I don't really care about the products being repairable, or not. Modern electronics isn't really repairable in the old sense anyway.
Nor am I worried about upgrades. It was fun to argue with somebody who thought the new MacBook Pro was "crippled" with 8 GB of RAM. I pointed out that a current "non-crippled" Dell Latitude, their top of the line, maxed out at 8 GB.
So those issues are non-existent if you stop and think about them for a while.
But in this day and age, everything sold should be recyclable. Especially supposedly premium products like those Apple sells. We only have one planet, and mining is highly polluting while mineral refining is energy-intensive. There is no excuse for throwing out valuable metals every time a product is replaced. Apple is leaving EPEAT and not showing how much the new MacBook Pro can actually be recycled.
We are left so in the dark that people are speculating about ways to remove glue. Yes, the enclosure is aluminum. Yes, aluminum can be recycled. But can aluminum be economically recycled when bonded to glass, batteries and so on? If so, Apple should prove it. Vague assurances are garbage. I will not buy any laptop that does not have a real prospect of being recycled. Even less so from the world's richest company. There is no excuse for this.
To those of you who throw so much scorn on greens, I say this. Imagine the world without catalytic converters in cars, with lead in gasoline, without scrubbers on coal burning plants, without water treatment systems, without natural parks. You wouldn't like it. It's easy to scorn greens from the comfort of life enhanced by all their accomplishments.
To those of you who throw so much scorn on greens, I say this. Imagine the world without catalytic converters in cars, with lead in gasoline, without scrubbers on coal burning plants, without water treatment systems, without natural parks. You wouldn't like it. It's easy to scorn greens from the comfort of life enhanced by all their accomplishments.
Nobody should think that I'm pro-pollution or anything like that, but without getting too political, I'll just say that I believe that there is a bit of hysteria involved with the green movement, not to mention this whole green economy nonsense that certain people are pushing. Some of the green advocates and environmental hypocrites are not in it for honest reasons.
They should mind their own business. They have no business dictating their extremist religious beliefs unto others. If somebody wants to be all green and go live in a tree for the rest of their lives and never use toilet paper ever again, then good for them, as long as they keep their distance from me. But these loons have no right to impose their beliefs unto others.
If you're heating up my planet, dumping unrecycled materials on my planet, polluting the air we all breathe and the water we all drink, and burning up limited supplies of oil, IT IS MY BUSINESS. Until you go find your own planet to go wantonly destroy with your self-centered whims, you need to accept there are 6,999,999,999 other people living here with you and you can't just go do as you damn well please. Grow up.
If you're heating up my planet, dumping unrecycled materials on my planet, polluting the air we all breathe and the water we all drink, and burning up limited supplies of oil, IT IS MY BUSINESS. Until you go find your own planet to go wantonly destroy with your self-centered whims, you need to accept there are 6,999,999,999 other people living here with you and you can't just go do as you damn well please. Grow up.
Here's a clue. It's not your planet. It's just as much mine as it is yours.
I'll tell you what. I'll adopt some retarded green policy in exchange for green people adopting a policy of my choosing. There are plenty of things that need fixing besides so-called "green" issues. That sounds like a fair trade to me.
Now, back to the story. I think this is a curious move by Apple that bears further investigation. As one reply said, Apple will be losing business with any agency and company who requires these EPEAT standards for their hardware. So what really happened? The theories posted in this thread don't seem to hold up:
"Apple felt the standards were too old, dating to 2007". Well, weren't they part of the board that set the standards? If so, can't they spearhead updating them instead of taking their ball and going home?
"They are merging their product lines". Why couldn't those new products adhere to the standards?
"Their products aren't recyclable enough to meet the standards". This seems the most plausible, but quite unfortunate if true. As others have said, glue can be removed. I also don't see why Apple can't set up recycling centers to disassemble MacBooks and iPads to separate out their aluminum shells.
"That would cost money!" They have money.
Overall this doesn't smell like we have the whole story. I'll be interested to hear when more leaks out about this.
Meanwhile I have to go see if my employer requries EPEAT for new hardware purchases. If so, I'm in big trouble since all I do for them is Mac I.T.
Here's a clue. It's not your planet. It's just as much mine as it is yours.
That's right. But if we both own a car, you're not allowed to decide to run it into a tree. Is this idea of "preserving it for all" really that foreign to you?
That's right. But if we both own a car, you're not allowed to decide to run it into a tree. Is this idea of "preserving it for all" really that foreign to you?
