Greenpeace is a real turn-off. They're so intensely self-righteous and intent on publicity that they give environmentalism a bad name. I donate to various environmental causes but GP can go fuck itself.
You post a comment like that when someone else is hoping Steve gets better, and that both Steves' efforts has made his life a little better?
And then you expect us to take your other comments about technology, etc. as something we should care about, or evening think comes from someone who gives a damn?
Personally, I'll listen to someone who has at least a caring personality much sooner than I will you from now on.
We are not supposed to attack other posters on this and most other forums, but YOUR post was an attack and WAAAAAAAAAY out of line.
An apology would go a long way. Do I expect it? No. Do I hope it comes? Yes.
What I don't get is why so many people get all hot under the collar when Greenpeace raises a point. There is so much crap going on in this world - so why the vitriol when the word Greenpeace is mentioned? We all know the iPhone is used for publicity - so what? If the result is a greener apple then good. If it highlights issues, small as they may be, and reinforces the idea that green thinking should be part of every design decision that takes place, then good. For Greenpeace it just means another headline with their name in it. If the 'attack' results in a debate on the green-ness of the iPhone, then mission accomplished. A debate on the green-ness of the iPhone means a debate on the greening of the IT industry by implication. People thinking about green issues is good thing, regardless. I understand that people jump to the defence of Apple - so do I - but mention Greenpeace and the tone changes.
I will give your position due consideration if you would do one little thing for me please - explain exactly how the iPhone 3G will damage the environment and to what degree that damage will be greater than that caused by a Nokia N95.
I will give your position due consideration if you would do one little thing for me please - explain exactly how the iPhone 3G will damage the environment and to what degree that damage will be greater than that caused by a Nokia N95.
Quote:
We all know the iPhone is used for publicity - so what? If the result is a greener apple then good. If it highlights issues, small as they may be, and reinforces the idea that green thinking should be part of every design decision that takes place, then good. For Greenpeace it just means another headline with their name in it. If the 'attack' results in a debate on the green-ness of the iPhone, then mission accomplished.
Dont be dense. The poster you quoted makes it clear in your quote that Apple is being highlighted for its headline generating power. Everybody knows that, you are not discovering something. HIs post also makes the point: so what. If it helps to make a greener Apple and a greener consumer electronics industry, then it is worth it.
Sorry to quote the whole thing, but I thought it was well written and thought out. The small picture is that GP is singling out Apple unfairly and that could hurt our interests in Apple or AAPL--I think that is where some of the vitriol comes from. But in the big picture, if this gets Apple and other manufacturers to look a little harder for greener alternatives when decisions come up, I am all for it.
No, the big picture is the backlash results in pushing the green concerns into the margins. Having whackjobs for representatives does that. GP are assuredly whackjobs that mainstream media uses to show that environmentalists are not right in the head.
I resent that because it keeps real progress from occuring.
Quote:
But this is part of PR. How many people know about ED? Environmental Defense is out there every day doing all sorts of the kind of work that people say they wish GP was doing. Working with legislatures and manufacturers when possible and filing lawsuits when necessary. They don't climb fences or make big banners. They might get a lot done, but they have very little impact on public opinion because NOBODY NOTICES REASONABLE WORK. In fact, they would be much less likely to get anything done if it were not for GP and other "activist type" environmental organizations out there keeping the public awareness and discussions going thereby keeping politicians and companies interested in showing green.
Or they COULD get more money if the greentards didn't steal all the funding for thier own whackjob agendas or make normal folks roll their eyes when the environment comes up as a topic or a fundraising activity.
Quote:
Again, it is not fair that Apple gets picked on because they bring the best publicity. But that is the price of being a leader. The alternative is to become common. It is a little like a huge movie star complaining that being famous makes their life difficult. Deal with it.
Or simply fight back. If GP want's to be jackasses I'm willing to call them jackasses. They are no less "public" than Apple. As far as I'm concerned, as long as GP represents the environmental movement the entire lot are whackjobs and my checkbook stays closed.
I'd rather give money to BP by buying their solar products.
I do not give a damn about anything else listed in this topic other than Jobs health that I wish all the best. I have consistently owned a Mac for twenty-eight years straight, and both the Jobs and Woz both influenced my life.
