Apple acknowledges 'mistake,' places eligible products back on EPEAT - Page 3

Does that mean I should go get my retina MBP out of the dumpster and recycle it instead?

Maybe ... or maybe not. Could be some politicking on behalf of Apple to get the EPEAT standards body to consider changing the rules a little (glue may become ok very soon). The backpedal may be signaling that EPEAT has decided it is willing to change the standard.

Actually.... here's the real Update:

EPEAT: Hello, can we talk?
APPLE: Sure.  I was expecting your call.
EPEAT: We realized our recycling standards are a bit outdated.
APPLE: Please clarify "a bit outdated"?
EPEAT: Okay, okay... our standards assume we're building 2012 products using methods from the 1990's.
APPLE: No problem.  Letting go of old ways is hard to do, like Britney Spears.
EPEAT: So we're cool?
APPLE: As "cool" as an iPad.
EPEAT: But I use a Samsung tablet.
APPLE: I rest my case.  Explains why you're irrelevant now.

Note:  Sorry... just couldn't resist a stab at Samsung. :)

Since Ive (NOT Ives) is responsible for hardware design my guess is he is very involved in materials used, how the products are designed and engineered and how they can be recycled. But as I reread the statement I see Mansfield used the pronoun "I" which leads me to believe this probably was his decision, or he decided to take the flack for it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3FnpaWQJO0

Somehow, I think you are overstating the scope of the "fail" here. Government sales are nowhere near the size of Apple's retail sales worldwide.

This would never happen if Steve Jobs was still around.

Soli beat you to it.

I wonder if its just arrogance? Considering their issues with 4G and warranty in other countries its sure making them look arrogant.

I have a sneaking suspicion that the original decision flew under the radar of Tim Cook and he was oblivious to the implications, especially in terms of negative public perception and the loss of government contracts. After the fact, Cook woke up the reality (maybe got an earful from folks like Al Gore) and thus Mansfield was ordered to fall on his sword. More so than Mansfield, I would suggest that Apple's General Counsel (Bruce Sewell) be replaced at the soonest opportunity.

I'm not so sure.  I think Steve would have handled it differently though.  He'd be on the phone with EPEAT first saying this is what we're going to do, update your procedures.  If EPEAT didn't do it in a timely manner, Steve would have done it anyways, then criticize EPEAT and make them look really irrelevant over time, then EPEAT would succumb to the bad PR and update their procedures.

I think that's the only way you get folks like EPEAT to wake up and get with the program.  Bureaucracies like EPEAT won't change unless their jobs and image are in jeopardy.  Just like politics.

Huh. Seems that nonsense is over:

http://ww2.epeat.net/ProductDisplay.aspx?return=searchoptions&action=view&search=true&productid=8661&rating=3&ProductType=3&epeatcountryid=1



Guess EPEAT caved.
Edited by Tallest Skil - 7/13/12 at 2:12pm

When the iPhone first came, out, Jobs initially didn't allow 3rd party applications to 'pollute it's integrity' but eventually changed his mind, and of course he presided over the Mobile Me debacle and pulled the plug. That's a good sign when a CEO recognizes mistakes and has has the flexibility to change or even reverse course as Cook did here.

 

 

Steve Jobs blinked sometimes. Take for instance, the whole roar from early adopters over Apple dramatically dropping the price of the iPhone after less than six months on the market. Apple was clearly in the right, but Jobs made a public statement saying it would give early adopters of the iPhone a hundred dollar credit. 

 

What Apple did wrong here was two fold. First, it removed all its products from certification even the ones already approved. This made the issue a whole public affair.  Second, Apple should have not said a word about future products not making the certification process all while working (like it has in the past) to change the standard. Apple has a valid point that is products while falling below the standard in some areas, exceeds the standard in ways not measured. If the public eventually became enraged, Apple should have done  a well thought out response like Jobs did on Flash. On the Flash controversy, Jobs came out with a well reasoned response that was hard for anybody to refute. Explaining the standard and why Apple doesn't agree with it would help. 