Actually, I live in a big city and I don't even have any car. It's not needed, and it's quicker to get around without one, not to mention parking hell.
Even though I think that there are many scammers involved in the green movement, and I'm not too concerned with being "green" myself, I'm probably the most green person on this thread. I bet that my carbon footprint is most likely one thousandth that of somebody like Al Gore.
Nobody should think that I'm pro-pollution or anything like that, but without getting too political, I'll just say that I believe that there is a bit of hysteria involved with the green movement, not to mention this whole green economy nonsense that certain people are pushing. Some of the green advocates and environmental hypocrites are not in it for honest reasons.
If it quacks like a duck... If you don't care about recycling, you are pro-pollution. Not a lot of wiggle room there. You disparaging portrayal of environmentalists speaks louder than your backtracking.
Yes, some environmental advocates are hypocrites. So are advocates of any other stripe. Environmentalism would be truly strange if it lacked its share of dishonest players. But as a whole the legacy of conservationists and environmentalists could not be more positive, going all the way back to Theodore Roosevelt.
So, once more, with feeling, you can't manufacture hundreds of millions of devices a year destined by design to end up as toxic waste in a landfill, and be taken seriously as a pursuer of design excellence or manufacturer of great products. Unless Apple can show that the retina display MBP can be recycled as much as an EPEAT gold laptop can, then it's simply bad design, not to mention awful corporate responsibility.
[" url="/t/151144/apple-pulls-products-from-government-backed-green-electronics-list#post_2142034"]Here's a clue. It's not your planet. It's just as much mine as it is yours.
I'll tell you what. I'll adopt some retarded green policy in exchange for green people adopting a policy of my choosing. There are plenty of things that need fixing besides so-called "green" issues. That sounds like a fair trade to me.
If someone farted up a storm in an elevator would be bothered by that? I imagine most people would be bothered by a malodorous smell that affects their personal space. The thing is it may ruin your day (if we take it to an extreme) but it's not going to kill you or kill your children, or your children's children.
That's the whole point about being conscientious of how we affect our environment except it's on a global scale which may not be so easily to correct it and we certainly can't escape it at this point in time.
Now I agree with your 2nd to last post about there being too much hysteria behind much of it but that doesn't mean it's not all of our planet and that we shouldn't be concernec of our effects on the planet.
Personally, I want our species to survive which is why I've chosen not to add more children to this world... who will add more children... who will add more children... etc. You can add up all the carbon footprint data points, recycling brownie points, or hybrid car BS you want but having children is most costly affect you can have on this planet. We simply procreate too much for the given ability to support our species long term.
My take on climate change is different than most. I'm all for affecting the climate. In fact, if it is proven that we have affected the climate in a short period of time I will be optimistic. Why? Because the climate of the planet does change yet the homeostasis that is ideal for our species is very limited. We can't have costal regions that support most life to be underwater. We can't have 99% of the species die out like it has in the past. Our best bet is not simply letting the planet do its thing but by being able to control it so it's ideal for our longterm needs. Call it planetary husbandry, for the lack of a better term.
Overall this doesn't smell like we have the whole story. I'll be interested to hear when more leaks out about this.
Meanwhile I have to go see if my employer requries EPEAT for new hardware purchases. If so, I'm in big trouble since all I do for them is Mac I.T.
Well, we never really have the whole story, even if it's our own.
There's probably a lot of behind-the-scenes politics with EPEAT that we will never hear about. It is likely that we will hear little if anything about EPEAT after this. After all, Apple bailed out of the US Chamber of Commerce in 2009 and we've heard virtually nothing about that episode since then. Many things just die away with little fanfare.
Despite all of the hand wringing here, it is unlikely that we will ever hear additional comments from Apple about the demise of the 17" MacBook Pro.
If you expect a fully exhaustive post-mortem and full analysis before closure, well, you are probably going to be disappointed. But I'm guessing that this will be just one of many disappointments in your life in that the world can't provide you with neatly packaged thank you gifts.
@ a Perez, Thank you. My sentiments exactly! I have been an Apple fan, user and advocate for over 15 years and have watched their design evolve around recycling and environmental impact in hardware, software and packaging. IF Apple is moving away from this trend, count me out of purchacing new devices. I have PLENTY of macs that are user upgradable and I'll use them for as long as I can.
