What's wrong with a paper bag like Trader Joe's or Whole foods or any department store uses? Surely we're saving trees by the thousands now, with all our electronic tax filings and Kindles?
What's wrong with a paper bag like Trader Joe's or Whole foods or any department store uses? Surely we're saving trees by the thousands now, with all our electronic tax filings and Kindles?
That is just what they want you to think. The trees are still falling, they just move how they are used. Profit shuffling. We need to ask retailers at the checkout if they know where the items came from. We are teased by little improvements from Washington, while major issues are ignored. Obama promised to end the wars. He promised single payer health, he promised an end to massive agribusiness payments. But he has a wife and kids, and moves very carefully since taking the oath of office.
You mean sort of like the plastic water bottles Steve Jobs always drinks from during his keynotes?
Exactly! Steve should have switched to metal years ago!
(Here's the deal. First, the water gets even more leached chemicals when the bottles are exposed to California sunlight! Secondly, the industry uses the phrase "the results are inconclusive" when you point out that tests prove the injustion of water in plastic containers to be deadly to living creatures. You see, when only 99 of the 100 rats died from drinking that water, the results are inconclusive that there is anything wrong with that!) Drink and be merry! Like Michael Landon, Justice Ginsberg, Patrick Swayze, Donna Reid, Ed Sullivan.
Sure there is a lot of waste. However, as you point out the waste is largely recyclable. More importantly, there is plenty of waste in creating a plastic case as well. That waste is largely not recyclable. Further, when an aluminum Mac finally goes to the junk yard the aluminum will be recycled. The plastic in the old cases will not be.
...
It isn't just material, but also total energy input. I was doing some math when it first came out, and I came up with 7x raw material being milled down to a 1x case by weight. That is hugely inefficient, even if 90% of the waste product can be recycled. I didn't have good data to work from on the process, but I estimated about 5kWh in milling energy and another 7kWh to re-melt the scrap. The extra shipping involved in moving more material round-trip should double those numbers.
I think the other poster guessing $75 per shell is about right.
A plastic case (or carbon fiber) could have been made from recycled materials, and consumed less energy in the process. Casting a rough shell and milling that could have reduced the energy input by 50% easily, and likely 75% if they were able to use something along the lines of centrifugal casting.
It really is a stupid process, but it sure sounds cool...
It isn't just material, but also total energy input. I was doing some math when it first came out, and I came up with 7x raw material being milled down to a 1x case by weight. That is hugely inefficient, even if 90% of the waste product can be recycled.
But you are only considering a single recycle, not an indefinite recycling. The long term environmental benefits of using aluminium over plastics is not a hoax.
A plastic case (or carbon fiber) could have been made from recycled materials, and consumed less energy in the process. Casting a rough shell and milling that could have reduced the energy input by 50% easily, and likely 75% if they were able to use something along the lines of centrifugal casting.
It really is a stupid process, but it sure sounds cool...
I don't know how the weave is made, but carbon fiber / resin composite isn't recyclable that I've heard.
I really don't know anything about different efficiency of manufacturing & machining methods, but I thought that the billet process was primarily done for low production run stuff because of its cost. Doing it for millions of computers a quarter seems a little silly though.
A plastic case (or carbon fiber) could have been made from recycled materials, and consumed less energy in the process. ..[/QUOTE]
Is that the same carbon fiber used by MORY LOVINS to make incredibly hard car bodies? A NOVA showed him hitting it with a sledgehammer-with no damage! That seems more in line with sustainability.
If I'm ready to spend hundreds (if not thousands) of dollars at your store, and you tell me I can't even have a bag, you won't be getting a dime from me. That is not being green, it's just piss-poor customer service.
Already mentioned in this thread, but so highly relevant it bears repeating: If you want to really be doing something "green", stop making closed boxes that have little to no upgrade paths.
I am not an Apple fanboy; I use both Macs and PCs. Nonetheless, your comment stating that you will not buy a computer because of the lack of plastic bags is ridiculous.
Apple should give away or sell at a nominal price (like most stores do now) eco-bags (you know bags that can be reused over and over again).
Apple's bag could look just like they do now and provide some minor advertising for Apple when their customers use the Apple bags to buy real apples and other groceries and products.
