thing when it comes to aluminum casings on iPhone but dismissing them in the way you just have is exactly the wrong thing to do. Greenpeace is as sophisticated as Apple in shaping public opinion and dismissiveness on Apple's part could hurt the Apple brand in Europe.

As far as I'm concerned, Greenpeace is a bottom-feeding organization that makes the real environmentalists look bad. GP shouldn't be ignored for similar reasons that malaria shouldn't be ignored, they both rely on parasitism to continue.

[CREB]

I do not give a damn about anything else listed in this topic other than Jobs health that I wish all the best. I have consistently owned a Mac for twenty-eight years straight, and both Jobs and the Woz both influenced my life.

[JoeDRC]

All electronics manufacturers use some toxic chemicals/materials in the construction of their products, not intentionally as stated by an earlier poster.

Maybe Green Peace should research or develop alternatives instead of complaining?
I'm all for the environment and I recycle, turn lights off when not being used etc. but Green Peace go a bit too far in my opinion (scaling fences and jumping on airplanes and causing considerable disruption for travellers is one example)

I'm quite pleased to see that Jobs is well! and to be honest I don't care about TomTom at the moment!

[pomo]

Originally Posted by Jimzip

"Critics blast Apple's continued iPhone dev program backlog"

This was a silly idea on the part of Apple.
I assume the whole reason Apple is doing this is a two-parter. One, so Apple can control the content allowed on the iPhone (perhaps to protect future interests? Or just to stop malware..) and two, so that they can earn a little extra cash.

I think it should work in reverse, and remove that bottleneck. Devs should upload the programs they make for the iPhone to some kind of central Apple repository (like widgets and to a greater degree the iTunes Store) that iPhone users have a mechanism to download from. If something is considered 'dangerous' it's simply flagged, reviewed by apple, and removed if necessary.

This would stop all this nonsense of Apple having to approve people before development starts. That just doesn't make sense...

Thoughts?

Jimzip

Actually, I think that if the app store were to be dealt with in the manner in which the widgets are currently dealt with, I'm afraid that it would be too messy. There's 2 reasons why:

1. Too many apps- I know that evryone wants to see all the apps that the debs have to offer asap, but think about it this way, try to find a specific app on the apple web app site and you'll realize how difficult it is- even though many of these websites are great. So, too much chaos and clutter. Which leads to reason 2.

2. Marketing- you want to advertise and highlight certain apps at a given time. That way, everyone see that such apps actually do exist.

My 2 pennies

[Tantrum]

Originally Posted by JeffDM

As far as I'm concerned, Greenpeace is a bottom-feeding organization that makes the real environmentalists look bad. GP shouldn't be ignored for similar reasons that malaria shouldn't be ignored, they both rely on parasitism to continue.

If Apple listened to your advice about framing an attitude to approach Greenpeace, it would be doing a disservice to stockholders. I'm no fan of Greenpeace but I've seen governments and companies lose big time by treating them with contempt. Greenpeace is like Obama's fundraising political social network movement on global steroids.

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by Jimzip

This would stop all this nonsense of Apple having to approve people before development starts. That just doesn't make sense...
Thoughts?

You idea would piss even more people off and may cause lawsuits. If they took everyone's $99 certificate fee and later retracted their app or cert they would piss off developers. If the average, non-tech-savvy user purchased an iPhone app that was untested by Apple and caused the handset stability issues or ran down the battery they would have numerous customers saying it was a POS. Most pundits are not tech-savvy, even the ones reporting on it, so such a situation may get a lot more press than expected.

They have processed 4000 companies (not apps) in 12 weeks between the SDK keynote and the WWDC keynote. That is a lot! It's 16% of the total that applied. Now, we won't see ready apps from all these developers come v2.0 launch day, but even if we have a 25% of that we will have one-thousand apps to peruse on the iPhone. How many total apps have other mobile platforms?

Plus, there are about 5 weeks between the WWDC keynote and the 3G iPhone launch. Taking the mean average we may see a 40% increase to 5600 certified developers. That is over 22% of the applicants approved, and many of them probably just wanted v2.0 ahead of time (that is why I signed up ) Any objective way you look at it, it's a lot of developers.