And to all of you anti recycling, anti environmental idiots talking about environmentally ethical people like me like we are some kind of religious zealots, GROW THE F@$K UP. I don't know what kind of Kool-aid you've been drinking but you are seriously misguided.
Good. I've always felt that Apple spends too much time talking up the whole green angle during their keynotes, and it has zero effect on my eventual purchase of any Apple product. That's probably the least important feature of any Apple device, in my opinion. And it doesn't really matter anyway, because Apple will still get the imbeciles from Greenpeace attacking them, no matter what they do.
I also usually view products labelled with "green" as a negative thing, and I try to stay away from "green" products, such as certain hard drives. In the case of the hard drives, "green" is practically synonymous with inferior, slower and worse.
When I read your post, I thought you were being sarcastic. But then later, I saw more of your posts. I then realised you meant what you said. I am almost lost for words. How can someone not be concerned for the planet? There are over 7 billion people living on it, and it is people that are causing damage to the environmental, and in so many ways? Computer equipment waste is a huge problem, and for some people, they may only use their computer for about 4 years, and then want or need to buy a new one, to keep up with technological advances, or because of faults that develop with it, or whatever. And if it wasn't for groups like Greenpeace, the environment would be in a much worse condition. I respected Apple for their concerns and making their products environmentally friendly. So, I am dismayed and disappointed Apple is taking this action.
Come on guys, Apple is a corporation, please treat "it" like one regardless of the fiction of what our current laws consider it, Apple is not a person. It will always do whatever is in it's best interest for it's shareholders, plain and simple, let's also remember that recyclable and replaceable don't mean the same thing and we may be reading into it.
I was disheartened when I found out that the components that have failed on me most often in my last 20 years of using apple computers for my professional work were either soldered onto the motherboard or glued onto the chasis, but the ability to recycle those components may be a completely different matter. I lost the ability to quickly be able to go to a licensed apple repair shop and get a new ram module, new hard drive or a replacement battery and be back to having a working machine the same day. This does not mean that the new ssd modules are less recyclable than their magnetic disc predecessors, or that the new batteries are less recyclable than the previous ones, I am still not sure about the ram though.
I agree with some of the theories that have been presented here, remember we are simply speculating here unless someone has an inside track. Apple is very good at the counter claims game, they are usually very prepared for this kind of thing and I'm sure we will hear something soon. For example when apple was criticized for having it's massive cash hoard overseas instead of paying it's fair share of taxes in the United States where it makes most of it's income, Apple responded quickly with the amount of jobs that it creates in the domestic market. That doesn't mean that it's fair for Apple to be doing this, it just means that Apple had anticipated the attack prior to it's earnings report and had preplanned response for the criticism.
"Why couldn't those new products adhere to the standards?"
I have a feeling that the recycling process for the new and future products require specialized equipment that may not be commonly available, may take longer than usual to disassemble into recyclable components, or may simply create too much waste for it to pass current standards.
Regardless of what you think about the green movement, being able to recycle products weighs heavily with some corporations, a portion of the general public and it would give Apple a negative image. I am in complete agreement that we should avoid waste wherever possible and while I am disappointed that I will not be able to service future Apple laptops, purchasing products that produce more waste for the benefit of a millimeter or two is a different matter. I would not be able to purchase future apple products if they produce more waste than their previous generation, I also have enough apple computers around my house and at my work to prevent me from upgrading for at least another 2 years.
I'm going to speculate that Apple is establishing its own recycling centers, fully equipped to process (and profit from) its own used products.
EPEAT becomes irrelevant in this context. For everyone else, stop bashing EPEAT! That goes for extremist moderators, too.
I think you've hit the nail on the head. Is this saying that Apple's products can't be recycled, or is it saying that Apple's products can't be recycled by anyone?
They get to reuse components, and they make sure that none of their stuff ends up in other machines.
Well there goes Apple's opportunity and momentum of selling computers to the government down the drain.
[B]Bush signed an executive order requiring all federal agencies to use EPEAT when purchasing computers back in 2007. Also there are a lot of schools and corporations that require EPEAT certification.[/B]
Well there goes Apple's opportunity and momentum of selling computers to the government down the drain. Bush signed an executive order requiring all federal agencies to use EPEAT when purchasing computers back in 2007.
So it is a big deal and a setback..
Given it only takes a few seconds to find that, I expect Apple is aware of that issue. They helped establish the program's parameters and promote their rating after all.
I am curious about the back room parts of the story. It's too bad that probably won't known for years.
