Trolls banned, hundreds more take their place and don't get banned because I'm not in charge of that.
It's sad watching this.
I'm sure it's frustrating. I've got ban rights at all three sites I serve as moderator, but it wasn't always the case. Repetitively modifying posts without the ability to outright discard the poster gets old after awhile. (You do at least have the ability to modify posts correct?)
It's possible that executives from many companies & government entities called Apple privately to give their feedback on the initial decision. To my knowledge, only San Francisco went public with their 'we believe in the environment & won't be purchasing Apple products' position. Every organization has reasons for their decisions. I would like to believe that the other entities relied on skill, diplomacy, tact, & the fact they have a relationship of past history with Apple that means a great deal to them, & ask Apple to reconsider. For years, San Francisco has had a relationship with Apple at the Mosconi West venue for the WWDC which has been held there for years. They have had to work together to ensure a successful event. The event hosts over 5200 attendees + 1000(?) staff, brining to SF revenue from air travel, car rentals, motel stays, dining & other purchases. It's ironic that out of that relationship, SF would chose to be 'the (first) one' to make a public statement.
Largely irrelevant. Apple is minuscule in enterprise/government markets, and there is no apparent change in strategy that would lead us to believe that anything is different in 2012.
It is also highly unlikely that the average household consumer gives a hoot about EPEAT (or even know about it). This is largely just a green techie echo chamber thing.
Repetitively modifying posts without the ability to outright discard the poster gets old after awhile. (You do at least have the ability to modify posts correct?)
Me? Yes, but it would be in poor taste, as I choose to be part of the discussion. I only delete duplicates, errors, and such.
A few days ago, the Macbook Retina didn't qualify for EPEAT. A few days later, it's listed as Gold Standard on the EPEAT site. Not sure what was going on here, but if Apple didn't take the PR hit then it would look like they simply bought their certification, and the fallout for both Apple and EPEAT would be a whole lot worse.
Interesting development over on the Loop. As it turns Apple does have to pay to have their products listed on EPEAT adding up to millions of dollars. In addition the payment was due on July 1. To make things more interesting it also turns out that the way the EPEAT certification works is that the manufacturer certifies themselves first and pays the fee which gets them listed right away such as the the case with the quick certification of rMBP. Only after the manufacturer certifies themselves does EPEAT conduct their own review, which in the case of the new MBP has not yet happened. If after review it does not qualify, EPEAT will ask the manufacturer to remove the listing.
EPEAT ratings are initially registered by the manufacturer. They are subsequently reviewed by the Green Electronics Council who can uphold or downgrade/refute the rating.
My guess is that the EPEAT criteria will be altered so the Retina MacBook Pro will qualify by the time the Green Electronics Council gets around to reviewing Apple's EPEAT self-proposed rating of the device.
Again, this sounds like a Steve Jobs style power play.
Apple: We want you to update EPEAT so our newer products will qualify. We're making them differently and the current criteria would disqualify them.
EPEAT: Sorry, we're not changing the current criteria.
Apple: Fine, we're outta here (removes previously qualified products from EPEAT)
(Apple rides off into the sunset)
EPEAT: Shane, come back! Please come back, Apple. We'll change the criteria to your liking.
Apple: Well, okay. Maybe we can stick around here for a bit longer.
The fact that they removed all previously qualified products, then restored them, and added a product that presumably wouldn't qualify is a strong indication that Apple called the Green Electronics Council's bluff and won.
Interesting development over on the Loop. As it turns Apple does have to pay to have their products listed on EPEAT adding up to millions of dollars. In addition the payment was due on July 1. To make things more interesting it also turns out that the way the EPEAT certification works is that the manufacturer certifies themselves first and pays the fee which gets them listed right away such as the the case with the quick certification of rMBP. Only after the manufacturer certifies themselves does EPEAT conduct their own review, which in the case of the new MBP has not yet happened. If after review it does not qualify, EPEAT will ask the manufacturer to remove the listing.
