C'mon people... What bloody retard can't remove the battery from the case and then recycle the case, glue or no glue. Sheer stupidity by that government official. I mean, is the glue made of mercury-filled uranium nanobots or what?
Bout time a company cared more about product design and quality than government requirements.
Well, they still care about environmental issues as well. As I mentioned above, I don't see how glue suddenly makes the whole unibody unrecyclable. That's sheer idiocy for 2012. If we can't recycle a MacBook Pro Retina that is mostly glass and aluminium, we might as well nuke ourselves and call it a day.
Well, they still care about environmental issues as well. As I mentioned above, I don't see how glue suddenly makes the whole unibody unrecyclable. That's sheer idiocy for 2012. If we can't recycle a MacBook Pro Retina that is mostly glass and aluminium, we might as well nuke ourselves and call it a day.
Agreed.
And arguing that Apple doesn't care about the environment is silly. They are in the process of becoming one of the top solar users in the United States. They have led the way on packaging that is less intrusive than everyone else (I absolutely hate those plastic clam-shell packages and they are an environmental disaster). Recycling an aluminum laptop case is vastly easier than the carbon shell cases that some of the competitors are using. Apple's leading the way in almost everything that counts - but they don't get any respect from groups like Greenpeace who are more interested in who donates than in actually helping the environment.
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.
Because he's self-centered and only cares about himself- he'll be the first to admit it. Although I'm sure he's a much bigger jerk (aka- tough guy) behind a computer screen than real life, otherwise he couldn't own a business (which, again- you have to take his word for it). I doubt he'd just sit there and watch a defenseless kid get beat up by a random adult and not do anything because it's "none of his business".
And sopil- that's cool about not reproducing, but you could still have kids- just adopt and you could save lives while still saving the world.
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.
I think people, especially men, who are opposed to conservation and environmental efforts do so because of some kind of macho pride. They think if they have to change their life one iota to correspond to someone else's idea of how to live that they're demonstrating some kind of weakness. (So this is really about sex. ) Or they want to take the stand that the dangerous chemicals in the air can't affect them. So they must find an excuse not to change. They point to some extreme environmentalist or find one who is hypocritical to make the case that all environmentalists are crazy. They make the case that if we can't prove that global warming is man-made, then we shouldn't do anything about it because we shouldn't ask big companies to spend one dollar to take any responsibility for the junk they spew into the air because the profits of big corporations are more important than our personal well-being. They try to make the bogus case that those who push environmental efforts have a financial vested interest or use stupid excuses like, "Oh, Al Gore - he doesn't know anything about the environment - he's a nerd who thinks he invented the internet." In spite of significant changes to weather and significant increases in cancer rates, they still refuse to believe that taking care of the planet would make any difference. And they don't believe in recycling because they don't personally see the results of not recycling, since they live in places where they don't have to see the ever increasing size of garbage dumps, many of which are now the size of mountains. In the U.S., we think freedom means being able to do anything you want, including being completely irresponsible and selfish. IMO, it's a very immature attitude.
As for Apple, even ignoring environmental factors, I simply don't understand why people think saving 1/4" of "thickness" is worth giving up being able to replace/upgrade the battery, memory and storage. I may be in the minority, but I don't think the tradeoff is worth it. I have a MPB from Fall 2008 and I upgraded the memory when I bought it and have since easily replaced the battery and the HDD myself, thereby extending the machine's life for many more years. Apple's genius engineering team can't find a way to socket the drive and the memory and create a "layer" for the battery so it can be removed? I find that very hard to believe. IMO, Apple's got to do better. And I think it will also become a marketing weakness as the competition will use this against them: "Why do you want a Mac? Don't you know that if the battery dies or if you need more memory or a large disk that you've got to throw the machine away?" My son-in-law works as a tech in a mid-sized corporation supporting Macs - probably a few hundred. Once those machines get to the state where he can no longer repair or upgrade them quickly, I believe they'll stop buying Macs, because the constant replacement costs will be too high.
This is more of a big deal for apple in Sales. This could put a big halt in the sales they are seeing in government and school sales since they can no longer order these pc's.
I bet you will see more government and education only models.