A few months ago, I saw the future of Apple's repair policy. My grandson dropped by wife's new $900 iPad and cracked the screen. I figured that the screen needed replacing. Not so with Apple. The entire iPad was replaced with a new one since there were no refurbs two days after launch. This appears to be the tact with new MacBooks. If your memory is bad, we replace the entire logic board, send the old one back to Apple and repair it. It makes some sense if you think about it. The Applecare pricing with both iPad and MacBook are very reasonable and fit into this approach. The way to recycle the Retinas is to send them to Apple who will disassemble and recycle, with the appropriate technology. It is one thing less for consumers to worry about, at a reasonable cost. So, why did Apple reject EPEAT? The standards set by EPEAT are no longer reasonable, and there are easier, more efficient ways to recycle.
?If the battery is glued to the case it means you can?t recycle the case and you can?t recycle the battery,? Frisbee said of the new MacBook Pro with Retina display.
According to Sterne Agee analyst Shaw Wu, Apple had to make the concessions in recyclability to satisfy the growing demand for thinner, more efficient laptops. Some detractors to the newer design choices that limit product repairability claim that the company is purposely making it difficult for users to install third-party upgrades like RAM and hard drives.
Sorry, but there's no other way to say this: those two people are idiots.
A glued batter can easily be recycled. Even if they used superglue, the battery can be removed. Yes, the battery is likely to be destroyed when you remove it, but isn't that the purpose of recycling?
And repairability has little or nothing to do with recyclability. So you need a special screw driver. Big deal. How many recycling shops do you think there are going to be? It's not going to be that hard for them to get the pentalobe driver. The fact that every user doesn't have that special screw driver isn't that big a deal. In fact, it can be argued that this approach is better. If the average user replaces the battery, he's likely to throw the old one into the trash. If a dedicated Apple repair shop replaces the battery, they are likely to recycle it.
Now, back to the story. I think this is a curious move by Apple that bears further investigation. As one reply said, Apple will be losing business with any agency and company who requires these EPEAT standards for their hardware. So what really happened? The theories posted in this thread don't seem to hold up:
"Apple felt the standards were too old, dating to 2007". Well, weren't they part of the board that set the standards? If so, can't they spearhead updating them instead of taking their ball and going home?
"They are merging their product lines". Why couldn't those new products adhere to the standards?
"Their products aren't recyclable enough to meet the standards". This seems the most plausible, but quite unfortunate if true. As others have said, glue can be removed. I also don't see why Apple can't set up recycling centers to disassemble MacBooks and iPads to separate out their aluminum shells.
"That would cost money!" They have money.
Overall this doesn't smell like we have the whole story. I'll be interested to hear when more leaks out about this.
Meanwhile I have to go see if my employer requries EPEAT for new hardware purchases. If so, I'm in big trouble since all I do for them is Mac I.T.
I suspect that the story is simply that the EPEAT requirements are outdated. For example, the requirement that it use simple household tools is silly. It's not that hard for recycling shops to get a special pentalobe driver. The requirement makes it sound like it's more about politics than actually about recycling.
I suspect they removed them altogether simply because backsliding in their rating due to repair-ability causing the score to drop doesn't look good. I suspect the newer models will all be less repairable. This doesn't necessarily make it less green, other than the battery issue but it gives the appearance of that.
Someone glancing at the trending scores would draw a poor conclusion simply because the hardware is not as easily repaired or the battery replaced as older hardware.
Comments
This is a red line for me plain and simple.
I don't really care about the products being repairable, or not. Modern electronics isn't really repairable in the old sense anyway.
Nor am I worried about upgrades. It was fun to argue with somebody who thought the new MacBook Pro was "crippled" with 8 GB of RAM. I pointed out that a current "non-crippled" Dell Latitude, their top of the line, maxed out at 8 GB.
So those issues are non-existent if you stop and think about them for a while.
But in this day and age, everything sold should be recyclable. Especially supposedly premium products like those Apple sells. We only have one planet, and mining is highly polluting while mineral refining is energy-intensive. There is no excuse for throwing out valuable metals every time a product is replaced. Apple is leaving EPEAT and not showing how much the new MacBook Pro can actually be recycled.
We are left so in the dark that people are speculating about ways to remove glue. Yes, the enclosure is aluminum. Yes, aluminum can be recycled. But can aluminum be economically recycled when bonded to glass, batteries and so on? If so, Apple should prove it. Vague assurances are garbage. I will not buy any laptop that does not have a real prospect of being recycled. Even less so from the world's richest company. There is no excuse for this.