Originally Posted by Dlux

What do they say about Nokia, Motorola, SE, etc.? Are those manufacturers so clean that they don't warrant complaints, or does Greenpeace just whine about everyone?

A least one article stated that Greenpeace knows that Apple is better than most, but are targeted more because they are high-profile. That rings true to me.

[shawnathan]

i'm starting to really get sick of the whole green / enviro / healthy lifestyle crap floating around. it's a god damn phone - so unless this thing implants toxic waste into your ear when you make a call, or baby seals die every time you connect to GPS, you can fuck off and worry about other things, like (imho) the eradication of fossil fuels in passenger vehicles.

[DimMok]

Woah if the aluminum was not good for transmission, then why did they put it in the iPhone in the first place?

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by DimMok

Woah if the aluminum was not good for transmission, then why did they put it in the iPhone in the first place?

If you recall, the back was not completely aluminium; the bottom part was a black, radio-transparent plastic. It was rumoured long before the photos were around that the back would have to be completely radio transparent to allow for the more complex and sensitive radio in an HSDPA model. This also allows Apple engineers to move the antenna around more freely and should give us better reception. While not bad by any measure, people did expect great reception from a $400 phone.

[JeffDM]

Originally Posted by Tantrum

If Apple listened to your advice about framing an attitude to approach Greenpeace, it would be doing a disservice to stockholders. I'm no fan of Greenpeace but I've seen governments and companies lose big time by treating them with contempt.

I think that's history now though, it seems that their influence has waned considerably.

[paxman]

Originally Posted by shawnathan

i'm starting to really get sick of the whole green / enviro / healthy lifestyle crap floating around. it's a god damn phone - so unless this thing implants toxic waste into your ear when you make a call, or baby seals die every time you connect to GPS, you can fuck off and worry about other things, like (imho) the eradication of fossil fuels in passenger vehicles.

What I don't get is why so many people get all hot under the collar when Greenpeace raises a point. There is so much crap going on in this world - so why the vitriol when the word Greenpeace is mentioned? We all know the iPhone is used for publicity - so what? If the result is a greener apple then good. If it highlights issues, small as they may be, and reinforces the idea that green thinking should be part of every design decision that takes place, then good. For Greenpeace it just means another headline with their name in it. If the 'attack' results in a debate on the green-ness of the iPhone, then mission accomplished. A debate on the green-ness of the iPhone means a debate on the greening of the IT industry by implication. People thinking about green issues is good thing, regardless. I understand that people jump to the defence of Apple - so do I - but mention Greenpeace and the tone changes.

[nagromme]

Greenpeace acts in support of a VERY important cause.

And they need to stop harming that cause with made-up vague fears, when REAL data on important issues is to be found elsewhere.

And they need to stop acting like the APPEARANCE of environmental responsibility is more important than the reality.

[JeffDM]

Originally Posted by paxman

What I don't get is why so many people get all hot under the collar when Greenpeace raises a point. There is so much crap going on in this world - so why the vitriol when the word Greenpeace is mentioned? We all know the iPhone is used for publicity - so what?

The problem is that their ranking system has been rigged to make Apple look like they're the worst, for publicity. If Apple is in reality, the best, and Dell is worse, aren't people doing a disservice if they buy a Dell because a rigged ranking system "showed" that Dell was better?

In short, it's a PR farce and should not be supported by arguments such as yours. They make Apple's PR look honest in comparison.

The boy who cries wolf will eventually be ignored. Credibility is important here, which is why I am a harsher critic of GP than I am of Apple's PR division.

[dattyx26]

Wow I'm surprised you people are not discussing TomTom. I sure hope Apple allows TomTom to develop for the iPhone. That would make it even more killer. If they don't, then boo for Apple for choosing an unfair route. I'm sure Google's map is adequate, though, but imagine having the features of TomTom, yumm.