I can understand both sides of the iPhone developer debate.
Apple may have been overwhelmed by the amount of interest there is in developing iPhone applications, too!
Also, I think Apple is trying to put in place some kind of quality control system. Apple wants to weed out the bad apps BEFORE people start installing them, then complaining that the iPhone is an unstable POS! The buzzards and shills are praying that Apple falls flat.
Face it, there's a lot of crappy software out there. Luckily on the Mac side of things, bad software doesn't last very long. Word gets around, people warn there friends and others DO NOT buy. Great software does well, because we tell our friends and colleagues about great software. the mac universe runs by word of mouth on many levels.
On the Windows side, because of the vast number of users a developer can write a dreadfully crappy application, but even if it sells to a tiny percentage of users can do quite well and reinforce the belief that anything sells. That attitude clearly starts with Microsoft and Windows, where general mediocrity rules.
i'm starting to really get sick of the whole green / enviro / healthy lifestyle crap floating around. it's a god damn phone - so unless this thing implants toxic waste into your ear when you make a call, or baby seals die every time you connect to GPS, you can fuck off and worry about other things, like (imho) the eradication of fossil fuels in passenger vehicles.
They have processed 4000 companies (not apps) in 12 weeks between the SDK keynote and the WWDC keynote. That is a lot! It's 16% of the total that applied. Now, we won't see ready apps from all these developers come v2.0 launch day, but even if we have a 25% of that we will have one-thousand apps to peruse on the iPhone. How many total apps have other mobile platforms?
On http://www.softwaremarket.nokia.com/ which is a pretty good analogue of Apple's store since Nokia is choosy and requires signed apps, there's over 6000.
Elsewhere, there's thousands more from developers not selling through Nokia's app store.
Oh gosh..... a green iPhone... blah blah blah... What do they want the iPhone to be made of?! Peanuts? Cardboard? Wait no that harms the environment somehow. How about wood? No that's harmful somehow, too.
Or simply fight back. If GP want's to be jackasses I'm willing to call them jackasses. They are no less "public" than Apple. As far as I'm concerned, as long as GP represents the environmental movement the entire lot are whackjobs and my checkbook stays closed.
I'd rather give money to BP by buying their solar products.
That is a really disheartening post, not to mention ironic. Atlantic Richfield (which later
became a part of BP) bought up numerous solar power patents in the 70's and 80's
and stopped developing them. This gave the appearance that they wanted to STOP
solar power as an alternative to burning oil. If they are trying to develop solar power
now, it is part of a corporate greenwashing effort, not a sincere move to reduce
carbon in the atmosphere. Do you seriously want to encourage that?
Greenpeace is one of the organizations most responsible for raising the consciousness
of people about the fragility of Earth's environment. You can deny them credit for
anything you want, but without them we would have our heads even deeper in the sand.
If the human race survives, it will be more because of the efforts of Greenpeace than
On http://www.softwaremarket.nokia.com/ which is a pretty good analogue of Apple's store since Nokia is choosy and requires signed apps, there's over 6000.
Elsewhere, there's thousands more from developers not selling through Nokia's app store.
6000 was considerably more than I would have thought, but if Apple is still allowing more developers at the same average rate prior to last week's keynote then they should have around 6000 at the launch of the App store. However, we are comparing apps with developers, and while there will developers who may take another months to make it to market, there will probably be many more that will have 2 or more apps. I think it's safe to say that Apple's App Store will have the largest collection of 3rd-party apps for a mobile platform.
@ Backlog of developers story: Apple needs to dedicate more people to the approval process here. I'm not a developer but I see this is going in a bad direction could turn to be detrimental to Apple, developers, and the consumer.
The reason you see it as a bad direction is because you are not a developer.
This is the way any Beta test program is run. The purpose of a Beta program is to gather feedback on the software from a representative sample of users. To do that, Apple needs an assortment of testers, both large and small. They restrict the numbers to the number of testers they can support because they do not have infinite resources.
Rogue Amoeba's complaints are simply unprofessional.
That is a really disheartening post, not to mention ironic. Atlantic Richfield (which later became a part of BP) bought up numerous solar power patents in the 70's and 80's and stopped developing them. This gave the appearance that they wanted to STOP solar power as an alternative to burning oil.