To those of you who throw so much scorn on greens, I say this. Imagine the world without catalytic converters in cars, with lead in gasoline, without scrubbers on coal burning plants, without water treatment systems, without natural parks. You wouldn't like it. It's easy to scorn greens from the comfort of life enhanced by all their accomplishments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alonso Perez
To those of you who throw so much scorn on greens, I say this. Imagine the world without catalytic converters in cars, with lead in gasoline, without scrubbers on coal burning plants, without water treatment systems, without natural parks. You wouldn't like it. It's easy to scorn greens from the comfort of life enhanced by all their accomplishments.
Nobody should think that I'm pro-pollution or anything like that, but without getting too political, I'll just say that I believe that there is a bit of hysteria involved with the green movement, not to mention this whole green economy nonsense that certain people are pushing. Some of the green advocates and environmental hypocrites are not in it for honest reasons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
They should mind their own business. They have no business dictating their extremist religious beliefs unto others. If somebody wants to be all green and go live in a tree for the rest of their lives and never use toilet paper ever again, then good for them, as long as they keep their distance from me. But these loons have no right to impose their beliefs unto others.
If you're heating up my planet, dumping unrecycled materials on my planet, polluting the air we all breathe and the water we all drink, and burning up limited supplies of oil, IT IS MY BUSINESS. Until you go find your own planet to go wantonly destroy with your self-centered whims, you need to accept there are 6,999,999,999 other people living here with you and you can't just go do as you damn well please. Grow up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ktappe
If you're heating up my planet, dumping unrecycled materials on my planet, polluting the air we all breathe and the water we all drink, and burning up limited supplies of oil, IT IS MY BUSINESS. Until you go find your own planet to go wantonly destroy with your self-centered whims, you need to accept there are 6,999,999,999 other people living here with you and you can't just go do as you damn well please. Grow up.
Here's a clue. It's not your planet. It's just as much mine as it is yours.
I'll tell you what. I'll adopt some retarded green policy in exchange for green people adopting a policy of my choosing. There are plenty of things that need fixing besides so-called "green" issues. That sounds like a fair trade to me.
Now, back to the story. I think this is a curious move by Apple that bears further investigation. As one reply said, Apple will be losing business with any agency and company who requires these EPEAT standards for their hardware. So what really happened? The theories posted in this thread don't seem to hold up:
"Apple felt the standards were too old, dating to 2007". Well, weren't they part of the board that set the standards? If so, can't they spearhead updating them instead of taking their ball and going home?
"They are merging their product lines". Why couldn't those new products adhere to the standards?
"Their products aren't recyclable enough to meet the standards". This seems the most plausible, but quite unfortunate if true. As others have said, glue can be removed. I also don't see why Apple can't set up recycling centers to disassemble MacBooks and iPads to separate out their aluminum shells.
"That would cost money!" They have money.
Overall this doesn't smell like we have the whole story. I'll be interested to hear when more leaks out about this.
Meanwhile I have to go see if my employer requries EPEAT for new hardware purchases. If so, I'm in big trouble since all I do for them is Mac I.T.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
Here's a clue. It's not your planet. It's just as much mine as it is yours.
That's right. But if we both own a car, you're not allowed to decide to run it into a tree. Is this idea of "preserving it for all" really that foreign to you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ktappe
That's right. But if we both own a car, you're not allowed to decide to run it into a tree. Is this idea of "preserving it for all" really that foreign to you?
Actually, I live in a big city and I don't even have any car. It's not needed, and it's quicker to get around without one, not to mention parking hell.
Even though I think that there are many scammers involved in the green movement, and I'm not too concerned with being "green" myself, I'm probably the most green person on this thread. I bet that my carbon footprint is most likely one thousandth that of somebody like Al Gore.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
Nobody should think that I'm pro-pollution or anything like that, but without getting too political, I'll just say that I believe that there is a bit of hysteria involved with the green movement, not to mention this whole green economy nonsense that certain people are pushing. Some of the green advocates and environmental hypocrites are not in it for honest reasons.
If it quacks like a duck... If you don't care about recycling, you are pro-pollution. Not a lot of wiggle room there. You disparaging portrayal of environmentalists speaks louder than your backtracking.