As for Apple, even ignoring environmental factors, I simply don't understand why people think saving 1/4" of "thickness" is worth giving up being able to replace/upgrade the battery, memory and storage. I may be in the minority,
You just answered your own question.
Apple's design philosophy plays *very* well in the market.
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.
Your statement is EXACTLY why so few can take the "green" proponents seriously. You demonstrate precisely what Apple ][ initially observed with respect to the proclivity toward histrionics and dishonesty in the "green" movement members. You misrepresent others' statements and spew hyperbole of the highest order backed with zero factual evidence to support your case.
Your very first assertion that "If you don't care about recycling, you are pro-pollution" is an non-sequitur at best and a bald-faced lie at worst. Recycling is an activity that can be a component of environmental responsibility. However prioritizing other environmentally responsible behavior over recycling is not the same thing as being pro-pollution. If it came to the mutually-exclusive decision (for some reason beyond one's control) to reduce one's environmental impact by 10% through recycling or by 20% via engaging in some other behavior, would it not be more environmentally responsible to forsake the recycling in favor of the alternative behavior? This is the crux of the statement made by Apple ][ - at the organizational level, the "green movement" approach is typically to ignore the more responsible, efficient and effective behavior in favor for the more politically-correct one.
You misrepresent Apple ][ as "not caring about recycling". Apple ][ never stated that they did not care about recycling (at least in this thread - link evidence to the contrary and I'll retract this statement). There was the statement that '...I'm not too concerned with being "green" myself, I'm probably the most green person on this thread'. All this statement says is that Apple ][ does not subscribe the the "green" approach to environmental responsibility. However it does indicate an environmental awareness and the belief that they in fact <were> being environmentally responsible (at the very least with respect to their current company in this forum, and Al Gore as well).
You appear to make the implication that if someone doesn't like the approach that the environmentalists as a whole take, then that makes that person pro-pollution. Also a non-sequitur, by the way; not agreeing with a means to achieve an end does not imply disagreement with that desired end. By your own admission, the environmental movement has hypocrites and dishonest members. For some, the ends do not justify the means. If you can't do it honestly, then find a better way or you risk ultimately undermining the end you seek to achieve.
Somehow you made the leap from "Apple pulls products from green list" (ostensibly as a result of the ease of disassembly not meeting EPAT criteria) to Apple's products are non-recycable and "...designs products intended by design to end up as toxic waste in landfills". So, because it takes an extra step (or effort, if you will) to remove the glue from the case, it somehow makes the product irrevocably un-recyclable? On top of that you state that because it may not conform to a single set of criteria, it therefore means that "it's simply bad design, not to mention awful corporate responsibility". Honestly, how do you even make that connection at all, much less with the information at hand?
As seems to be typical for the knee-jerk reactionist "greens" whose first impulse is to condemn anyone or anything that doesn't bend over backwards (then forward) to stroke the green ego, you take a snippet of a statement with no context and immediately declare that company 'xyz' (Apple in this case) is an irresponsible corporation (YOUR words), who cannot "...be taken seriously as a pursuer of design excellence or manufacturer of great products" (YOUR words), and whose products "destined by design to end up as toxic waste in a landfill" (YOUR words).
Congratulations, you've taken one more step in damaging the green movement. Perhaps after you and the remainder of your ilk are but historical footnotes, some future generation may pick up the mantle and strive to achieve the greater end without damaging it along the way through unworthy means.
Apple's design philosophy plays *very* well in the market.
Except I meant "in the minority on this Board", not in the overall marketplace. I don't think the full impact of Apple's 'no-upgrade', 'can't fix" design philosophy has hit the market yet. Come back to me a year from now and we'll see.
But let's face it - even though they can be extreme, the world is a bit better with their scrutiny.
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.
Religion is about beliefs. Environmental protection is about science. Because if you like it or not, you are an animal, and what kills the biosphere will kill you, or if you live short enough, your children or grand children, should you be (un)lucky enough to reproduce.
People can be as ignorant as they want to be, but if their ignorance kills, then their ignorance must be overruled. That's why we have speed limits, that's why we have drugs that are prescription only, and that's why we need environmental laws.
