And those evil Greenpeace people gave a higher rating to all Apple products. Apple just has to continue to do its best to be green, and to give independent entities some proof.
Except for what it signals. I think that the new management has the tendency to blink a tad too much.
We'll see where this heads....
Wasn't it just a couple days ago that some spokesperson at Apple publicly defended this decision? Now they're backtracking? Why pull out in the first place?!?
Epic fail there Apple. It was pretty obvious they were going to have to rethink this, rather then lose all government sales. Someone seriously dropped the ball.
I am not sure the government sales was the issue. I think a solid percentage of Apple customers are moderate to serious environmentalists and they let Apple know what they thought about this. That said, weeks of announcements from governments/universities/large corporations would have created a steady stream of negative media that Apple can do without.
Huh? What does it signal? To me it signals intelligence.
Macho, double-down management is for third-world autocrats and Hitler fans. Flexibility is much smarter, especially when addressing the concerns of an important subgroup of Apple customers.
16 posts before "Hitler fans" appeared.
Must be a record in these forums.
If you check the Retina MBP on Apple's website, http://www.apple.com/environment/reports/, it says it has Gold EPEAT. Of course, trying to search EPEAT's registry goes nowhere so I couldn't confirm this.
Looks like searching the EPEAT registry has been slashdotted. Or would the correct term in this context be "insidered"?
the Retina display Macbook Pro "Achieves a Gold rating from EPEAT"
So, it appears that the initial withdrawal from EPEAT wasn't due to the rMBP. That's what it looks like at least.
This is interesting. I was under the impression (clearly false) that the rMBP did not get an EPEAT rating and therefore Apple pulled everything. That means Apple must be afraid that a future product will not get an EPEAT rating. I wonder which product.
Aside from timing and style, the bottom line remains that the standard is outdated based on old technology and very incomplete to accomplish the desired environmental outcome. Apple was right that this needs to change as does the new EPEAT leader, hopefully this will drive change. The cries of foul by press and especially some in Government is mindless attention to rules not effects.
Regarding iFixit, who is identified as early identifier of the compliance for Apple's newest MacBooks, from their perspective this is not a good development, they are out of a job. However, from a total environmental impact and for the user light, responsive, and power efficient device view Apple's new direction makes sense.
If the rules are modernized perhaps the EPEAT can now extend to the Post-PC world of Ultrabook, tablet, and smart phones which will dominate the environmental impact starting now and help all of us have a healthier environment.
Huh? What does it signal? To me it signals intelligence.
Macho, double-down management is for third-world autocrats and Hitler fans. Flexibility is much smarter, especially when addressing the concerns of an important subgroup of Apple customers.
It signals weakness, lack of managerial attention, and/or lack careful planning. Also, the lack of an explanation, in at least the environmental portion of Apple's website, was really horrible PR. Recall the AI article about how Apple was hoping to push standards forward, smartphones and tablets not being covered, etc? Is that all out the window?
Incidentally, to whom exactly is Mansfield apologizing? Was there a mass consumer uprising that we never heard about? Or is it to the Greenpeaces of the world?
Overall, disappointingly un-Apple like in how this has been executed.
Wasn't it just a couple days ago that some spokesperson at Apple publicly defended this decision? Now they're backtracking? Why pull out in the first place?!?
"officials are reportedly worried that with Apple backing out, other companies may follow suit, wrecking government attempts to buy environmentally friendly hardware."
That opens p speculation that Apple could have done this to force them to alter their testing/rating methods or that Apple was woefully unaware of the backlash but it affected EPEAT even more so that they asked Apple to rejoin.
Regardless of how anyone characterizes this situation, my greatest concern is with the decision-making process at Apple. Not just the process that brought this about, but also how the process will be affected in the future. Clearly this situation was totally unnecessary. Did Mr. Mansfield make the decision on his own authority? Did Mr. Cook know of and approve, or at least condone, the withdrawal from EPEAT? Did someone else make the decision? Was it a conscious decision by management in general? I'd love to know because the answers to these questions will not only show if there is a weakness in Apple's current management, but also give a clue as to how Apple will make future decisions. I'd hate to see Apple sink into the mire of micromanagement. OK, I know, Steve Jobs was a micromanager, especially in the early years at Apple, but when he returned was a completely different type-a micromanager extraordinaire who pushed innovation. The micromanagement that I fear, and have personally experienced, is the kind that stifles innovation. That would be very bad for Apple.