Perhaps even the many persons who frequent Apple Stores would buy the bags to give as gifts.
As many have said elsewhere and in the past, Apple should also be selling Apple, Mac, iPhone, iPod T-shirts and other stuff.
As many have said elsewhere and in the past, Apple should also be selling Apple, Mac, iPhone, iPod T-shirts and other stuff.
Yep! It is surprising that Apple have not marketed the brand better.
T-Shirts, jackets, pens & pencils and all manner of things.
Just look at all the Harley-Davidson merchandise or Jimmy Buffet "Margaritaville" stuff. Jimmy's things are even marketed by location...Key West, Charleston, New Orleans...of the store.
Think of shirts/hats from the Apple Store London, Paris, New York, Dallas, Cupertino.
Yep! It is surprising that Apple have not marketed the brand better.
T-Shirts, jackets, pens & pencils and all manner of things.
Just look at all the Harley-Davidson merchandise or Jimmy Buffet "Margaritaville" stuff. Jimmy's things are even marketed by location...Key West, Charleston, New Orleans...of the store.
Think of shirts/hats from the Apple Store London, Paris, New York, Dallas, Cupertino.
I think your examples show what a bad idea it would be. Sure, the items you mention make money while at same time are advertising the company, but it can come at the cost of cheapening the brand, thus making it less chic to own a Mac, iPhone or iPod.
Maybe we'll see people who don't actually own a Mac wearing clothes like Joey does in this video at 4 min 44 sec.
From a limited perspective it might not be energy efficient. I, however, suspect out of all the processes it isn't the worst offender. Moreover, your only looking at the manufacturing process, not the bigger picture. It is true some PC cases might be made from recycled material, but they are not recycled themselves. The recycling process for plastic is not infinite. For aluminum it pretty much is. In fact, the new Macs probably are made from recycled aluminum. Even if they are not, the cases will be recycled because aluminum is has significant value in the recycling world.
Further, as I pointed out earlier the aluminum probably increases the life of the Mac by protecting the internal components better. I had two plastic Mac laptops. Both were damaged from internal flexing. Apple can likely now use less packing materials to protect the machines. In addition, the machines weigh less, which results in less energy used for shipping.
My point: you can't just look at the manufacturing process.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RBR
Back to Apple's process. I think that you intuitively understand that the process that Apple has chosen is not especially energy efficient. By the way, many plastics used in commercial processes are manufactured using recycled materials. Only a comparatively few companies publicize this. The common "fleece" jackets that everyone wears are almost all made from recycled materials.
In any event, Apple have, in my opinion, chosen a process which does not add to the functionality of the product. Does that mean it is "wrong"? Certainly not any more than the PC laptops made of carbon fiber.
This no bag policy is borrowed from other retailers. For instance, Ikea encourages people not to use disposable bags by charging for them. Whole Foods no longer offers plastic bags. I shop at food co-oops and both don't offer bags unless another member brought in recyclable bags for you to use. In many European Countries you bring your own bags.
I think the policy is a good one. I too use plastic bags from the super market to throw my trash out in. However, I get far more bags then I use. That is because most bags are so cheap they need to be double or triple bagged to hold my groceries. I only need one to hold my trash though. Further, I wouldn't reuse an Apple bag. I would probably keep it and throw it out years from now (thinking I was going to use it for something). Using it to throw out trash is pretty much advertising to the thieves in your neighborhood that you just bought a valuable computer. I also know several people who don't re-use supermarket bags. So, just because we do, doesn't mean our activity is normal.
What I am upset about is I just bought a new Macbook and it didn't come with an Apple sticker.
From a limited perspective it might not be energy efficient. I, however, suspect out of all the processes it isn't the worst offender. Moreover, your only looking at the manufacturing process, not the bigger picture. It is true some PC cases might be made from recycled material, but they are not recycled themselves. The recycling process for plastic is not infinite. For aluminum it pretty much is. In fact, the new Macs probably are made from recycled aluminum. Even if they are not, the cases will be recycled because aluminum is has significant value in the recycling world.
Further, as I pointed out earlier the aluminum probably increases the life of the Mac by protecting the internal components better. I had two plastic Mac laptops. Both were damaged from internal flexing. Apple can likely now use less packing materials to protect the machines. In addition, the machines weigh less, which results in less energy used for shipping.