Appearances are deceiving. BP Solar can trace to Solarex which was a spin off of Comsat Labs which was purchased by Amoco (Standard Oil) sometime in the 80s then BP for $45M in 1999. Amusingly, even then ARCO Solar (Atlantic Richfield) and Solar Power Corporation (Exxon) were it's primary competitors.
All the big oil companies invested heavily in the 70s due to the first energy crisis. All the remaining big oil companies invest heavily now because they know that peak oil is either here or will soon be. They have a corporate interest in investment in alternative energy technology because NONE can allow its competitors to have a lock on the next energy source.
Solarex, despite being #2 producer of solar panels in 1983 lost $10M 1982. They couldn't get more financing. Standard bought them out or they'd have gone out of business anyway.
The economics of solar have prevented widespread adoption, not some vast oil consipiracy. If the US had the same kind of solar incentive program as parts of Europe we'd be making more progress.
Does GP use any of it's alleged lobby or mindshare prowess to do that? No. Instead they're picking dumb fights with Apple on issues of nearly ZERO importance.
Quote:
If they are trying to develop solar power now, it is part of a corporate greenwashing effort, not a sincere move to reduce carbon in the atmosphere. Do you seriously want to encourage that?
If they are developing solar power now, it is a part of corporate profit generation effort. It sure as hell is sincere if they're sinking $8bn into alternative energy.
Hell yes I want to encourage that. Sir Browne pushed BP hard into alternative energy in his tenure. We'll see how Haward does but it seems unlikely that he'll simple squander BPs position. Given he's a geologist by training, he can understand the science behind global warming and he gave a decent speech when he first started.
Quote:
Greenpeace is one of the organizations most responsible for raising the consciousness of people about the fragility of Earth's environment. You can deny them credit for anything you want, but without them we would have our heads even deeper in the sand.
BS. Any american alive in the 70s had a good dose of environmental awareness dumped on them back then. I was 5 in 1970 and I still remember the environmental stuff in schools, TV, etc back then. The clean air act was passed in 1970. and it was a decade of environmentalism in the US of which GP was a small part of the larger picture.
The Greenpeace of today is not the Greenpeace of then anyway. I'm with Patrick Moore that calls them political activists vs environmentalists that engage in fear tactics, bad science and bogus even harmful positions on the environment.
"By the mid-1980s, the environmental movement had abandoned science and logic in favor of emotion and sensationalism." -- Moore in 2007
GP's position on DDT has lead to thousands if not millions of deaths to malaria in developing countries.
GP's position on GMO and against Golden Rice is based on lies on safety. Their position has been duplicitious in calling for both human testing and opposing field trials.
GP's position against Nuclear energy has also been based on lies and really counterproductive for both reducing carbon emission and for reducing dependence on oil (which, ya know, go hand in hand).
Quote:
If the human race survives, it will be more because of the efforts of Greenpeace than
because of the efforts of BP.
The human race WILL survive and it will be because of folks that build companies like BP and GMO developers like Potrykus and Syngenta.
Not because of the whackjobs that currently populate GP and other similar eco groups which are IMHO the biggest waste of oxygen on the planet.
6000 was considerably more than I would have thought, but if Apple is still allowing more developers at the same average rate prior to last week's keynote then they should have around 6000 at the launch of the App store. However, we are comparing apps with developers, and while there will developers who may take another months to make it to market, there will probably be many more that will have 2 or more apps. I think it's safe to say that Apple's App Store will have the largest collection of 3rd-party apps for a mobile platform.
Most of those S60 developers would be European and those 6000 apps come from about 500 developers btw. Here's the article where the stats are discussed...
I think there'll be a veritable gold rush of American developers new to mobile phone development since it's not been a strong market historically there but what comes out of that may not be so useful in the first round of the rush. I'm betting on at least 20 ToDo list applications, most of which will be shit.
Apple didn't do itself many favours with European developers either by delaying entry for them until some months after US developers were accepted. It'll be a pity if they've lost developers like QuickOffice and Epocware in that signup process.
Comments
Greenpeace is a real turn-off. They're so intensely self-righteous and intent on publicity that they give environmentalism a bad name. I donate to various environmental causes but GP can go fuck itself.
Sounds like Apple...