So if something doesn't qualify does the manufacturer get the money back that they pad EPEAT to have the device listed?
Apple removes themselves from EPEAT = they hate the environment
Apple places products back on EPEAT = they're soft
Now imagine if it were Dell, Lenovo, HP or any of the other also-rans doing this. You wouldn't hear a peep. Because jokers who make third-rate junkware don't matter.
This is why some environmental standard that barely anyone's ever heard of gets so much play.
If Apple officially stated their support of sunscreen use during the summer, you'd not only hear about it, but all the pundits would be weighing in with their commentary.
This is what happens when you've got absolutely insane mindshare. EVERYONE cares. Every move you make is treated like it has the power of ten-thousand suns exploding simultaneously.
This is the beginning of the end for Apple. I’m serious: this decision marks the start of its decline.
The backpedal (not the original decision) portrays a management that is conflicted and irresolute. And with Tim Cook — or anyone besides Steve Jobs, frankly — at the helm, that situation is not going to change.
Apple's original decision to withdraw from EPEAT was engineering-driven. Apple figured that, by removing out-of-date third-party constraints from the design process, it would be able to deliver better products over the long run.
With this reversal, consumers have lost.
Stockholders have lost, too. They now have reason to wonder if Apple will suddenly change its mind if it comes under sufficient public pressure. This undermines confidence in the company and, consequently, diminishes share value.
[quote name="sas789" url="/t/151267/apple-acknowledges-mistake-places-eligible-products-back-on-epeat/120#post_2147296"]This is the beginning of the end for Apple.[/QUOTE]
WRONG.
"Apple is doomed.™"
You're slipping in your first sentence, even!
[QUOTE]The backpedal (not the original decision) portrays a management that is conflicted and irresolute. And with Tim Cook — or anyone besides Steve Jobs, frankly — at the helm, that situation is not going to change.[/QUOTE]
So the dozens of times they backpedaled with Steve in charge don't count, I guess.
[QUOTE]With this reversal, consumers have lost.[/QUOTE]
This is the beginning of the end for Apple. I’m serious: this decision marks the start of its decline.
The backpedal (not the original decision) portrays a management that is conflicted and irresolute. And with Tim Cook — or anyone besides Steve Jobs, frankly — at the helm, that situation is not going to change.
Apple's original decision to withdraw from EPEAT was engineering-driven. Apple figured that, by removing out-of-date third-party constraints from the design process, it would be able to deliver better products over the long run.
With this reversal, consumers have lost.
Stockholders have lost, too. They now have reason to wonder if Apple will suddenly change its mind if it comes under sufficient public pressure. This undermines confidence in the company and, consequently, diminishes share value.
1) Customers haven't lost because there is no engineering change that has been revealed. All signs point to EPEAT updating its criteria.
2) That's right, Steve Jobs would have never let this happen¡
I totally agree. Steve would not have let this happen.
He would have stood his ground and weathered the storm of popular opinion. After a week or so, the story would have fallen off the media's radar. Then, down the road, people would have praised him for making such a bold, independent, and forward-thinking decision.
[quote name="sas789" url="/t/151267/apple-acknowledges-mistake-places-eligible-products-back-on-epeat/120#post_2147350"]I totally agree. Steve would not have let this happen.[/QUOTE]
Sarcasm punctuation is good to know.
Thanks also for ignoring the fact that he backtracked dozens of times.
This is the beginning of the end for Apple. I’m serious: this decision marks the start of its decline.
The backpedal (not the original decision) portrays a management that is conflicted and irresolute. And with Tim Cook — or anyone besides Steve Jobs, frankly — at the helm, that situation is not going to change.
Apple's original decision to withdraw from EPEAT was engineering-driven. Apple figured that, by removing out-of-date third-party constraints from the design process, it would be able to deliver better products over the long run.
With this reversal, consumers have lost.
Stockholders have lost, too. They now have reason to wonder if Apple will suddenly change its mind if it comes under sufficient public pressure. This undermines confidence in the company and, consequently, diminishes share value.