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.
Yes, many greens are 'loons.'
But you're hoisting yourself on your own petard when you imply they have no right to impose the consequences of their beliefs or actions upon others. The irony is, it is precisely this notion of 'externalities' that are imposed on others -- externalities, whose costs are not internalized by those who impose such costs -- that is the basis for their beliefs and their rationale for existence!
And if it wasn't for groups like Greenpeace, the environment would be in a much worse condition.
That's well-meaning, but naive. It's like saying that a rooster crowed the sun into rising.
At the margin, some sensible NGOs do help raise awareness, and in some instances (e.g., Conservation International) provide serious 'certification' services that companies turn to, but nut cases like Greenpeace are crass fundraising maximizers, no more no less.
As far as recycling goes, the trend is away from manually separating items, and towards using things like shredders, centrifuges, etc. to separate things.
Even residential garbage recycling has the trend towards "all recyclables into one bin" and then have mechanical separation at some processing plant, rather than rely on notoriously error prone sorting by consumers.
I'd bet, were I the betting kind of guy, that the glue with which the battery is glued in is such that a heat gun will release the battery, and that by keeping the battery firmly in place, it reduces mechanical stress on the battery and therefore extends the battery's life time.
Also, I think, Apple can use less material, which means less resources, to manufacture the devices, by using glue, because the various components all become part of the structural elements of the device, not items mounted inside the structural outer shell.
So in all, I think these moves will create more reliable, longer lasting devices with a lower overall resource footprint, but they will require different procedures to recycle. Since Apple takes all its products back for recycling (unless they changed that policy, too) they will very likely have relevant procedures in place to deal with these new devices.
The problem is not so much that Apple may think that the EPEAT standard is out dated, but that they don't participate in the dialog to update it, and don't explain why they withdraw from it, and what they do instead. After all, this isn't about specific future products, or anything else that warrants secrecy, this is about environmental policy, and a company like Apple can influence a lot and be a leader; and thus silence is bad, both for Apple's image and for missed chances of helping everyone else move forward in these matters.
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.
First rational, logical post so far. Only took 39 other posts of wasetful drivel to get here.
As far as recycling goes, the trend is away from manually separating items, and towards using things like shredders, centrifuges, etc. to separate things.
Even residential garbage recycling has the trend towards "all recyclables into one bin" and then have mechanical separation at some processing plant, rather than rely on notoriously error prone sorting by consumers.
I'd bet, were I the betting kind of guy, that the glue with which the battery is glued in is such that a heat gun will release the battery, and that by keeping the battery firmly in place, it reduces mechanical stress on the battery and therefore extends the battery's life time.
Also, I think, Apple can use less material, which means less resources, to manufacture the devices, by using glue, because the various components all become part of the structural elements of the device, not items mounted inside the structural outer shell.
So in all, I think these moves will create more reliable, longer lasting devices with a lower overall resource footprint, but they will require different procedures to recycle. Since Apple takes all its products back for recycling (unless they changed that policy, too) they will very likely have relevant procedures in place to deal with these new devices.
The battery seems to be the biggest concern. You shred the battery and you could be in trouble, lithium batteries are something you don't want to shred. I've noted freezing and careful application of a heat gun as possibilities, but I don't care to possibly ruin a computer to test that hypothesis out of curiosity. I don't think anyone expected consumers to manually disassemble computers to recycle the parts though, so the requirement that it be possible for the user to disassemble it is a bit much. A pound of aluminum isn't worth a dollar to a recycler, so being able to strip the shell at home is moot. Better off letting a more centralized facility handle the dismantling. The lithium is something you need to be careful in handling, so it's best to send that to a centralized facility for that too.
Given the Retina computer is only a month on the market, I think it's probably rushing to judgment on recycling anyway, it may well be that Apple has a plan to address this but haven't announced it just yet. I don't expect any Retina macs to be recycled outside of Apple any time soon except for physical damage.
The problem is not so much that Apple may think that the EPEAT standard is out dated, but that they don't participate in the dialog to update it, and don't explain why they withdraw from it, and what they do instead. After all, this isn't about specific future products, or anything else that warrants secrecy, this is about environmental policy, and a company like Apple can influence a lot and be a leader; and thus silence is bad, both for Apple's image and for missed chances of helping everyone else move forward in these matters.