Yes, some environmental advocates are hypocrites. So are advocates of any other stripe. Environmentalism would be truly strange if it lacked its share of dishonest players. But as a whole the legacy of conservationists and environmentalists could not be more positive, going all the way back to Theodore Roosevelt.
So, once more, with feeling, you can't manufacture hundreds of millions of devices a year destined by design to end up as toxic waste in a landfill, and be taken seriously as a pursuer of design excellence or manufacturer of great products. Unless Apple can show that the retina display MBP can be recycled as much as an EPEAT gold laptop can, then it's simply bad design, not to mention awful corporate responsibility.
If someone farted up a storm in an elevator would be bothered by that? I imagine most people would be bothered by a malodorous smell that affects their personal space. The thing is it may ruin your day (if we take it to an extreme) but it's not going to kill you or kill your children, or your children's children.
That's the whole point about being conscientious of how we affect our environment except it's on a global scale which may not be so easily to correct it and we certainly can't escape it at this point in time.
Now I agree with your 2nd to last post about there being too much hysteria behind much of it but that doesn't mean it's not all of our planet and that we shouldn't be concernec of our effects on the planet.
Personally, I want our species to survive which is why I've chosen not to add more children to this world... who will add more children... who will add more children... etc. You can add up all the carbon footprint data points, recycling brownie points, or hybrid car BS you want but having children is most costly affect you can have on this planet. We simply procreate too much for the given ability to support our species long term.
My take on climate change is different than most. I'm all for affecting the climate. In fact, if it is proven that we have affected the climate in a short period of time I will be optimistic. Why? Because the climate of the planet does change yet the homeostasis that is ideal for our species is very limited. We can't have costal regions that support most life to be underwater. We can't have 99% of the species die out like it has in the past. Our best bet is not simply letting the planet do its thing but by being able to control it so it's ideal for our longterm needs. Call it planetary husbandry, for the lack of a better term.
There's probably a lot of behind-the-scenes politics with EPEAT that we will never hear about. It is likely that we will hear little if anything about EPEAT after this. After all, Apple bailed out of the US Chamber of Commerce in 2009 and we've heard virtually nothing about that episode since then. Many things just die away with little fanfare.
Despite all of the hand wringing here, it is unlikely that we will ever hear additional comments from Apple about the demise of the 17" MacBook Pro.
If you expect a fully exhaustive post-mortem and full analysis before closure, well, you are probably going to be disappointed. But I'm guessing that this will be just one of many disappointments in your life in that the world can't provide you with neatly packaged thank you gifts.
What Apple giveth, Apple taketh away.
I'm going to speculate that Apple is establishing its own recycling centers, fully equipped to process (and profit from) its own used products.
EPEAT becomes irrelevant in this context. For everyone else, stop bashing EPEAT! That goes for extremist moderators, too.
And to all of you anti recycling, anti environmental idiots talking about environmentally ethical people like me like we are some kind of religious zealots, GROW THE F@$K UP. I don't know what kind of Kool-aid you've been drinking but you are seriously misguided.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
Good. I've always felt that Apple spends too much time talking up the whole green angle during their keynotes, and it has zero effect on my eventual purchase of any Apple product. That's probably the least important feature of any Apple device, in my opinion. And it doesn't really matter anyway, because Apple will still get the imbeciles from Greenpeace attacking them, no matter what they do.
I also usually view products labelled with "green" as a negative thing, and I try to stay away from "green" products, such as certain hard drives. In the case of the hard drives, "green" is practically synonymous with inferior, slower and worse.
When I read your post, I thought you were being sarcastic. But then later, I saw more of your posts. I then realised you meant what you said. I am almost lost for words. How can someone not be concerned for the planet? There are over 7 billion people living on it, and it is people that are causing damage to the environmental, and in so many ways? Computer equipment waste is a huge problem, and for some people, they may only use their computer for about 4 years, and then want or need to buy a new one, to keep up with technological advances, or because of faults that develop with it, or whatever. And if it wasn't for groups like Greenpeace, the environment would be in a much worse condition. I respected Apple for their concerns and making their products environmentally friendly. So, I am dismayed and disappointed Apple is taking this action.
Come on guys, Apple is a corporation, please treat "it" like one regardless of the fiction of what our current laws consider it, Apple is not a person. It will always do whatever is in it's best interest for it's shareholders, plain and simple, let's also remember that recyclable and replaceable don't mean the same thing and we may be reading into it.
