TomTom for iPhone lives; Jobs' true health; green iPhone 3G?

245

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 90
    bageljoeybageljoey Posts: 1,762member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    The problem is that their ranking system has been rigged to make Apple look like they're the worst, for publicity. If Apple is in reality, the best, and Dell is worse, aren't people doing a disservice if they buy a Dell because a rigged ranking system "showed" that Dell was better?



    In short, it's a PR farce and should not be supported by arguments such as yours. They make Apple's PR look honest in comparison.



    PR is PR and it is a fact of life these days. Without it you disappear into the haze of the information age. Therefore Apple claims 4X speed increases on a new chip when the real life gains are 20%... We all understand that there is a grain of truth and figure "well, ok, it may help get the attention of some Switchers" and we reluctantly give it a pass. Most of us here are Apple owners or AAPL owners so this fits with our obvious self interests.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by paxman View Post


    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.



    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.



    Of course it doesn't make sense for Apple to make a phone with a radio shielding back just for small recyclability gains--making millions of useless phones is more environmentally damaging than that small amount of plastic. But I don't doubt that there are alternatives out there waiting to be invented/discovered and that won't happen just by luck--someone has to be looking and this kind of pressure (unfair thought it may be to Apple) makes it more likely to be found.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JoeDRC View Post


    I'm all for the environment and I recycle, turn lights off when not being used etc. but Green Peace go a bit too far in my opinion (scaling fences and jumping on airplanes and causing considerable disruption for travellers is one example)



    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.



    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.
  • Reply 22 of 90
    pmjoepmjoe Posts: 565member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mac-sochist View Post


    It takes 20 kWh of electricity to smelt 1 kg of aluminum. [...] That doesn't count the energy to dig it up, [...]



    Isn't most aluminum recycled these days? If not, it should be. Takes about 5% of the energy of your smelting, etc.
  • Reply 23 of 90
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by pmjoe View Post


    Isn't most aluminum recycled these days? If not, it should be. Takes about 5% of the energy of your smelting, etc.



    Yeah, my example was unrealistic in several ways. Aluminum smelters are all located where they are given essentially free power, usually hydroelectric, while residential rates go up and up. Here the state forces aluminum recyclers to pay a minimum amount per pound for aluminum cans, and they're piling up in an artificial mountain somewhere in Eastern Washington.
  • Reply 24 of 90
    boss1boss1 Posts: 40member
    @ 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.



    @ Greenpeace : These morons need to take a hike. I have a little talked subject to share with you about GreenPeace. The upper levels of that organization could care less about trees . They care about they're pockets , that's their targets are always big business . They're no better than corrupt politicians that make side deals an legislation passed. Why don't they target the consumer? the end user? the ones that demand the product? because there's no money in it. Why else don't they target consumers? because they might shoot back. They're nothing more than a bunch of money hungry sissy's who only use violence on people when it isn't a challenge.
  • Reply 25 of 90
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dattyx26 View Post


    Wow I'm surprised you people are not discussing TomTom. I sure hope Apple allows TomTom to develop for the iPhone. That would make it even more killer. If they don't, then boo for Apple for choosing an unfair route. I'm sure Google's map is adequate, though, but imagine having the features of TomTom, yumm.



    I would love to consolidate my TomTom into my iPhone. I think Apple will accept them, it would be breaking some anti-trust laws to not in favour of a competitor.



    But that doesn't mean they have to allow them in right away, though I don't think we'll have to wait too long. After all, despite the download size, it will be a much higher higher average price than most apps and be widely popular in most countries that Apple will be selling the iPhone.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mac-sochist View Post


    Just on the issue of the environmental desirability of the aluminum vs. the plastic back:

    <math>



    Nice post!
  • Reply 26 of 90
    hypermarkhypermark Posts: 152member
    Lots of chatter in the blogosphere from iPhone developers frustrated with Apple primarily because Apple being Apple, they haven't exactly been super transparent on the approval process, leaving a lot of developers feeling like they are being jerked around.



    Courted and counted, on the one hand, as a part of a growing number of iPhone SDK 'developer downloads,' but told to wait their turn, or more accurately, being told nothing, on the other.



    I understand both sides of this, but given Apple's mixed history with third-party developers, they are playing with fire a bit, inasmuch as third party applications was bullet three on Job's 'key challenges for iPhone' sermon at the WWDC keynote.



    Here is a post on the topic:



    Can Apple Manage iPhone Developer Expectations?

    http://thenetworkgarden.com/weblog/2...ple-manag.html



    Check it out if interested.



    Mark
  • Reply 27 of 90
    19841984 Posts: 955member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by shawnathan View Post


    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.