This might be back office type of stuff, we may not know if they did anything or what.
Apple is disappointing me again. Just as I was swaying back to perhaps purchase a Mac Book Air due to software needed for work, I learn about this removal from the EPEAT standard. Environmental impact is important to me.
The ability to repair things as expensive as a computer is important. The idea of having to trash a whole product and replace it, just because a single component goes bad, is not very environmentally friendly. When it becomes cheaper for Apple to replace the whole computer than to repair a component, then it isn't really an environmentally friendly product no matter what materials are used to make it.
Do you think that if your battery goes bad Apple will disassemble their computer components with their special drivers, heat the body for who knows how long, remove the old battery, then glue a new battery in the chassis, and then reinstall all of the components that were taken out? I doubt it. They'll probably just throw away the old one and replace the whole unit. The old one will be recycled and added to the trash stream. A repairable computer would still be in use for years to come, delaying that bit of hardware from entering the system.
This lack of repairability tells a story about the actual value of the component parts of these computers. They are very low. If Apple ever has another large scale recall like they did in 2007 when Sony made batteries went bad, Apple will be replacing millions of computers instead of millions of batteries. That would be super expensive. Maybe they've factored in such potential problems into the price of the units.
User replaceable parts make computers more environmentally friendly because machines can be upgraded which can extend their life. A computer made of stuck together components that must be replaced if something goes wrong is not environmentally friendly, even if it is made of just aluminum and glass.
Apple designers are going nuts on this fixation with thinness. I'll take a computer that is fatter and repairable over something that must be replaced if something goes wrong. These aren't tissues, they're computers. They should last.
Unfortunately this is only true in theory. The reality is that much of the "environmental protection" that we experience on a day to day basis is not only sorely lacking in scientific foundation, but is highly directed by political motivations which have no substantial linkages to environmental concerns.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcfa
People can be as ignorant as they want to be, but if their ignorance kills, then their ignorance must be overruled.
Why? That's an assertion of morality. To play the devil's advocate, I may contend that given the highly developed nature of the human animal's rational brain (only a slight smirk here ), ignorance and the consequences of acting thereon, is an essential mechanism involved in natural selection. Which would be precisely why we shouldn't have these artificially imposed "laws". If the human animal (the population as a whole) is so ill-suited to his environment that he cannot exist without damaging it to his own detriment without an artificial imposition preventing his innate behaviors, then it suggests that perhaps he needs to cease to exist (at least as we know him to) in order to make way for an organism better suited for that environment.
Like I said, if we cannot even by whatever manual or automatic technique unglue a battery, recycle the battery and recycle the case, we are truly screwed. I mean, let's say you take a whole MacBook Pro Retina and put it in some "automagic recycling machine"... Does it automatically strip out the glass, logic board, screws, and so on? Who removes those components? A robot? Is there a 3rd world kid or an immigrant somewhere in the US that manually pops out every key on the keyboard?
This is the idiotic part. Why do we as a society not even know how recycling is done? My local city council at least tells me they use "Atlas", though nothing beyond that... In the case of computers, maybe Apple should simply post a simple video of "Recycling Macs For Dummies". That should shut a lot of people up, instead of just saying "highly recyclable". Just show a goshdarned Mac being recycled. End of story.
Pity most people are more concerned with how many pretzels Justin Bieber ate for breakfast or who knows what.
Except I meant "in the minority on this Board", not in the overall marketplace. I don't think the full impact of Apple's 'no-upgrade', 'can't fix" design philosophy has hit the market yet.
It already has. Long ago. In the form of iPods, iPhones, and iPads.
Comments
Bout time a company cared more about product design and quality than government requirements.
Well, they still care about environmental issues as well. As I mentioned above, I don't see how glue suddenly makes the whole unibody unrecyclable. That's sheer idiocy for 2012. If we can't recycle a MacBook Pro Retina that is mostly glass and aluminium, we might as well nuke ourselves and call it a day.
Agreed.
