Apple-trees

dagdag
Posted:
in iPod + iTunes + AppleTV edited January 2014
I WOULD BUY A TREE ? IF IT WAS POSSIBLE ON ITUNES





I am a Norwegian citizen and therefore an inhabitant on the planet earth. Last night I saw the disturbing documentary "An Inconvenient truth" with Al Gore. The message of the film has already been clear to many of us, but nevertheless it's frightening when presented in such an educational manner.





I see myself as a fairly conscientious consumer but I still fear that we are coming up short. I am married with two children, and nothing would be more painful than knowing that we had a chance to alter our future but did nothing.



Throughout the years I have seen a number of haphazard attempts to act, but none of them has had quite the impact on the public as they should. Maybe the case that they where presented by a bunch of longhaired, pot-smoking hippies had something to do with it, what do I know?



But anyway the reason for me trying to communicate this to the world (or even better, Steve Jobs at Apple), is quite brilliant if you don't mind me saying so. I believe that if Steve Jobs runs across this idea somewhere on the web, he would really grab on to it.

So therefore it is important that this idea is forwarded to as many as possible. Let the internet do what it's supposed to do; Get good information across!



THE CONCEPT ? " Apple-trees "





The concept is this: On Apple's outstanding internet store, ITunes you set up the possibility to buy an "Apple-tree". This will be a non-profit project where the income goes to funding the project itself, aside from a small handling charge. (I know that this sounds bad for a commercial enterprise, but I predict that this will really establish Apple as an environmentally conscious company.)





An "Apple-tree" is an audio- and/or a video-file where (hopefully!) Al Gore will thank you for buying an "Apple-tree". He will then explain to you that by buying an "Apple-tree" you are actually buying endangered rainforests in the tropical belt around the world, which by itself is not enough to save the world but is an important contribution. Then he will give you a new tip with every purchase of an "Apple-tree", of what you can do yourself to give the earth the upper hand in the battle against oblivion. There are several enterprises today that are planting or protecting the rainforest, so Apple would mainly be the front-end marketing arm.







I predict that with your Apple's impact on society, and how the conscientious consumers want to participate; this would be a way of getting control over the situation. In the near future people would meet at work, in school, in the neighbourhood and at home to compare the number of trees they have "planted".







This is good brand-building. Apple will make even more money while you are saving the planet.







Now, doesn't that sound cool?



Dag Skaug



[email protected]

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 9
    nevenmrgannevenmrgan Posts: 240member
    You've left off an important option:



    No, it's a bad idea.



    If you'd like to donate to an environmental protection organization, there's ample ways to do so. Shoehorning it into iTunes seems like a really misguided effort.



    Apple has been known to promote humanitarian causes (the Red Cross, Project Red). Should they decide to promote a rainforest protection campaign, there are more tasteful and successful ways to do it than by selling trees on iTunes (!)



    You said, "In the near future people would meet at work, in school, in the neighbourhood and at home to compare the number of trees they have "planted".



    Just like they meet today to discuss how much they've donated to the Red Cross, United Way, or Salvation Army, huh? Classy.
  • Reply 2 of 9
    dagdag Posts: 3member
    The plan was to get the innovative young ones to buy all available remaining rainforest in an "American Idol" - like mannor.



    So that we could do this once and for all. Not like today with a bunch of arrangements that unfortunatly not enough people pays attention to.

    Let it be the same as with the SMS-concept; everyone thought it was a bad idea untill the innovative young ones took charge.



    After "Apple-trees" is available on Itunes we could ask for "Apple-seeds" - where you could channel money to whatever charity you prefered.











    Quote:
    Originally Posted by nevenmrgan View Post


    You've left off an important option:



    No, it's a bad idea.



    If you'd like to donate to an environmental protection organization, there's ample ways to do so. Shoehorning it into iTunes seems like a really misguided effort.



    Apple has been known to promote humanitarian causes (the Red Cross, Project Red). Should they decide to promote a rainforest protection campaign, there are more tasteful and successful ways to do it than by selling trees on iTunes (!)



    You said, "In the near future people would meet at work, in school, in the neighbourhood and at home to compare the number of trees they have "planted".



    Just like they meet today to discuss how much they've donated to the Red Cross, United Way, or Salvation Army, huh? Classy.