    This has been my concern with Greenpeace. They give environmentalism a bad name. As someone else had mentioned they admitted that Apple was greener than many others but continued to go after them because their high profile products attract the press. So despite being "green" I do not support Greenpeace. Apple could make the plastic back recyclable if it isn't already and initiate a recycling program for the iPhone. It's not likely anyone is going to toss one in the trash. If they offered a discount along with it that could entice iPhone owners to upgrade to an iPhone 3G in the future.
  • Reply 28 of 90
    irelandireland Posts: 17,671member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by CREB View Post


    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.



    Big woopdie doo
  • Reply 29 of 90
    tantrumtantrum Posts: 41member
    Apple came last in GP rankings because of their contempt and the PR negativity that resulted was entirely avoidable. GP's challenge to iPhone 1.0 was a large, negative unnecessary stumble by Apple's smooth PR team. GP picks high-profile targets for a reason; if Apple really cares about its reputation and talks environment, everyone talks environment.



    This is just one of those typical situations in which the style of how you address a potential adversary matters more than the substance of what you actually do. Using a political analogy, it's very macho, very American, to react the way many on this forum have but it gets you the kind of love George W Bush enjoys around the world.
  • Reply 30 of 90
    echosonicechosonic Posts: 454member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tantrum View Post


    Apple came last in GP rankings because of their contempt and the PR negativity that resulted was entirely avoidable. GP's challenge to iPhone 1.0 was a large, negative unnecessary stumble by Apple's smooth PR team. GP picks high-profile targets for a reason; if Apple really cares about its reputation and talks environment, everyone talks environment.



    This is just one of those typical situations in which the style of how you address a potential adversary matters more than the substance of what you actually do. Using a political analogy, it's very macho, very American, to react the way many on this forum have but it gets you the kind of love George W Bush enjoys around the world.



    GP makes its living the exact same way Jesse Jackson does: Comply with our demands (hire more black people) or we'll start making a stink and protesting you and calling you racist.



    But it doesn't end there if you bend to Jackson's will, THEN you have to become a "contributor" to Rainbow Push financially. GP is the same kind of rape, in a different package, and the more Apple even acknowledges them, the more credibility they gain.



    They have none, and should be ignored. Not insulted, not fought, but flat-out IGNORED. Anybody asks about GP during press conf? Response: who?



    NEXT QUESTION.
  • Reply 31 of 90
    normangnormang Posts: 79member
    Greenpeace doesn't give a hoot about the environment, all they want is your money..



    Apple probably has a good reason for wanting to control the developer program as to not be posting junk to the App Store. With what, 1/4 million applications and people expect Apple to filter them all in 3 months, give me a break...
  • Reply 32 of 90
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    [QUOTE=normang;1265141]Apple probably has a good reason for wanting to control the developer program as to not be posting junk to the App Store.[/quote[

    Not posting junk is a good reason.



    Quote:

    With what, 1/4 million applications and people expect Apple to filter them all in 3 months, give me a break...



    250,000 downloads of the SDK, 25,000 applied for the App Store certification program, 4000 applicants accepted in 12 weeks.
  • Reply 33 of 90
    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.
  • Reply 34 of 90
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Ireland View Post


    Big woopdie doo



    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
  • Reply 35 of 90
    dagamer34dagamer34 Posts: 494member
    The reason why Apple doesn't just approve everyone right now is because the 2.0 firmware required to debug on the iPhone itself is a BETA, not a final release. Betas are not meant for everyone, and people will abuse them given the chance.
  • Reply 36 of 90
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by pmjoe View Post


    Isn't most aluminum recycled these days?







    No, most aluminum is not recycled, and they don't make aircraft aluminum from Coke cans.
  • Reply 37 of 90
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by roehlstation View Post


    No, most aluminum is not recycled, and they don't make aircraft aluminum from Coke cans.



    Still under contract with Pepsi, eh?
  • Reply 38 of 90
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by gobble gobble View Post


    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.



    I design environmentally friendly buildings for a living, I would bet I did more for the environment between 3:00 and 3:30 today than they've done all week.



    They seem to forget the sheer amount of waste the iPhones are saving the environment from. Being able to do things quickly saves energy, not to mention the elimination of paper waste. Coordination is the #1 thing that saves energy, and the iPhone makes that coordination even better.
  • Reply 39 of 90
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    Still under contract with Pepsi, eh?



    uh...sure...whatever
  • Reply 40 of 90
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,949member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by roehlstation View Post


    No, most aluminum is not recycled, and they don't make aircraft aluminum from Coke cans.



    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.