It signals weakness, lack of managerial attention, and/or lack careful planning. Also, the lack of an explanation, in at least the environmental portion of Apple's website, was really horrible PR. Recall the AI article about how Apple was hoping to push standards forward, smartphones and tablets not being covered, etc? Is that all out the window?
Incidentally, to whom exactly is Mansfield apologizing? Was there a mass consumer uprising that we never heard about? Or is it to the Greenpeaces of the world?
Overall, disappointingly un-Apple like in how this has been executed.
Do the thinking first.
Well, obviously doing the thinking first is better. But if you didn't, or didn't do it right, better to face as soon as you realize it than to stay the course at all costs.
I can only guess someone high up thought this (the original withdrawal) would be a gutsy move and they could brush away criticism by pointing at other green initiatives. Massive fail. Whoever let this slip though needs to be freed to pursue other opportunities before they do more damage.
It signals weakness, lack of managerial attention, and/or lack careful planning. Also, the lack of an explanation, in at least the environmental portion of Apple's website, was really horrible PR. Recall the AI article about how Apple was hoping to push standards forward, smartphones and tablets not being covered, etc? Is that all out the window?
Incidentally, to whom exactly is Mansfield apologizing? Was there a mass consumer uprising that we never heard about? Or is it to the Greenpeaces of the world?
Overall, disappointingly un-Apple like in how this has been executed.
Do the thinking first.
Oh, and Apple has backtracked before. Remember the iPhone price drop and resulting refund? Mistakes are not un-Apple like. It's run by humans. What was Apple-like was the speed of the reaction. Four days? That's fast.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by enjourni
Epic fail there Apple. It was pretty obvious they were going to have to rethink this, rather then lose all government sales. Someone seriously dropped the ball.
I am not sure the government sales was the issue. I think a solid percentage of Apple customers are moderate to serious environmentalists and they let Apple know what they thought about this. That said, weeks of announcements from governments/universities/large corporations would have created a steady stream of negative media that Apple can do without.
16 posts before "Hitler fans" appeared.
Must be a record in these forums.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rob53
If you check the Retina MBP on Apple's website, http://www.apple.com/environment/reports/, it says it has Gold EPEAT. Of course, trying to search EPEAT's registry goes nowhere so I couldn't confirm this.
Looks like searching the EPEAT registry has been slashdotted. Or would the correct term in this context be "insidered"?
Does this mean Apple are going to have to compromise on some of their future product designs to accommodate for this backtracking?
Oh well, at least Greenpeace will be happier now...
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooper4711
According to the official material available from Apple, http://images.apple.com/environment/reports/docs/macbookpro_retinadisplay_per_june2012.pdf
the Retina display Macbook Pro "Achieves a Gold rating from EPEAT"
So, it appears that the initial withdrawal from EPEAT wasn't due to the rMBP. That's what it looks like at least.
That's really strange. If so, what was the point of this? Something is off here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooper4711
According to the official material available from Apple, http://images.apple.com/environment/reports/docs/macbookpro_retinadisplay_per_june2012.pdf
the Retina display Macbook Pro "Achieves a Gold rating from EPEAT"
So, it appears that the initial withdrawal from EPEAT wasn't due to the rMBP. That's what it looks like at least.
This is interesting. I was under the impression (clearly false) that the rMBP did not get an EPEAT rating and therefore Apple pulled everything. That means Apple must be afraid that a future product will not get an EPEAT rating. I wonder which product.
Aside from timing and style, the bottom line remains that the standard is outdated based on old technology and very incomplete to accomplish the desired environmental outcome. Apple was right that this needs to change as does the new EPEAT leader, hopefully this will drive change. The cries of foul by press and especially some in Government is mindless attention to rules not effects.
Regarding iFixit, who is identified as early identifier of the compliance for Apple's newest MacBooks, from their perspective this is not a good development, they are out of a job. However, from a total environmental impact and for the user light, responsive, and power efficient device view Apple's new direction makes sense.