[Mac-sochist]

Just on the issue of the environmental desirability of the aluminum vs. the plastic back:

It takes 20 kWh of electricity to smelt 1 kg of aluminum. If this electricity is produced by a (being very generous here) 35% efficient thermal plant burning oil, that's about 57 kWh, or about 76.6 hp-h. There's maybe 48hp-hr in a gallon of oil, or ~13.2 in a kilogram. 76.6/13.2=5.8 kg, about. So every pound of aluminum requires 5.8 times its weight in oil to produce. That doesn't count the energy to dig it up, transport it, stamp it, etc. And all the carbon in that oil is going into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide (or worse.) I'd need convincing that the plastic back takes 5.8 times its weight in oil to produce, and even if it did, the carbon is locked up in a solid, not being released to the atmosphere. Maybe a little arithmetic class would help people not make fools of themselves...nah!

[Bageljoey]

Originally Posted by JeffDM

The problem is that their ranking system has been rigged to make Apple look like they're the worst, for publicity. If Apple is in reality, the best, and Dell is worse, aren't people doing a disservice if they buy a Dell because a rigged ranking system "showed" that Dell was better?

In short, it's a PR farce and should not be supported by arguments such as yours. They make Apple's PR look honest in comparison.

PR is PR and it is a fact of life these days. Without it you disappear into the haze of the information age. Therefore Apple claims 4X speed increases on a new chip when the real life gains are 20%... We all understand that there is a grain of truth and figure "well, ok, it may help get the attention of some Switchers" and we reluctantly give it a pass. Most of us here are Apple owners or AAPL owners so this fits with our obvious self interests.

Originally Posted by paxman

What I don't get is why so many people get all hot under the collar when Greenpeace raises a point. There is so much crap going on in this world - so why the vitriol when the word Greenpeace is mentioned? We all know the iPhone is used for publicity - so what? If the result is a greener apple then good. If it highlights issues, small as they may be, and reinforces the idea that green thinking should be part of every design decision that takes place, then good. For Greenpeace it just means another headline with their name in it. If the 'attack' results in a debate on the green-ness of the iPhone, then mission accomplished. A debate on the green-ness of the iPhone means a debate on the greening of the IT industry by implication. People thinking about green issues is good thing, regardless. I understand that people jump to the defence of Apple - so do I - but mention Greenpeace and the tone changes.

Sorry to quote the whole thing, but I thought it was well written and thought out. The small picture is that GP is singling out Apple unfairly and that could hurt our interests in Apple or AAPL--I think that is where some of the vitriol comes from. But in the big picture, if this gets Apple and other manufacturers to look a little harder for greener alternatives when decisions come up, I am all for it.

Of course it doesn't make sense for Apple to make a phone with a radio shielding back just for small recyclability gains--making millions of useless phones is more environmentally damaging than that small amount of plastic. But I don't doubt that there are alternatives out there waiting to be invented/discovered and that won't happen just by luck--someone has to be looking and this kind of pressure (unfair thought it may be to Apple) makes it more likely to be found.

Originally Posted by JoeDRC

I'm all for the environment and I recycle, turn lights off when not being used etc. but Green Peace go a bit too far in my opinion (scaling fences and jumping on airplanes and causing considerable disruption for travellers is one example)

But this is part of PR. How many people know about ED? Environmental Defense is out there every day doing all sorts of the kind of work that people say they wish GP was doing. Working with legislatures and manufacturers when possible and filing lawsuits when necessary. They don't climb fences or make big banners. They might get a lot done, but they have very little impact on public opinion because NOBODY NOTICES REASONABLE WORK. In fact, they would be much less likely to get anything done if it were not for GP and other "activist type" environmental organizations out there keeping the public awareness and discussions going thereby keeping politicians and companies interested in showing green.

Again, it is not fair that Apple gets picked on because they bring the best publicity. But that is the price of being a leader. The alternative is to become common. It is a little like a huge movie star complaining that being famous makes their life difficult. Deal with it.

[pmjoe]

Originally Posted by Mac-sochist

It takes 20 kWh of electricity to smelt 1 kg of aluminum. [...] That doesn't count the energy to dig it up, [...]