And arguing that Apple doesn't care about the environment is silly. They are in the process of becoming one of the top solar users in the United States. They have led the way on packaging that is less intrusive than everyone else (I absolutely hate those plastic clam-shell packages and they are an environmental disaster). Recycling an aluminum laptop case is vastly easier than the carbon shell cases that some of the competitors are using. Apple's leading the way in almost everything that counts - but they don't get any respect from groups like Greenpeace who are more interested in who donates than in actually helping the environment.
Because he's self-centered and only cares about himself- he'll be the first to admit it. Although I'm sure he's a much bigger jerk (aka- tough guy) behind a computer screen than real life, otherwise he couldn't own a business (which, again- you have to take his word for it). I doubt he'd just sit there and watch a defenseless kid get beat up by a random adult and not do anything because it's "none of his business".
And sopil- that's cool about not reproducing, but you could still have kids- just adopt and you could save lives while still saving the world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dolphin0611
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.
I think people, especially men, who are opposed to conservation and environmental efforts do so because of some kind of macho pride. They think if they have to change their life one iota to correspond to someone else's idea of how to live that they're demonstrating some kind of weakness. (So this is really about sex.
As for Apple, even ignoring environmental factors, I simply don't understand why people think saving 1/4" of "thickness" is worth giving up being able to replace/upgrade the battery, memory and storage. I may be in the minority, but I don't think the tradeoff is worth it. I have a MPB from Fall 2008 and I upgraded the memory when I bought it and have since easily replaced the battery and the HDD myself, thereby extending the machine's life for many more years. Apple's genius engineering team can't find a way to socket the drive and the memory and create a "layer" for the battery so it can be removed? I find that very hard to believe. IMO, Apple's got to do better. And I think it will also become a marketing weakness as the competition will use this against them: "Why do you want a Mac? Don't you know that if the battery dies or if you need more memory or a large disk that you've got to throw the machine away?" My son-in-law works as a tech in a mid-sized corporation supporting Macs - probably a few hundred. Once those machines get to the state where he can no longer repair or upgrade them quickly, I believe they'll stop buying Macs, because the constant replacement costs will be too high.
This is more of a big deal for apple in Sales. This could put a big halt in the sales they are seeing in government and school sales since they can no longer order these pc's.
I bet you will see more government and education only models.
Ok.
*goes to the kitchen to make coffee*
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb
As for Apple, even ignoring environmental factors, I simply don't understand why people think saving 1/4" of "thickness" is worth giving up being able to replace/upgrade the battery, memory and storage. I may be in the minority,
You just answered your own question.
Apple's design philosophy plays *very* well in the market.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alonso Perez
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.
Your statement is EXACTLY why so few can take the "green" proponents seriously. You demonstrate precisely what Apple ][ initially observed with respect to the proclivity toward histrionics and dishonesty in the "green" movement members. You misrepresent others' statements and spew hyperbole of the highest order backed with zero factual evidence to support your case.
Your very first assertion that "If you don't care about recycling, you are pro-pollution" is an non-sequitur at best and a bald-faced lie at worst. Recycling is an activity that can be a component of environmental responsibility. However prioritizing other environmentally responsible behavior over recycling is not the same thing as being pro-pollution. If it came to the mutually-exclusive decision (for some reason beyond one's control) to reduce one's environmental impact by 10% through recycling or by 20% via engaging in some other behavior, would it not be more environmentally responsible to forsake the recycling in favor of the alternative behavior? This is the crux of the statement made by Apple ][ - at the organizational level, the "green movement" approach is typically to ignore the more responsible, efficient and effective behavior in favor for the more politically-correct one.
You misrepresent Apple ][ as "not caring about recycling". Apple ][ never stated that they did not care about recycling (at least in this thread - link evidence to the contrary and I'll retract this statement). There was the statement that '...I'm not too concerned with being "green" myself, I'm probably the most green person on this thread'. All this statement says is that Apple ][ does not subscribe the the "green" approach to environmental responsibility. However it does indicate an environmental awareness and the belief that they in fact <were> being environmentally responsible (at the very least with respect to their current company in this forum, and Al Gore as well).
