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.
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?
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'.
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.
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.??
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?
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.”?
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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 .\
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).
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.
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.
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.
Comments
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
swallow completely.
The simple truth is that Apple is green, in a certain regard, because it’s good for business.
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.
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.??
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. 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?
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.”?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Hmmm... maybe the packaging will spontaneously disintegrate and turn into compost.....
You mean, spontaneously combust...
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!
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 .
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).
Stop trolling. The situation is more nuanced than your amped-up bullshit. 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.
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.
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.
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
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