We haven't seen the final act of this play. I would not be surprised to see even more backpedaling, reevaluation of the certification criteria, reengineering of the strength of the glue, or the introduction of a new recycling methodology. I think the glue idea is a good one in every other aspect except from a recycling perspective. We just don't know what is going on behind the scenes or how it will turn out. I think a better glue is the most logical outcome. You know the 3M sticky note glue was originally a mistake until they invented a use for such a terrible glue. Then they perfected it. I am sure that Apple can come up with a better glue rather than use off the shelf PL-400.
This is the beginning of the end for Apple. I’m serious: this decision marks the start of its decline.
The backpedal (not the original decision) portrays a management that is conflicted and irresolute. And with Tim Cook — or anyone besides Steve Jobs, frankly — at the helm, that situation is not going to change.
Apple's original decision to withdraw from EPEAT was engineering-driven. Apple figured that, by removing out-of-date third-party constraints from the design process, it would be able to deliver better products over the long run.
With this reversal, consumers have lost.
Stockholders have lost, too. They now have reason to wonder if Apple will suddenly change its mind if it comes under sufficient public pressure. This undermines confidence in the company and, consequently, diminishes share value.
Sometimes there's no choice *but* to backpedal. It's going to happen from time to time but you'll see it far less from Apple.
With the whole antenna-gate baloney "scandal", Apple felt their hand was forced by the media. We saw backpedaling there, too. And it was under Steve Jobs. Trolls complained about the *manner* in which Apple did it - they never actually admitted to anything
but made the changes anyway, when what they were doing was clear as day. Trolls complained about not getting transparency or any sort of "admission" by Apple as to how terribly at fault they *allegedly* were. They were just dying for an outright admission of fault from
the almighty Apple. Because apparently, any "decent" company would do that.
Now, the trolls have gotten what they wanted: a more "caring", kinder Apple that us willing to do "nice", instead of follow the dictates of an allegedly haughty and arrogant Steve Jobs. Yet now, when Apple relents and admits a mistake they're called soft and and "irresolute."
And consumers haven't lost. Not with iPhones, iPads, Retina Macs and all the other goodies Apple offers, which continue to rule the consumer satisfaction reports in all areas.
Consumers lose when Apple gear turns to shit. That is yet happen, and from what we've seen from Cook & crew so far, it won't happen for quite some time, if at all.
I've said it a million times, if we can't recycle something because of off-the-shelf glue, then Humanity Is Doomed™.
Edit: I see EPEAT might have come to their senses with MBP Retina listed now. Assuming the aforementioned glue isn't made of mercury-laden rhino horn extract.
As some people are thinking, this could have been brinkmanship from Apple. Maybe EPEAT was not going to certify MBP Retina, so Apple said, f*** you we're going to pull everything from EPEAT, see if anyone even knows what EPEAT is after that. EPEAT blinked.
Marketing and thus customers are 75% of the product. Apple certainly have no screw loose when it comes to using glue. The future is tricky so can they persuade a green EPEAT to enjoy a certifiably non serviceable future.
Last I check glue has been used for, oh, a few hundred years without any issue making things "unserviceable". This is ridiculous.
The next time aliens want to invade all they have to do is use spaceships held together with glue. That will make them indestructible. For mankind has lost all ability to deal with anything that has glue. It's now our Achilles heel and will lead to the downfall of civilisation.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Trolls banned, hundreds more take their place and don't get banned because I'm not in charge of that.
It's sad watching this.