You appear to make the implication that if someone doesn't like the approach that the environmentalists as a whole take, then that makes that person pro-pollution. Also a non-sequitur, by the way; not agreeing with a means to achieve an end does not imply disagreement with that desired end. By your own admission, the environmental movement has hypocrites and dishonest members. For some, the ends do not justify the means. If you can't do it honestly, then find a better way or you risk ultimately undermining the end you seek to achieve.
Somehow you made the leap from "Apple pulls products from green list" (ostensibly as a result of the ease of disassembly not meeting EPAT criteria) to Apple's products are non-recycable and "...designs products intended by design to end up as toxic waste in landfills". So, because it takes an extra step (or effort, if you will) to remove the glue from the case, it somehow makes the product irrevocably un-recyclable? On top of that you state that because it may not conform to a single set of criteria, it therefore means that "it's simply bad design, not to mention awful corporate responsibility". Honestly, how do you even make that connection at all, much less with the information at hand?
As seems to be typical for the knee-jerk reactionist "greens" whose first impulse is to condemn anyone or anything that doesn't bend over backwards (then forward) to stroke the green ego, you take a snippet of a statement with no context and immediately declare that company 'xyz' (Apple in this case) is an irresponsible corporation (YOUR words), who cannot "...be taken seriously as a pursuer of design excellence or manufacturer of great products" (YOUR words), and whose products "destined by design to end up as toxic waste in a landfill" (YOUR words).
Congratulations, you've taken one more step in damaging the green movement. Perhaps after you and the remainder of your ilk are but historical footnotes, some future generation may pick up the mantle and strive to achieve the greater end without damaging it along the way through unworthy means.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
Ok.
*goes to the kitchen to make coffee*
You just answered your own question.
Apple's design philosophy plays *very* well in the market.
Except I meant "in the minority on this Board", not in the overall marketplace. I don't think the full impact of Apple's 'no-upgrade', 'can't fix" design philosophy has hit the market yet. Come back to me a year from now and we'll see.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
Quote:
Originally Posted by ankleskater
But let's face it - even though they can be extreme, the world is a bit better with their scrutiny.
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.
Religion is about beliefs. Environmental protection is about science. Because if you like it or not, you are an animal, and what kills the biosphere will kill you, or if you live short enough, your children or grand children, should you be (un)lucky enough to reproduce.
People can be as ignorant as they want to be, but if their ignorance kills, then their ignorance must be overruled. That's why we have speed limits, that's why we have drugs that are prescription only, and that's why we need environmental laws.
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.
Yes, many greens are 'loons.'
But you're hoisting yourself on your own petard when you imply they have no right to impose the consequences of their beliefs or actions upon others. The irony is, it is precisely this notion of 'externalities' that are imposed on others -- externalities, whose costs are not internalized by those who impose such costs -- that is the basis for their beliefs and their rationale for existence!
Quote:
Originally Posted by dolphin0611
And if it wasn't for groups like Greenpeace, the environment would be in a much worse condition.
That's well-meaning, but naive. It's like saying that a rooster crowed the sun into rising.
At the margin, some sensible NGOs do help raise awareness, and in some instances (e.g., Conservation International) provide serious 'certification' services that companies turn to, but nut cases like Greenpeace are crass fundraising maximizers, no more no less.
As far as recycling goes, the trend is away from manually separating items, and towards using things like shredders, centrifuges, etc. to separate things.
Even residential garbage recycling has the trend towards "all recyclables into one bin" and then have mechanical separation at some processing plant, rather than rely on notoriously error prone sorting by consumers.
I'd bet, were I the betting kind of guy, that the glue with which the battery is glued in is such that a heat gun will release the battery, and that by keeping the battery firmly in place, it reduces mechanical stress on the battery and therefore extends the battery's life time.
Also, I think, Apple can use less material, which means less resources, to manufacture the devices, by using glue, because the various components all become part of the structural elements of the device, not items mounted inside the structural outer shell.
So in all, I think these moves will create more reliable, longer lasting devices with a lower overall resource footprint, but they will require different procedures to recycle. Since Apple takes all its products back for recycling (unless they changed that policy, too) they will very likely have relevant procedures in place to deal with these new devices.