My point: you can't just look at the manufacturing process.
Just about everything is capable of being recycled. Whether it actually is recycled is a matter of some disagreement, especially in electronics.
The point about Apple's production process is that there are more efficient ways to accomplish the same result, which you seem not to have realized. Literally, the same aluminum case is capable of being produced in several different ways. There are also different ways of accomplishing the same objective. It is not uncommon to use magnesium alloy frames to provide stiffness for the outer shell of some laptops and other devices. (This is the standard for high end camera bodies.)
In any event, it should seem self-evident that the use of an unnecessarily expensive production process which brings no additional utility or other benefit to the product places the product at a competitive disadvantage.
In any event, it should seem self-evident that the use of an unnecessarily expensive production process which brings no additional utility or other benefit to the product places the product at a competitive disadvantage.
Yes, that last statement is self-evident: if result brings no additional utilty and is prohibitively expensive then it a disadvantage. But you have not proven, or even shown the slightly possibiltu, that Apple's unibody construction offers no additional utilty. I would say the additional utilty is, in itself, stlf evident, but since you agree that can't be correct.
Yes, that last statement is self-evident: if result brings no additional utilty and is prohibitively expensive then it a disadvantage. But you have not proven, or even shown the slightly possibiltu, that Apple's unibody construction offers no additional utilty. I would say the additional utilty is, in itself, stlf evident, but since you agree that can't be correct.
No! You miss the point completely. Everyone here who has been discussing production process has discussed the cost (and other efficiencies) of producing the very same case, not two different ones. There is no difference in the utility of the case when produced by a different process.
The benefit of the design is exactly, precisely, identically, indistinguishably the same between multiple processes of producing the same case.
The benefit of the design is exactly, precisely, identically, indistinguishably the same between multiple processes of producing the same case.
Yes, I obviously failed to see how a milled piece of Al is " exactly, precisely, identically, indistinguishably the same " the same as a screwed, welded, glued hodgepodge of metals and plastics.
edit: I jsut read back through the posts. You suggested pouring into a mold was more efficient. You might want to look back at the replies to that to see just few reasons why that is far from being cheaper and more efficient.
Yes, I obviously failed to see how a milled piece of Al is " exactly, precisely, identically, indistinguishably the same " the same as a screwed, welded, glued hodgepodge of metals and plastics.
At this stage I will simply wish you well as you neither understand the manufacturing processing being discussed nor the issue being discussed.
Comments
What's wrong with a paper bag like Trader Joe's or Whole foods or any department store uses? Surely we're saving trees by the thousands now, with all our electronic tax filings and Kindles?
That is just what they want you to think. The trees are still falling, they just move how they are used. Profit shuffling. We need to ask retailers at the checkout if they know where the items came from. We are teased by little improvements from Washington, while major issues are ignored. Obama promised to end the wars. He promised single payer health, he promised an end to massive agribusiness payments. But he has a wife and kids, and moves very carefully since taking the oath of office.
You mean sort of like the plastic water bottles Steve Jobs always drinks from during his keynotes?
Exactly! Steve should have switched to metal years ago!
(Here's the deal. First, the water gets even more leached chemicals when the bottles are exposed to California sunlight! Secondly, the industry uses the phrase "the results are inconclusive" when you point out that tests prove the injustion of water in plastic containers to be deadly to living creatures. You see, when only 99 of the 100 rats died from drinking that water, the results are inconclusive that there is anything wrong with that!) Drink and be merry! Like Michael Landon, Justice Ginsberg, Patrick Swayze, Donna Reid, Ed Sullivan.
Sure there is a lot of waste. However, as you point out the waste is largely recyclable. More importantly, there is plenty of waste in creating a plastic case as well. That waste is largely not recyclable. Further, when an aluminum Mac finally goes to the junk yard the aluminum will be recycled. The plastic in the old cases will not be.
...
It isn't just material, but also total energy input. I was doing some math when it first came out, and I came up with 7x raw material being milled down to a 1x case by weight. That is hugely inefficient, even if 90% of the waste product can be recycled. I didn't have good data to work from on the process, but I estimated about 5kWh in milling energy and another 7kWh to re-melt the scrap. The extra shipping involved in moving more material round-trip should double those numbers.