You post a comment like that when someone else is hoping Steve gets better, and that both Steves' efforts has made his life a little better?
And then you expect us to take your other comments about technology, etc. as something we should care about, or evening think comes from someone who gives a damn?
Personally, I'll listen to someone who has at least a caring personality much sooner than I will you from now on.
We are not supposed to attack other posters on this and most other forums, but YOUR post was an attack and WAAAAAAAAAY out of line.
An apology would go a long way. Do I expect it? No. Do I hope it comes? Yes.
Greg
Yeah whatever.
In North America at least, it looks like half the aluminum production comes from recycled material. But it is lower worldwide, abotu 30%.
Plastics are recycled at about 25% or less, depending on type.
I would doubt that no more than 1/10 0f 1% of all aluminum waste is recycled.
What I don't get is why so many people get all hot under the collar when Greenpeace raises a point. There is so much crap going on in this world - so why the vitriol when the word Greenpeace is mentioned? We all know the iPhone is used for publicity - so what? If the result is a greener apple then good. If it highlights issues, small as they may be, and reinforces the idea that green thinking should be part of every design decision that takes place, then good. For Greenpeace it just means another headline with their name in it. If the 'attack' results in a debate on the green-ness of the iPhone, then mission accomplished. A debate on the green-ness of the iPhone means a debate on the greening of the IT industry by implication. People thinking about green issues is good thing, regardless. I understand that people jump to the defence of Apple - so do I - but mention Greenpeace and the tone changes.
I will give your position due consideration if you would do one little thing for me please - explain exactly how the iPhone 3G will damage the environment and to what degree that damage will be greater than that caused by a Nokia N95.
I will give your position due consideration if you would do one little thing for me please - explain exactly how the iPhone 3G will damage the environment and to what degree that damage will be greater than that caused by a Nokia N95.
We all know the iPhone is used for publicity - so what? If the result is a greener apple then good. If it highlights issues, small as they may be, and reinforces the idea that green thinking should be part of every design decision that takes place, then good. For Greenpeace it just means another headline with their name in it. If the 'attack' results in a debate on the green-ness of the iPhone, then mission accomplished.
Dont be dense. The poster you quoted makes it clear in your quote that Apple is being highlighted for its headline generating power. Everybody knows that, you are not discovering something. HIs post also makes the point: so what. If it helps to make a greener Apple and a greener consumer electronics industry, then it is worth it.
Sorry to quote the whole thing, but I thought it was well written and thought out. The small picture is that GP is singling out Apple unfairly and that could hurt our interests in Apple or AAPL--I think that is where some of the vitriol comes from. But in the big picture, if this gets Apple and other manufacturers to look a little harder for greener alternatives when decisions come up, I am all for it.
No, the big picture is the backlash results in pushing the green concerns into the margins. Having whackjobs for representatives does that. GP are assuredly whackjobs that mainstream media uses to show that environmentalists are not right in the head.
I resent that because it keeps real progress from occuring.
But this is part of PR. How many people know about ED? Environmental Defense is out there every day doing all sorts of the kind of work that people say they wish GP was doing. Working with legislatures and manufacturers when possible and filing lawsuits when necessary. They don't climb fences or make big banners. They might get a lot done, but they have very little impact on public opinion because NOBODY NOTICES REASONABLE WORK. In fact, they would be much less likely to get anything done if it were not for GP and other "activist type" environmental organizations out there keeping the public awareness and discussions going thereby keeping politicians and companies interested in showing green.
Or they COULD get more money if the greentards didn't steal all the funding for thier own whackjob agendas or make normal folks roll their eyes when the environment comes up as a topic or a fundraising activity.
Again, it is not fair that Apple gets picked on because they bring the best publicity. But that is the price of being a leader. The alternative is to become common. It is a little like a huge movie star complaining that being famous makes their life difficult. Deal with it.
Or simply fight back. If GP want's to be jackasses I'm willing to call them jackasses. They are no less "public" than Apple. As far as I'm concerned, as long as GP represents the environmental movement the entire lot are whackjobs and my checkbook stays closed.
I'd rather give money to BP by buying their solar products.
Yeah whatever.
Dig that hole deeper sweetheart. How's that shamrock thing?