Isn't most aluminum recycled these days? If not, it should be. Takes about 5% of the energy of your smelting, etc.

[Mac-sochist]

Originally Posted by pmjoe

Isn't most aluminum recycled these days? If not, it should be. Takes about 5% of the energy of your smelting, etc.

Yeah, my example was unrealistic in several ways. Aluminum smelters are all located where they are given essentially free power, usually hydroelectric, while residential rates go up and up. Here the state forces aluminum recyclers to pay a minimum amount per pound for aluminum cans, and they're piling up in an artificial mountain somewhere in Eastern Washington.

[boss1]

@ Backlog of developers story: Apple needs to dedicate more people to the approval process here. I'm not a developer but I see this is going in a bad direction could turn to be detrimental to Apple, developers, and the consumer.

@ Greenpeace : These morons need to take a hike. I have a little talked subject to share with you about GreenPeace. The upper levels of that organization could care less about trees . They care about they're pockets , that's their targets are always big business . They're no better than corrupt politicians that make side deals an legislation passed. Why don't they target the consumer? the end user? the ones that demand the product? because there's no money in it. Why else don't they target consumers? because they might shoot back. They're nothing more than a bunch of money hungry sissy's who only use violence on people when it isn't a challenge.

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by dattyx26

Wow I'm surprised you people are not discussing TomTom. I sure hope Apple allows TomTom to develop for the iPhone. That would make it even more killer. If they don't, then boo for Apple for choosing an unfair route. I'm sure Google's map is adequate, though, but imagine having the features of TomTom, yumm.

I would love to consolidate my TomTom into my iPhone. I think Apple will accept them, it would be breaking some anti-trust laws to not in favour of a competitor.

But that doesn't mean they have to allow them in right away, though I don't think we'll have to wait too long. After all, despite the download size, it will be a much higher higher average price than most apps and be widely popular in most countries that Apple will be selling the iPhone.

Originally Posted by Mac-sochist

Just on the issue of the environmental desirability of the aluminum vs. the plastic back:
<math>

Nice post!

[hypermark]

Lots of chatter in the blogosphere from iPhone developers frustrated with Apple primarily because Apple being Apple, they haven't exactly been super transparent on the approval process, leaving a lot of developers feeling like they are being jerked around.

Courted and counted, on the one hand, as a part of a growing number of iPhone SDK 'developer downloads,' but told to wait their turn, or more accurately, being told nothing, on the other.

I understand both sides of this, but given Apple's mixed history with third-party developers, they are playing with fire a bit, inasmuch as third party applications was bullet three on Job's 'key challenges for iPhone' sermon at the WWDC keynote.

Here is a post on the topic:

Can Apple Manage iPhone Developer Expectations?
http://thenetworkgarden.com/weblog/2...ple-manag.html

Check it out if interested.

Mark

[1984]

Originally Posted by shawnathan

i'm starting to really get sick of the whole green / enviro / healthy lifestyle crap floating around. it's a god damn phone - so unless this thing implants toxic waste into your ear when you make a call, or baby seals die every time you connect to GPS, you can fuck off and worry about other things, like (imho) the eradication of fossil fuels in passenger vehicles.

This has been my concern with Greenpeace. They give environmentalism a bad name. As someone else had mentioned they admitted that Apple was greener than many others but continued to go after them because their high profile products attract the press. So despite being "green" I do not support Greenpeace. Apple could make the plastic back recyclable if it isn't already and initiate a recycling program for the iPhone. It's not likely anyone is going to toss one in the trash. If they offered a discount along with it that could entice iPhone owners to upgrade to an iPhone 3G in the future.

[Ireland]

Originally Posted by CREB

I do not give a damn about anything else listed in this topic other than Jobs health that I wish all the best. I have consistently owned a Mac for twenty-eight years straight, and both the Jobs and Woz both influenced my life.

Big woopdie doo

[Tantrum]

Apple came last in GP rankings because of their contempt and the PR negativity that resulted was entirely avoidable. GP's challenge to iPhone 1.0 was a large, negative unnecessary stumble by Apple's smooth PR team. GP picks high-profile targets for a reason; if Apple really cares about its reputation and talks environment, everyone talks environment.