I think the other poster guessing $75 per shell is about right.
A plastic case (or carbon fiber) could have been made from recycled materials, and consumed less energy in the process. Casting a rough shell and milling that could have reduced the energy input by 50% easily, and likely 75% if they were able to use something along the lines of centrifugal casting.
It really is a stupid process, but it sure sounds cool...
It isn't just material, but also total energy input. I was doing some math when it first came out, and I came up with 7x raw material being milled down to a 1x case by weight. That is hugely inefficient, even if 90% of the waste product can be recycled.
But you are only considering a single recycle, not an indefinite recycling. The long term environmental benefits of using aluminium over plastics is not a hoax.
A plastic case (or carbon fiber) could have been made from recycled materials, and consumed less energy in the process. Casting a rough shell and milling that could have reduced the energy input by 50% easily, and likely 75% if they were able to use something along the lines of centrifugal casting.
It really is a stupid process, but it sure sounds cool...
I don't know how the weave is made, but carbon fiber / resin composite isn't recyclable that I've heard.
I really don't know anything about different efficiency of manufacturing & machining methods, but I thought that the billet process was primarily done for low production run stuff because of its cost. Doing it for millions of computers a quarter seems a little silly though.
A plastic case (or carbon fiber) could have been made from recycled materials, and consumed less energy in the process. ..[/QUOTE]
Is that the same carbon fiber used by MORY LOVINS to make incredibly hard car bodies? A NOVA showed him hitting it with a sledgehammer-with no damage! That seems more in line with sustainability.
If I'm ready to spend hundreds (if not thousands) of dollars at your store, and you tell me I can't even have a bag, you won't be getting a dime from me. That is not being green, it's just piss-poor customer service.
Already mentioned in this thread, but so highly relevant it bears repeating: If you want to really be doing something "green", stop making closed boxes that have little to no upgrade paths.
I am not an Apple fanboy; I use both Macs and PCs. Nonetheless, your comment stating that you will not buy a computer because of the lack of plastic bags is ridiculous.
Don't let the door hit your arse on the way out.
Apple's bag could look just like they do now and provide some minor advertising for Apple when their customers use the Apple bags to buy real apples and other groceries and products.
Perhaps even the many persons who frequent Apple Stores would buy the bags to give as gifts.
As many have said elsewhere and in the past, Apple should also be selling Apple, Mac, iPhone, iPod T-shirts and other stuff.
<snip>
As many have said elsewhere and in the past, Apple should also be selling Apple, Mac, iPhone, iPod T-shirts and other stuff.
Yep! It is surprising that Apple have not marketed the brand better.
T-Shirts, jackets, pens & pencils and all manner of things.
Just look at all the Harley-Davidson merchandise or Jimmy Buffet "Margaritaville" stuff. Jimmy's things are even marketed by location...Key West, Charleston, New Orleans...of the store.
Think of shirts/hats from the Apple Store London, Paris, New York, Dallas, Cupertino.
Yep! It is surprising that Apple have not marketed the brand better.
T-Shirts, jackets, pens & pencils and all manner of things.
Just look at all the Harley-Davidson merchandise or Jimmy Buffet "Margaritaville" stuff. Jimmy's things are even marketed by location...Key West, Charleston, New Orleans...of the store.
Think of shirts/hats from the Apple Store London, Paris, New York, Dallas, Cupertino.
I think your examples show what a bad idea it would be. Sure, the items you mention make money while at same time are advertising the company, but it can come at the cost of cheapening the brand, thus making it less chic to own a Mac, iPhone or iPod.
Maybe we'll see people who don't actually own a Mac wearing clothes like Joey does in this video at 4 min 44 sec.
Further, as I pointed out earlier the aluminum probably increases the life of the Mac by protecting the internal components better. I had two plastic Mac laptops. Both were damaged from internal flexing. Apple can likely now use less packing materials to protect the machines. In addition, the machines weigh less, which results in less energy used for shipping.
My point: you can't just look at the manufacturing process.