The problem is not so much that Apple may think that the EPEAT standard is out dated, but that they don't participate in the dialog to update it, and don't explain why they withdraw from it, and what they do instead. After all, this isn't about specific future products, or anything else that warrants secrecy, this is about environmental policy, and a company like Apple can influence a lot and be a leader; and thus silence is bad, both for Apple's image and for missed chances of helping everyone else move forward in these matters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
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.
First rational, logical post so far. Only took 39 other posts of wasetful drivel to get here.
The battery seems to be the biggest concern. You shred the battery and you could be in trouble, lithium batteries are something you don't want to shred. I've noted freezing and careful application of a heat gun as possibilities, but I don't care to possibly ruin a computer to test that hypothesis out of curiosity. I don't think anyone expected consumers to manually disassemble computers to recycle the parts though, so the requirement that it be possible for the user to disassemble it is a bit much. A pound of aluminum isn't worth a dollar to a recycler, so being able to strip the shell at home is moot. Better off letting a more centralized facility handle the dismantling. The lithium is something you need to be careful in handling, so it's best to send that to a centralized facility for that too.
Given the Retina computer is only a month on the market, I think it's probably rushing to judgment on recycling anyway, it may well be that Apple has a plan to address this but haven't announced it just yet. I don't expect any Retina macs to be recycled outside of Apple any time soon except for physical damage.
This might be back office type of stuff, we may not know if they did anything or what.
Apple is disappointing me again. Just as I was swaying back to perhaps purchase a Mac Book Air due to software needed for work, I learn about this removal from the EPEAT standard. Environmental impact is important to me.
The ability to repair things as expensive as a computer is important. The idea of having to trash a whole product and replace it, just because a single component goes bad, is not very environmentally friendly. When it becomes cheaper for Apple to replace the whole computer than to repair a component, then it isn't really an environmentally friendly product no matter what materials are used to make it.
Do you think that if your battery goes bad Apple will disassemble their computer components with their special drivers, heat the body for who knows how long, remove the old battery, then glue a new battery in the chassis, and then reinstall all of the components that were taken out? I doubt it. They'll probably just throw away the old one and replace the whole unit. The old one will be recycled and added to the trash stream. A repairable computer would still be in use for years to come, delaying that bit of hardware from entering the system.
This lack of repairability tells a story about the actual value of the component parts of these computers. They are very low. If Apple ever has another large scale recall like they did in 2007 when Sony made batteries went bad, Apple will be replacing millions of computers instead of millions of batteries. That would be super expensive. Maybe they've factored in such potential problems into the price of the units.
User replaceable parts make computers more environmentally friendly because machines can be upgraded which can extend their life. A computer made of stuck together components that must be replaced if something goes wrong is not environmentally friendly, even if it is made of just aluminum and glass.
Apple designers are going nuts on this fixation with thinness. I'll take a computer that is fatter and repairable over something that must be replaced if something goes wrong. These aren't tissues, they're computers. They should last.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcfa
Environmental protection is about science.
Unfortunately this is only true in theory. The reality is that much of the "environmental protection" that we experience on a day to day basis is not only sorely lacking in scientific foundation, but is highly directed by political motivations which have no substantial linkages to environmental concerns.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcfa
People can be as ignorant as they want to be, but if their ignorance kills, then their ignorance must be overruled.
Why? That's an assertion of morality. To play the devil's advocate, I may contend that given the highly developed nature of the human animal's rational brain (only a slight smirk here
This is the idiotic part. Why do we as a society not even know how recycling is done? My local city council at least tells me they use "Atlas", though nothing beyond that... In the case of computers, maybe Apple should simply post a simple video of "Recycling Macs For Dummies". That should shut a lot of people up, instead of just saying "highly recyclable". Just show a goshdarned Mac being recycled. End of story.
Pity most people are more concerned with how many pretzels Justin Bieber ate for breakfast or who knows what.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb
Except I meant "in the minority on this Board", not in the overall marketplace. I don't think the full impact of Apple's 'no-upgrade', 'can't fix" design philosophy has hit the market yet.
It already has. Long ago. In the form of iPods, iPhones, and iPads.