I'm sure it's frustrating. I've got ban rights at all three sites I serve as moderator, but it wasn't always the case. Repetitively modifying posts without the ability to outright discard the poster gets old after awhile. (You do at least have the ability to modify posts correct?)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kellya74u
It's possible that executives from many companies & government entities called Apple privately to give their feedback on the initial decision. To my knowledge, only San Francisco went public with their 'we believe in the environment & won't be purchasing Apple products' position. Every organization has reasons for their decisions. I would like to believe that the other entities relied on skill, diplomacy, tact, & the fact they have a relationship of past history with Apple that means a great deal to them, & ask Apple to reconsider. For years, San Francisco has had a relationship with Apple at the Mosconi West venue for the WWDC which has been held there for years. They have had to work together to ensure a successful event. The event hosts over 5200 attendees + 1000(?) staff, brining to SF revenue from air travel, car rentals, motel stays, dining & other purchases. It's ironic that out of that relationship, SF would chose to be 'the (first) one' to make a public statement.
Largely irrelevant. Apple is minuscule in enterprise/government markets, and there is no apparent change in strategy that would lead us to believe that anything is different in 2012.
It is also highly unlikely that the average household consumer gives a hoot about EPEAT (or even know about it). This is largely just a green techie echo chamber thing.
Me? Yes, but it would be in poor taste, as I choose to be part of the discussion. I only delete duplicates, errors, and such.
Interesting development over on the Loop. As it turns Apple does have to pay to have their products listed on EPEAT adding up to millions of dollars. In addition the payment was due on July 1. To make things more interesting it also turns out that the way the EPEAT certification works is that the manufacturer certifies themselves first and pays the fee which gets them listed right away such as the the case with the quick certification of rMBP. Only after the manufacturer certifies themselves does EPEAT conduct their own review, which in the case of the new MBP has not yet happened. If after review it does not qualify, EPEAT will ask the manufacturer to remove the listing.
EPEAT ratings are initially registered by the manufacturer. They are subsequently reviewed by the Green Electronics Council who can uphold or downgrade/refute the rating.
My guess is that the EPEAT criteria will be altered so the Retina MacBook Pro will qualify by the time the Green Electronics Council gets around to reviewing Apple's EPEAT self-proposed rating of the device.
Again, this sounds like a Steve Jobs style power play.
Apple: We want you to update EPEAT so our newer products will qualify. We're making them differently and the current criteria would disqualify them.
EPEAT: Sorry, we're not changing the current criteria.
Apple: Fine, we're outta here (removes previously qualified products from EPEAT)
(Apple rides off into the sunset)
EPEAT: Shane, come back! Please come back, Apple. We'll change the criteria to your liking.
Apple: Well, okay. Maybe we can stick around here for a bit longer.
The fact that they removed all previously qualified products, then restored them, and added a product that presumably wouldn't qualify is a strong indication that Apple called the Green Electronics Council's bluff and won.
deleted
Apple places products back on EPEAT = they're soft
Now imagine if it were Dell, Lenovo, HP or any of the other also-rans doing this. You wouldn't hear a peep. Because jokers
who make third-rate junkware don't matter.
This is why some environmental standard that barely anyone's ever heard of gets so much play.
If Apple officially stated their support of sunscreen use during the summer, you'd not only hear about it,
but all the pundits would be weighing in with their commentary.
This is what happens when you've got absolutely insane mindshare. EVERYONE cares. Every move you
make is treated like it has the power of ten-thousand suns exploding simultaneously.
This is the beginning of the end for Apple. I’m serious: this decision marks the start of its decline.
The backpedal (not the original decision) portrays a management that is conflicted and irresolute. And with Tim Cook — or anyone besides Steve Jobs, frankly — at the helm, that situation is not going to change.
Apple's original decision to withdraw from EPEAT was engineering-driven. Apple figured that, by removing out-of-date third-party constraints from the design process, it would be able to deliver better products over the long run.
With this reversal, consumers have lost.
Stockholders have lost, too. They now have reason to wonder if Apple will suddenly change its mind if it comes under sufficient public pressure. This undermines confidence in the company and, consequently, diminishes share value.
WRONG.
"Apple is doomed.™"
You're slipping in your first sentence, even!
[QUOTE]The backpedal (not the original decision) portrays a management that is conflicted and irresolute. And with Tim Cook — or anyone besides Steve Jobs, frankly — at the helm, that situation is not going to change.[/QUOTE]
So the dozens of times they backpedaled with Steve in charge don't count, I guess.