I do not give a damn about anything else listed in this topic other than Jobs health that I wish all the best. I have consistently owned a Mac for twenty-eight years straight, and both the Jobs and Woz both influenced my life.
No you haven't.
see 1984
Dig that hole deeper sweetheart. How's that shamrock thing?
Yeah.
I would doubt that no more than 1/10 0f 1% of all aluminum waste is recycled.
Sorry, you're just going on doubts, I actually looked it up.
Apple may have been overwhelmed by the amount of interest there is in developing iPhone applications, too!
Also, I think Apple is trying to put in place some kind of quality control system. Apple wants to weed out the bad apps BEFORE people start installing them, then complaining that the iPhone is an unstable POS! The buzzards and shills are praying that Apple falls flat.
Face it, there's a lot of crappy software out there. Luckily on the Mac side of things, bad software doesn't last very long. Word gets around, people warn there friends and others DO NOT buy. Great software does well, because we tell our friends and colleagues about great software. the mac universe runs by word of mouth on many levels.
On the Windows side, because of the vast number of users a developer can write a dreadfully crappy application, but even if it sells to a tiny percentage of users can do quite well and reinforce the belief that anything sells. That attitude clearly starts with Microsoft and Windows, where general mediocrity rules.
i'm starting to really get sick of the whole green / enviro / healthy lifestyle crap floating around. it's a god damn phone - so unless this thing implants toxic waste into your ear when you make a call, or baby seals die every time you connect to GPS, you can fuck off and worry about other things, like (imho) the eradication of fossil fuels in passenger vehicles.
hahaha! my sentiments exactly.
They have processed 4000 companies (not apps) in 12 weeks between the SDK keynote and the WWDC keynote. That is a lot! It's 16% of the total that applied. Now, we won't see ready apps from all these developers come v2.0 launch day, but even if we have a 25% of that we will have one-thousand apps to peruse on the iPhone. How many total apps have other mobile platforms?
On http://www.softwaremarket.nokia.com/ which is a pretty good analogue of Apple's store since Nokia is choosy and requires signed apps, there's over 6000.
Elsewhere, there's thousands more from developers not selling through Nokia's app store.
Or simply fight back. If GP want's to be jackasses I'm willing to call them jackasses. They are no less "public" than Apple. As far as I'm concerned, as long as GP represents the environmental movement the entire lot are whackjobs and my checkbook stays closed.
I'd rather give money to BP by buying their solar products.
That is a really disheartening post, not to mention ironic. Atlantic Richfield (which later
became a part of BP) bought up numerous solar power patents in the 70's and 80's
and stopped developing them. This gave the appearance that they wanted to STOP
solar power as an alternative to burning oil. If they are trying to develop solar power
now, it is part of a corporate greenwashing effort, not a sincere move to reduce
carbon in the atmosphere. Do you seriously want to encourage that?
Greenpeace is one of the organizations most responsible for raising the consciousness
of people about the fragility of Earth's environment. You can deny them credit for
anything you want, but without them we would have our heads even deeper in the sand.
If the human race survives, it will be more because of the efforts of Greenpeace than
because of the efforts of BP.
On http://www.softwaremarket.nokia.com/ which is a pretty good analogue of Apple's store since Nokia is choosy and requires signed apps, there's over 6000.
Elsewhere, there's thousands more from developers not selling through Nokia's app store.
6000 was considerably more than I would have thought, but if Apple is still allowing more developers at the same average rate prior to last week's keynote then they should have around 6000 at the launch of the App store. However, we are comparing apps with developers, and while there will developers who may take another months to make it to market, there will probably be many more that will have 2 or more apps. I think it's safe to say that Apple's App Store will have the largest collection of 3rd-party apps for a mobile platform.
@ Backlog of developers story: Apple needs to dedicate more people to the approval process here. I'm not a developer but I see this is going in a bad direction could turn to be detrimental to Apple, developers, and the consumer.
The reason you see it as a bad direction is because you are not a developer.
This is the way any Beta test program is run. The purpose of a Beta program is to gather feedback on the software from a representative sample of users. To do that, Apple needs an assortment of testers, both large and small. They restrict the numbers to the number of testers they can support because they do not have infinite resources.
Rogue Amoeba's complaints are simply unprofessional.