 

With Jobs, the buck stopped with him. Why didn't Tim make the statement? He gets paid the most. 

It is hard to tell sometimes what Jobs thought. He commonly would say one thing in public that Apple wasn't going to do this or that, and then what do you know Apple was soon after doing that. WIth the app store, Apple could have been buying time to eventually come out with the app store throwing off its competitors in the process. Jobs, however, was good at correcting the ship and could make changes when needed. You will notice here though that the CEO didn't take the blame like he should have. 

Not sure why since you don't know his involvement if anything in the decision making process. In case you weren't aware, Apple's general counsel is quite busy with lawsuits. What probably happened is the EPEAT debacle snuck up on Apple. It probably submitted the Mac Book Retina, and received a low score. Communications broke down. Apple wanted to apply pressure on EPEAT to update the standard, so it thought withdrawing its products might do the trick. It didn't. 

 

A lawyer's job is to take a problem and explain the different implications of handling it in different ways. At the end of the day, somebody else generally decides the approach to take. Again, we don't know Sewell's involvement. 

 

When Mobile Me was screwed up, Jobs took the blame. 

How incredibly funny!!! Where are the iHaters now??!!!  They are probably in emergency-mode right now trying to spin the story that now "suddenly" EPEAT doesn't matter anymore because they caved in to Apple's "evil" methods.
 

 

Neither was there any explanation in Mansfield's letter.  He gives no reason for the original decision or for the new dicision.  The closest he comes is to say that it was a mistake.,

So what's the bottom line here, huh Apple?
Saying you are now putting back what you took off is irrelevant.
Are more, or less, of your products harming the environment?

Quit blowing smoke and talking about what you've put on your website. What's in your products and how are you making them safer for our planet?
I care about Earth, not some corporate-created list.

There there. Diddums.

What do you think? Take a wild guess.

A lawyer's job is to suck his/her client's wallet bare.
I agree, Cook should have stepped up. Feckless, I say.

 

You are so consistently mean, narrow-minded, negative and power-tripping in your posts, that I'm having a hard time believing you are actually female.  You come across like a nasty teen-aged boy or a radio shock-jock.  Also, you're kinda using 'feckless' incorrectly.  

Refer to post #95 and and tell us how that humble-pie tastes.

Or were you just blowing smoke about your you care about the earth?  

 

So there you go lumping all females into one stereotypical group.  Why shouldn't women be allowed to post mean, narrow-minded, negative posts?   

Nah they just think $$$ exchanged hands...

Honestly I could care less about EPEAT. And I'm sure most people had never heard of them prior to this week. And of course Apple is no more or less environmentally responsible today than they were yesterday or last week. But I scratch my head at how they could not have prepared better for this. If they were going to pull out and had a legitimate reason for doing why not issue a formal press release from Tim Cook explaining why? And reenter rate that their commitment to the environment is as strong as ever. get ahead of the story since most people haven't heard of EPEAT and it would get spun in a negative (and most likely inaccurate) way.

Actually he blamed his Mobile Me team, telling them that they had “tarnished Apple’s reputation,” and that they, “should hate each other for having let each other down.”   In this EPEAT issue, Cook executed a fast u-turn before there was damage that might have required him to personally apologize.  

Yes, Sewell is busy with lawsuits that have garnered Apple nothing m  ore than pyrrhic victories and stalemates.  In the case of EPEAT, the legal department should have vociferously recommended against abandoning EPEAT due to federal compliance laws that would cost the company government contracts.  Let's remember that Apple was already in compliance except for perhaps the new MacBook Pro Retina.  Perhaps Sewell did that - I doubt it just as I doubt that he's he's advising Cook to abandon the Steve Job's thermonuclear litigation option.  

The upside down exclamation is my sarcmark, as in a mark used to denote the opposite of what I'm actually saying since tone isn't easily conveyed on internet forums, IMs and the like. I've adopted this from the Ethopic language's irony mark ( ¡ ) called the temherte slaqî.