  • Reply 3 of 9
    jupiteronejupiterone Posts: 1,564member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by nevenmrgan View Post


    You've left off an important option:



    No, it's a bad idea.



    If you'd like to donate to an environmental protection organization, there's ample ways to do so. Shoehorning it into iTunes seems like a really misguided effort.



    Apple has been known to promote humanitarian causes (the Red Cross, Project Red). Should they decide to promote a rainforest protection campaign, there are more tasteful and successful ways to do it than by selling trees on iTunes (!)



    You said, "In the near future people would meet at work, in school, in the neighbourhood and at home to compare the number of trees they have "planted".



    Just like they meet today to discuss how much they've donated to the Red Cross, United Way, or Salvation Army, huh? Classy.





    Er, wouldn't that be option #4, "No, Itunes is only for music". Or did you just need to knock this guy instead.
  • Reply 4 of 9
    dentondenton Posts: 725member
    I think that this is a great idea. If the money could actually go to buying rain-forest to be set aside as world nature reserves, this could be very productive. iTunes is a very visible entity and Apple would have a lot more power to affect change than, say, Greenpeace ever will. And from a completely pragmatic point of view, the positive marketing that Apple could receive from such an initiative could be almost endless. It also helps that Gore is on the Apple board, so this might also be an appropriate venture for the company.



    An aside about Gore's movie, though. Although the consequences that Gore presents in his movie is the consensus that scientists are coming to (refer to the IPCC reports that are being released this year, the first of which in January), Gore is intelectually dishonest in one respect: he makes the consequences seem that they are immediate within our lifetime when most scientists believe that they are the consequences over the next 200 years. There will certainly be consequences to climate change in our lifetimes, but the flooding of lower Manhattan is probably not one that we who are now alive are likely to see. But the movie was intended to stir up an emotional response, so perhaps we can forgive a little licence.
  • Reply 5 of 9
    tomkarltomkarl Posts: 236member
    How about just planting an actual tree instead?
  • Reply 6 of 9
    saikosaiko Posts: 46member
    Am I the only one who wonders why it was even brought up in the first place that Apple, a COMPUTER company (I know, shocking, they've only been around for 30 years.) should take charge in something that has absolutely no relation to their business plan / road map? I do understand that Apple (iPods/ iTunes) tend to click well with youngsters, but why should apple lead the charge? Its like saying Krispy Kreme should create their own car, or start offering fancy upholstry with your dozen doughnuts.



    I'm all for the whole save the trees, prevent global warming, conserve-the-earth mentality... Through apple though? Come on. \
  • Reply 7 of 9
    dentondenton Posts: 725member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Saiko View Post


    Am I the only one who wonders why it was even brought up in the first place that Apple, a COMPUTER company (I know, shocking, they've only been around for 30 years.) should take charge in something that has absolutely no relation to their business plan / road map?



    Why is it that any company "gives back" to the community in any way? Shouldn't they save the profits for their investors? This is a very short-sighted idea. For right or wrong, a charitable company signifies to the public at large that they are citizens in good-standing. If any large corporation was not involved with any charities, then consumers would look apon them as soul-less; and rightfully so!



    Apple, like every other company, is run by people who have just as strong moral values as any other human. If they cannot use some of the wealth that society has given to them to give back to the "hands that feed" them, then how can we continue to reward such greed?



    Every company is involved in some sort of charitable cause, and giving a little is actually better for the bottom line than is giving nothing. There is no reason that Apple ought to get involved in this particular idea, but given that Gore is on the board, it, perhaps, would not be surprising if they did.



    The point is that Apple is run by people: people who care about the world that they live in, and that their children will live in; and they may be in a better position (as individuals within a corporate world) to affect certain changes. Why should they do it? No reason -- because they can?
  • Reply 8 of 9
    dentondenton Posts: 725member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tomkarl View Post


    How about just planting an actual tree instead?



    Not all trees are created equal: half of the world's species of plants and animals are concentrated in tropical rainforests (which also produce 40% of the earth's oxygen) that cover less than 6% of the land surface of the earth. Therefore, as far as bio-diversity (and air to breathe) goes, a tree in Brasil is worth a whole lot more than a tree in the US.
  • Reply 9 of 9
    dagdag Posts: 3member
    That the idea is comercial doesn't mean that it's evil
Sign In or Register to comment.