Back to Apple's process. I think that you intuitively understand that the process that Apple has chosen is not especially energy efficient. By the way, many plastics used in commercial processes are manufactured using recycled materials. Only a comparatively few companies publicize this. The common "fleece" jackets that everyone wears are almost all made from recycled materials.
In any event, Apple have, in my opinion, chosen a process which does not add to the functionality of the product. Does that mean it is "wrong"? Certainly not any more than the PC laptops made of carbon fiber.
Cheers
I think the policy is a good one. I too use plastic bags from the super market to throw my trash out in. However, I get far more bags then I use. That is because most bags are so cheap they need to be double or triple bagged to hold my groceries. I only need one to hold my trash though. Further, I wouldn't reuse an Apple bag. I would probably keep it and throw it out years from now (thinking I was going to use it for something). Using it to throw out trash is pretty much advertising to the thieves in your neighborhood that you just bought a valuable computer. I also know several people who don't re-use supermarket bags. So, just because we do, doesn't mean our activity is normal.
What I am upset about is I just bought a new Macbook and it didn't come with an Apple sticker.
From a limited perspective it might not be energy efficient. I, however, suspect out of all the processes it isn't the worst offender. Moreover, your only looking at the manufacturing process, not the bigger picture. It is true some PC cases might be made from recycled material, but they are not recycled themselves. The recycling process for plastic is not infinite. For aluminum it pretty much is. In fact, the new Macs probably are made from recycled aluminum. Even if they are not, the cases will be recycled because aluminum is has significant value in the recycling world.
Further, as I pointed out earlier the aluminum probably increases the life of the Mac by protecting the internal components better. I had two plastic Mac laptops. Both were damaged from internal flexing. Apple can likely now use less packing materials to protect the machines. In addition, the machines weigh less, which results in less energy used for shipping.
My point: you can't just look at the manufacturing process.
Just about everything is capable of being recycled. Whether it actually is recycled is a matter of some disagreement, especially in electronics.
The point about Apple's production process is that there are more efficient ways to accomplish the same result, which you seem not to have realized. Literally, the same aluminum case is capable of being produced in several different ways. There are also different ways of accomplishing the same objective. It is not uncommon to use magnesium alloy frames to provide stiffness for the outer shell of some laptops and other devices. (This is the standard for high end camera bodies.)
In any event, it should seem self-evident that the use of an unnecessarily expensive production process which brings no additional utility or other benefit to the product places the product at a competitive disadvantage.
In any event, it should seem self-evident that the use of an unnecessarily expensive production process which brings no additional utility or other benefit to the product places the product at a competitive disadvantage.
Yes, that last statement is self-evident: if result brings no additional utilty and is prohibitively expensive then it a disadvantage. But you have not proven, or even shown the slightly possibiltu, that Apple's unibody construction offers no additional utilty. I would say the additional utilty is, in itself, stlf evident, but since you agree that can't be correct.
Yes, that last statement is self-evident: if result brings no additional utilty and is prohibitively expensive then it a disadvantage. But you have not proven, or even shown the slightly possibiltu, that Apple's unibody construction offers no additional utilty. I would say the additional utilty is, in itself, stlf evident, but since you agree that can't be correct.
No! You miss the point completely. Everyone here who has been discussing production process has discussed the cost (and other efficiencies) of producing the very same case, not two different ones. There is no difference in the utility of the case when produced by a different process.
The benefit of the design is exactly, precisely, identically, indistinguishably the same between multiple processes of producing the same case.
Best wishes.
The benefit of the design is exactly, precisely, identically, indistinguishably the same between multiple processes of producing the same case.
Yes, I obviously failed to see how a milled piece of Al is " exactly, precisely, identically, indistinguishably the same " the same as a screwed, welded, glued hodgepodge of metals and plastics.
edit: I jsut read back through the posts. You suggested pouring into a mold was more efficient. You might want to look back at the replies to that to see just few reasons why that is far from being cheaper and more efficient.
Yes, I obviously failed to see how a milled piece of Al is " exactly, precisely, identically, indistinguishably the same " the same as a screwed, welded, glued hodgepodge of metals and plastics.
At this stage I will simply wish you well as you neither understand the manufacturing processing being discussed nor the issue being discussed.
People are thinking too much, there is such a thing as biodegradable plastic.