So, long story short... I agree with you. 😷


There were 39 last week. We know that the glued battery was an issue and the new MBP wouldn't have passed. Today we have all 39 re-added, a public declaration, plus the new MBP added. I don't think there is any rational or objective way to look at this except to say that Apple won, hands down.

If folks on this thread can step back for a couple moments and take a deep breath or two, they might consider how much mental effort and emotion they're wasting. So a mistake was made ... acknowledged ... and steps taken to correct it. In a few days, weeks, or months, what will it mean in the fabric of Apple's history? Not much.

 

This week there were a lot bigger stories in the news. I'm not connected to Penn State, and after the Freeh Report, glad of it. I wouldn't enjoy being part of the Penn State community and having to live the Sandusky debacle down in future years. Nor does the EPEAT flap trouble Apple managers anywhere near much as Jamie Dimon and his people having to cope with blowing away $6 billion of JP Morgan's money.

 

Time to get a grip. Take your meds, drink a glass of warm milk and tuck yourselves in early tonight.

deleted

Edited by MacRulez - 1/21/13 at 2:52pm

This goof up is not something I expected! Yes! I do miss Steve Jobs! I just hope this disappears as quickly it came.

What goof up? I don't for a second believe the apology that came from Apple. All of this points to a deliberate act to get an outmoded system updated.

Interesting data has come up.

• http://www.fastcompany.com/1842811/apples-about-turn-all-eligible-products-rejoin-epeat

Companies list their own ratings and then they are verified by EPEAT later on. It seems doubtful that Apple would resign on with EPEAT and make their new MBP Gold without being certain it will pass. I guess we'll find out shortly. I'm expecting the certification process will finally be updated. Hopefully they'll finally add a category for handheld devices.


They have plenty of green machines, perhaps even more total distinct models, but they are for their premium categories which Apple has a near monopoly, not for their budget categories where they sell nearly all their units so their total number of machines that are bad for the environment will far exceed anything Apple could do in every single way.

Is Apple management adopting the Microsoft way of saying something and then taking it back? It's a start. Not a good road to go down.

 

It's all about money. Why should Apple jeopardize the sales of existing EPEAT approved products just because some of their newer products don't comply with the standard? Reversing this decision was the right thing to do, but; somebody messed up in a big way.

 

Many people on this forum were claiming Apple had it's reasons for doing this and that it was probably a well though out corporate decision. Now that we see this change we can assume that this wasn't a well though out decision by Apple. It was perhaps something done by one person with authority.

 

Maybe one person said it was a bad idea and the remainder of management said it was a good idea. Now management knows it was a really bad idea to drop EPEAT certification for all of the products. Will those who said it was a bad idea get an apology and perhaps a raise?

 

This change in policy also proves that we on this forum really don't know a thing. All we can do is guess about why Apple operates the way it does.

what does that have to do with what I said? Never said anything had to be discarded, just updated. Any manufacturer should be able to have an input and get standards modified if needed. I never meant to imply any company should be able to make any change they want no matter what, but Apple has the best track record or any... so when I said "X, Y, and Z" i should have noted they were very updated current newer tech and good "green" things. EPEAT is like any other committee... it takes 10 years to get anything done.

Glancing at the responses, this is the only comment I found out of the 120 that were available as of the time of this writing that apparently gets it. You can have Energy Star 10.0: The Next Generation, or EPEAT Titanium XXX, this is all BS 2.0 and politics 101.

This reads like the city of San Francisco just saved the planet. Well, it didn't. If every last computer, tablet, cellphone were all of a sudden made of 100% biodegradable material tomorrow, we're still hurdling towards a catastrophe that nobody can yet even imagine until it actually starts to happen, which is unfortunately also the time that it will be too late to do anything about it.

And I'll leave it at that, because I will be told by a moderator that this is way OT (off-topic), which is true, of course, and which will be true for a few more decades, but to get back on topic, there is definitely not an app for that! ;-)

Good move by Apple. Why hurt sales if its not necessary or produvts are EPEAT.