[QUOTE]With this reversal, consumers have lost.[/QUOTE]
Sounds more like trolls have lost.
1) Customers haven't lost because there is no engineering change that has been revealed. All signs point to EPEAT updating its criteria.
2) That's right, Steve Jobs would have never let this happen¡
I totally agree. Steve would not have let this happen.
He would have stood his ground and weathered the storm of popular opinion. After a week or so, the story would have fallen off the media's radar. Then, down the road, people would have praised him for making such a bold, independent, and forward-thinking decision.
Steve Jobs R.I.P.
Sarcasm punctuation is good to know.
Thanks also for ignoring the fact that he backtracked dozens of times.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sas789
This is the beginning of the end for Apple. I’m serious: this decision marks the start of its decline.
The backpedal (not the original decision) portrays a management that is conflicted and irresolute. And with Tim Cook — or anyone besides Steve Jobs, frankly — at the helm, that situation is not going to change.
Apple's original decision to withdraw from EPEAT was engineering-driven. Apple figured that, by removing out-of-date third-party constraints from the design process, it would be able to deliver better products over the long run.
With this reversal, consumers have lost.
Stockholders have lost, too. They now have reason to wonder if Apple will suddenly change its mind if it comes under sufficient public pressure. This undermines confidence in the company and, consequently, diminishes share value.
We haven't seen the final act of this play. I would not be surprised to see even more backpedaling, reevaluation of the certification criteria, reengineering of the strength of the glue, or the introduction of a new recycling methodology. I think the glue idea is a good one in every other aspect except from a recycling perspective. We just don't know what is going on behind the scenes or how it will turn out. I think a better glue is the most logical outcome. You know the 3M sticky note glue was originally a mistake until they invented a use for such a terrible glue. Then they perfected it. I am sure that Apple can come up with a better glue rather than use off the shelf PL-400.
Sometimes there's no choice *but* to backpedal. It's going to happen from time to time but you'll see it far less from Apple.
With the whole antenna-gate baloney "scandal", Apple felt their hand was forced by the media. We saw backpedaling there, too. And it was under Steve Jobs. Trolls complained about the *manner* in which Apple did it - they never actually admitted to anything
but made the changes anyway, when what they were doing was clear as day. Trolls complained about not getting transparency or any sort of "admission" by Apple as to how terribly at fault they *allegedly* were. They were just dying for an outright admission of fault from
the almighty Apple. Because apparently, any "decent" company would do that.
Now, the trolls have gotten what they wanted: a more "caring", kinder Apple that us willing to do "nice", instead of follow the dictates of an allegedly haughty and arrogant Steve Jobs. Yet now, when Apple relents and admits a mistake they're called soft and and "irresolute."
And consumers haven't lost. Not with iPhones, iPads, Retina Macs and all the other goodies Apple offers, which continue to rule the consumer satisfaction reports in all areas.
Consumers lose when Apple gear turns to shit. That is yet happen, and from what we've seen from Cook & crew so far, it won't happen for quite some time, if at all.
Edit: I see EPEAT might have come to their senses with MBP Retina listed now. Assuming the aforementioned glue isn't made of mercury-laden rhino horn extract.
As some people are thinking, this could have been brinkmanship from Apple. Maybe EPEAT was not going to certify MBP Retina, so Apple said, f*** you we're going to pull everything from EPEAT, see if anyone even knows what EPEAT is after that. EPEAT blinked.
/s Evil corporation wins again. /s
Apple certainly have no screw loose when it comes to using glue.
The future is tricky so can they persuade a green EPEAT to enjoy a certifiably non serviceable future.
Last I check glue has been used for, oh, a few hundred years without any issue making things "unserviceable". This is ridiculous.
The next time aliens want to invade all they have to do is use spaceships held together with glue. That will make them indestructible. For mankind has lost all ability to deal with anything that has glue. It's now our Achilles heel and will lead to the downfall of civilisation.