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.
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.
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.
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.
Glosssy screens are good for the environment yet bad for the eyes. Apple just needs to bring back matte for all their computers like they have in the 17" MBP. Very simple.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
"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."
Quote:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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 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.
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?
Comments
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.
What part of these links are a lie:
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.
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.
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.
Glosssy screens are good for the environment yet bad for the eyes. Apple just needs to bring back matte for all their computers like they have in the 17" MBP. Very simple.
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.
Oh no- here comes the diatribe.
Yah-go for it! Sounds more like a Steve Balmer idea. Running Ads perpetually.
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.
What part of these links are a lie:
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.
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?
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?
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.
"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.
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.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeXAcwriid0
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.
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.
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
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.
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.c...0-274616db87e6
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.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).
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.c...0-274616db87e6
Shouldn't respond to insults. Will not say anything more.
Shouldn't respond to insults. Will not say anything more.
hahaha, way to take the high-road
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?