If the rules are modernized perhaps the EPEAT can now extend to the Post-PC world of Ultrabook, tablet, and smart phones which will dominate the environmental impact starting now and help all of us have a healthier environment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alonso Perez
Huh? What does it signal? To me it signals intelligence.
Macho, double-down management is for third-world autocrats and Hitler fans. Flexibility is much smarter, especially when addressing the concerns of an important subgroup of Apple customers.
It signals weakness, lack of managerial attention, and/or lack careful planning. Also, the lack of an explanation, in at least the environmental portion of Apple's website, was really horrible PR. Recall the AI article about how Apple was hoping to push standards forward, smartphones and tablets not being covered, etc? Is that all out the window?
Incidentally, to whom exactly is Mansfield apologizing? Was there a mass consumer uprising that we never heard about? Or is it to the Greenpeaces of the world?
Overall, disappointingly un-Apple like in how this has been executed.
Do the thinking first.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
16 posts before "Hitler fans" appeared.
Must be a record in these forums.
Yeah, you are right. The heck with Goodwin though. The shoe fits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
Wasn't it just a couple days ago that some spokesperson at Apple publicly defended this decision? Now they're backtracking? Why pull out in the first place?!?
Exactly.
That opens p speculation that Apple could have done this to force them to alter their testing/rating methods or that Apple was woefully unaware of the backlash but it affected EPEAT even more so that they asked Apple to rejoin.
So either the RMBP Wasn't the issue or the regulations were changed to accommodate the new machine type.
Regardless of how anyone characterizes this situation, my greatest concern is with the decision-making process at Apple. Not just the process that brought this about, but also how the process will be affected in the future. Clearly this situation was totally unnecessary. Did Mr. Mansfield make the decision on his own authority? Did Mr. Cook know of and approve, or at least condone, the withdrawal from EPEAT? Did someone else make the decision? Was it a conscious decision by management in general? I'd love to know because the answers to these questions will not only show if there is a weakness in Apple's current management, but also give a clue as to how Apple will make future decisions. I'd hate to see Apple sink into the mire of micromanagement. OK, I know, Steve Jobs was a micromanager, especially in the early years at Apple, but when he returned was a completely different type-a micromanager extraordinaire who pushed innovation. The micromanagement that I fear, and have personally experienced, is the kind that stifles innovation. That would be very bad for Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
It signals weakness, lack of managerial attention, and/or lack careful planning. Also, the lack of an explanation, in at least the environmental portion of Apple's website, was really horrible PR. Recall the AI article about how Apple was hoping to push standards forward, smartphones and tablets not being covered, etc? Is that all out the window?
Incidentally, to whom exactly is Mansfield apologizing? Was there a mass consumer uprising that we never heard about? Or is it to the Greenpeaces of the world?
Overall, disappointingly un-Apple like in how this has been executed.
Do the thinking first.
Well, obviously doing the thinking first is better. But if you didn't, or didn't do it right, better to face as soon as you realize it than to stay the course at all costs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd
That's.....weird.
I can only guess someone high up thought this (the original withdrawal) would be a gutsy move and they could brush away criticism by pointing at other green initiatives. Massive fail. Whoever let this slip though needs to be freed to pursue other opportunities before they do more damage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleGreen
... That means Apple must be afraid that a future product will not get an EPEAT rating.
This is what I'm thinking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleGreen
I wonder which product
New AppleTV/iMac/Mac Pro?
I had never even hard of EPEAT until now. Never cared about it before and still don't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just_Me
Glue vs screws
Screwgate?
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
It signals weakness, lack of managerial attention, and/or lack careful planning. Also, the lack of an explanation, in at least the environmental portion of Apple's website, was really horrible PR. Recall the AI article about how Apple was hoping to push standards forward, smartphones and tablets not being covered, etc? Is that all out the window?
Incidentally, to whom exactly is Mansfield apologizing? Was there a mass consumer uprising that we never heard about? Or is it to the Greenpeaces of the world?
Overall, disappointingly un-Apple like in how this has been executed.
Do the thinking first.
Oh, and Apple has backtracked before. Remember the iPhone price drop and resulting refund? Mistakes are not un-Apple like. It's run by humans. What was Apple-like was the speed of the reaction. Four days? That's fast.