I was disheartened when I found out that the components that have failed on me most often in my last 20 years of using apple computers for my professional work were either soldered onto the motherboard or glued onto the chasis, but the ability to recycle those components may be a completely different matter. I lost the ability to quickly be able to go to a licensed apple repair shop and get a new ram module, new hard drive or a replacement battery and be back to having a working machine the same day. This does not mean that the new ssd modules are less recyclable than their magnetic disc predecessors, or that the new batteries are less recyclable than the previous ones, I am still not sure about the ram though.
I agree with some of the theories that have been presented here, remember we are simply speculating here unless someone has an inside track. Apple is very good at the counter claims game, they are usually very prepared for this kind of thing and I'm sure we will hear something soon. For example when apple was criticized for having it's massive cash hoard overseas instead of paying it's fair share of taxes in the United States where it makes most of it's income, Apple responded quickly with the amount of jobs that it creates in the domestic market. That doesn't mean that it's fair for Apple to be doing this, it just means that Apple had anticipated the attack prior to it's earnings report and had preplanned response for the criticism.
"Why couldn't those new products adhere to the standards?"
I have a feeling that the recycling process for the new and future products require specialized equipment that may not be commonly available, may take longer than usual to disassemble into recyclable components, or may simply create too much waste for it to pass current standards.
Regardless of what you think about the green movement, being able to recycle products weighs heavily with some corporations, a portion of the general public and it would give Apple a negative image. I am in complete agreement that we should avoid waste wherever possible and while I am disappointed that I will not be able to service future Apple laptops, purchasing products that produce more waste for the benefit of a millimeter or two is a different matter. I would not be able to purchase future apple products if they produce more waste than their previous generation, I also have enough apple computers around my house and at my work to prevent me from upgrading for at least another 2 years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpsro
What Apple giveth, Apple taketh away.
I'm going to speculate that Apple is establishing its own recycling centers, fully equipped to process (and profit from) its own used products.
EPEAT becomes irrelevant in this context. For everyone else, stop bashing EPEAT! That goes for extremist moderators, too.
I think you've hit the nail on the head. Is this saying that Apple's products can't be recycled, or is it saying that Apple's products can't be recycled by anyone?
They get to reuse components, and they make sure that none of their stuff ends up in other machines.
[B]Bush signed an executive order requiring all federal agencies to use EPEAT when purchasing computers back in 2007. Also there are a lot of schools and corporations that require EPEAT certification.[/B]
So it is a big deal and a setback..
Given it only takes a few seconds to find that, I expect Apple is aware of that issue. They helped establish the program's parameters and promote their rating after all.
I am curious about the back room parts of the story. It's too bad that probably won't known for years.
A few months ago, I saw the future of Apple's repair policy. My grandson dropped by wife's new $900 iPad and cracked the screen. I figured that the screen needed replacing. Not so with Apple. The entire iPad was replaced with a new one since there were no refurbs two days after launch. This appears to be the tact with new MacBooks. If your memory is bad, we replace the entire logic board, send the old one back to Apple and repair it. It makes some sense if you think about it. The Applecare pricing with both iPad and MacBook are very reasonable and fit into this approach. The way to recycle the Retinas is to send them to Apple who will disassemble and recycle, with the appropriate technology. It is one thing less for consumers to worry about, at a reasonable cost. So, why did Apple reject EPEAT? The standards set by EPEAT are no longer reasonable, and there are easier, more efficient ways to recycle.
Sorry, but there's no other way to say this: those two people are idiots.
A glued batter can easily be recycled. Even if they used superglue, the battery can be removed. Yes, the battery is likely to be destroyed when you remove it, but isn't that the purpose of recycling?
And repairability has little or nothing to do with recyclability. So you need a special screw driver. Big deal. How many recycling shops do you think there are going to be? It's not going to be that hard for them to get the pentalobe driver. The fact that every user doesn't have that special screw driver isn't that big a deal. In fact, it can be argued that this approach is better. If the average user replaces the battery, he's likely to throw the old one into the trash. If a dedicated Apple repair shop replaces the battery, they are likely to recycle it.
I suspect that the story is simply that the EPEAT requirements are outdated. For example, the requirement that it use simple household tools is silly. It's not that hard for recycling shops to get a special pentalobe driver. The requirement makes it sound like it's more about politics than actually about recycling.
Someone glancing at the trending scores would draw a poor conclusion simply because the hardware is not as easily repaired or the battery replaced as older hardware.