That is a really disheartening post, not to mention ironic. Atlantic Richfield (which later became a part of BP) bought up numerous solar power patents in the 70's and 80's and stopped developing them. This gave the appearance that they wanted to STOP solar power as an alternative to burning oil.
Appearances are deceiving. BP Solar can trace to Solarex which was a spin off of Comsat Labs which was purchased by Amoco (Standard Oil) sometime in the 80s then BP for $45M in 1999. Amusingly, even then ARCO Solar (Atlantic Richfield) and Solar Power Corporation (Exxon) were it's primary competitors.
All the big oil companies invested heavily in the 70s due to the first energy crisis. All the remaining big oil companies invest heavily now because they know that peak oil is either here or will soon be. They have a corporate interest in investment in alternative energy technology because NONE can allow its competitors to have a lock on the next energy source.
Solarex, despite being #2 producer of solar panels in 1983 lost $10M 1982. They couldn't get more financing. Standard bought them out or they'd have gone out of business anyway.
The economics of solar have prevented widespread adoption, not some vast oil consipiracy. If the US had the same kind of solar incentive program as parts of Europe we'd be making more progress.
Does GP use any of it's alleged lobby or mindshare prowess to do that? No. Instead they're picking dumb fights with Apple on issues of nearly ZERO importance.
If they are trying to develop solar power now, it is part of a corporate greenwashing effort, not a sincere move to reduce carbon in the atmosphere. Do you seriously want to encourage that?
If they are developing solar power now, it is a part of corporate profit generation effort. It sure as hell is sincere if they're sinking $8bn into alternative energy.
Hell yes I want to encourage that. Sir Browne pushed BP hard into alternative energy in his tenure. We'll see how Haward does but it seems unlikely that he'll simple squander BPs position. Given he's a geologist by training, he can understand the science behind global warming and he gave a decent speech when he first started.
Greenpeace is one of the organizations most responsible for raising the consciousness of people about the fragility of Earth's environment. You can deny them credit for anything you want, but without them we would have our heads even deeper in the sand.
BS. Any american alive in the 70s had a good dose of environmental awareness dumped on them back then. I was 5 in 1970 and I still remember the environmental stuff in schools, TV, etc back then. The clean air act was passed in 1970. and it was a decade of environmentalism in the US of which GP was a small part of the larger picture.
The Greenpeace of today is not the Greenpeace of then anyway. I'm with Patrick Moore that calls them political activists vs environmentalists that engage in fear tactics, bad science and bogus even harmful positions on the environment.
"By the mid-1980s, the environmental movement had abandoned science and logic in favor of emotion and sensationalism." -- Moore in 2007
GP's position on DDT has lead to thousands if not millions of deaths to malaria in developing countries.
GP's position on GMO and against Golden Rice is based on lies on safety. Their position has been duplicitious in calling for both human testing and opposing field trials.
GP's position against Nuclear energy has also been based on lies and really counterproductive for both reducing carbon emission and for reducing dependence on oil (which, ya know, go hand in hand).
If the human race survives, it will be more because of the efforts of Greenpeace than
because of the efforts of BP.
The human race WILL survive and it will be because of folks that build companies like BP and GMO developers like Potrykus and Syngenta.
Not because of the whackjobs that currently populate GP and other similar eco groups which are IMHO the biggest waste of oxygen on the planet.
6000 was considerably more than I would have thought, but if Apple is still allowing more developers at the same average rate prior to last week's keynote then they should have around 6000 at the launch of the App store. However, we are comparing apps with developers, and while there will developers who may take another months to make it to market, there will probably be many more that will have 2 or more apps. I think it's safe to say that Apple's App Store will have the largest collection of 3rd-party apps for a mobile platform.
Most of those S60 developers would be European and those 6000 apps come from about 500 developers btw. Here's the article where the stats are discussed...
http://www.symbianone.com/content/view/5119/31/
I think there'll be a veritable gold rush of American developers new to mobile phone development since it's not been a strong market historically there but what comes out of that may not be so useful in the first round of the rush. I'm betting on at least 20 ToDo list applications, most of which will be shit.
Apple didn't do itself many favours with European developers either by delaying entry for them until some months after US developers were accepted. It'll be a pity if they've lost developers like QuickOffice and Epocware in that signup process.