This is just one of those typical situations in which the style of how you address a potential adversary matters more than the substance of what you actually do. Using a political analogy, it's very macho, very American, to react the way many on this forum have but it gets you the kind of love George W Bush enjoys around the world.

[echosonic]

Originally Posted by Tantrum

Apple came last in GP rankings because of their contempt and the PR negativity that resulted was entirely avoidable. GP's challenge to iPhone 1.0 was a large, negative unnecessary stumble by Apple's smooth PR team. GP picks high-profile targets for a reason; if Apple really cares about its reputation and talks environment, everyone talks environment.

This is just one of those typical situations in which the style of how you address a potential adversary matters more than the substance of what you actually do. Using a political analogy, it's very macho, very American, to react the way many on this forum have but it gets you the kind of love George W Bush enjoys around the world.

GP makes its living the exact same way Jesse Jackson does: Comply with our demands (hire more black people) or we'll start making a stink and protesting you and calling you racist.

But it doesn't end there if you bend to Jackson's will, THEN you have to become a "contributor" to Rainbow Push financially. GP is the same kind of rape, in a different package, and the more Apple even acknowledges them, the more credibility they gain.

They have none, and should be ignored. Not insulted, not fought, but flat-out IGNORED. Anybody asks about GP during press conf? Response: who?

NEXT QUESTION.

[normang]

Greenpeace doesn't give a hoot about the environment, all they want is your money..

Apple probably has a good reason for wanting to control the developer program as to not be posting junk to the App Store. With what, 1/4 million applications and people expect Apple to filter them all in 3 months, give me a break...

[solipsism]

[QUOTE=normang;1265141]Apple probably has a good reason for wanting to control the developer program as to not be posting junk to the App Store.[/quote[
Not posting junk is a good reason.

With what, 1/4 million applications and people expect Apple to filter them all in 3 months, give me a break...

250,000 downloads of the SDK, 25,000 applied for the App Store certification program, 4000 applicants accepted in 12 weeks.

[gobble gobble]

Greenpeace is a real turn-off. They're so intensely self-righteous and intent on publicity that they give environmentalism a bad name. I donate to various environmental causes but GP can go fuck itself.

[GregoriusM]

Originally Posted by Ireland

Big woopdie doo

You post a comment like that when someone else is hoping Steve gets better, and that both Steves' efforts has made his life a little better?

And then you expect us to take your other comments about technology, etc. as something we should care about, or evening think comes from someone who gives a damn?

Personally, I'll listen to someone who has at least a caring personality much sooner than I will you from now on.

We are not supposed to attack other posters on this and most other forums, but YOUR post was an attack and WAAAAAAAAAY out of line.

An apology would go a long way. Do I expect it? No. Do I hope it comes? Yes.

Greg

[dagamer34]

The reason why Apple doesn't just approve everyone right now is because the 2.0 firmware required to debug on the iPhone itself is a BETA, not a final release. Betas are not meant for everyone, and people will abuse them given the chance.

[roehlstation]

Originally Posted by pmjoe

Isn't most aluminum recycled these days?

No, most aluminum is not recycled, and they don't make aircraft aluminum from Coke cans.

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by roehlstation

No, most aluminum is not recycled, and they don't make aircraft aluminum from Coke cans.

Still under contract with Pepsi, eh?

[roehlstation]

Originally Posted by gobble gobble

Greenpeace is a real turn-off. They're so intensely self-righteous and intent on publicity that they give environmentalism a bad name. I donate to various environmental causes but GP can go fuck itself.

I design environmentally friendly buildings for a living, I would bet I did more for the environment between 3:00 and 3:30 today than they've done all week.

They seem to forget the sheer amount of waste the iPhones are saving the environment from. Being able to do things quickly saves energy, not to mention the elimination of paper waste. Coordination is the #1 thing that saves energy, and the iPhone makes that coordination even better.

[roehlstation]

Originally Posted by solipsism

Still under contract with Pepsi, eh?

uh...sure...whatever