I am curious how they came to this decision and why they reversed course so quickly. If it was because of the backlash from consumers how could they not have anticipated this would be the case? And why send someone out to defend the decision only to reverse course a couple days later? Is it amateur hour at Apple or something?
The new EPEAT certified Macbook Pro. We gave up on the sleek lightweight design and decided the computer should be able to be opened with only a pipe wrench.
The new EPEAT certified Macbook Pro. We gave up on the sleek lightweight design and decided the computer should be able to be opened with only a pipe wrench.
I can only guess someone high up thought this (the original withdrawal) would be a gutsy move and they could brush away criticism by pointing at other green initiatives. Massive fail. Whoever let this slip though needs to be freed to pursue other opportunities before they do more damage.
Maybe it's a good thing Mansfield is retiring, if it wasn't his decision it's interesting he's the one taking the hit and not Tim Cook or Jony Ive.
Not really. Apple likely doesn't really view it as a mistake at all. They like things simple and avoiding confusion over what is and isn't EPEAT goes with that simplicity.
They got some complaints by companies with a strict not EPEAT, can't buy it rule so they are ditching the whole simple in order to shut up those folks and others like them who don't want to be bothered with trying to get the rules changed. Sometimes you just have to do it rather than stand firm.
but in the end it won't matter much because Apple isn't going to change their design practices to fit EPEAT and in another round or two of releases none of their stuff will qualify anyway and they won't be admitting to any mistakes at that point.
It signals weakness, lack of managerial attention, and/or lack careful planning. Also, the lack of an explanation, in at least the environmental portion of Apple's website, was really horrible PR. Recall the AI article about how Apple was hoping to push standards forward, smartphones and tablets not being covered, etc? Is that all out the window?
Incidentally, to whom exactly is Mansfield apologizing? Was there a mass consumer uprising that we never heard about? Or is it to the Greenpeaces of the world?
Overall, disappointingly un-Apple like in how this has been executed.
Do the thinking first.
Perhaps you are being too harsh. It is a PR fiasco, certainly. What we need is a full explanation from Tim Cook.
Huh? What does it signal? To me it signals intelligence.
Macho, double-down management is for third-world autocrats and Hitler fans. Flexibility is much smarter, especially when addressing the concerns of an important subgroup of Apple customers.
And Godwins Law makes an early appearance. Post 17.
Here are the most interesting statements by both sides:
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
Apple makes the most environmentally responsible products in our industry. In fact, our engineering teams have worked incredibly hard over the years to make our products even more environmentally friendly, and much of our progress has come in areas not yet measured by EPEAT.
...
Our relationship with EPEAT has become stronger as a result of this experience, and we look forward to working with EPEAT as their rating system and the underlying IEEE 1680.1 standard evolve.
Bob
and
Quote:
We look forward to Apple’s strong and creative thoughts on ongoing standards development. The outcome must reward new directions for both design and sustainability, simultaneously supporting the environment and the market for all manufacturers’ elegant and high-performance products.
...
An interesting question for EPEAT is how to reward innovations that are not yet envisioned with standards that are fixed at a point in time.
Robert Frisbee, EPEAT CEO
This alludes to some sort of power struggle between Apple Inc. and the Green Electronics Council.
Let's say Apple approaches the Green Electronics Council proposing changes to EPEAT, perhaps some that would disqualify some products from its competitors. Perhaps there was an uproar by others in the industry and the Council voted down on Apple's proposed changes to EPEAT.
Or what if it were something like "let's use EPEAT on smartphones and tablets" (the EPEAT standard is so old, neither product category is covered). If other smartphone manufacturers weren't ready for EPEAT, do you think they'd be willing to proceed?
So, then Apple called the Green Electronics Council's bluff by walking away. While the public and media scratched their heads at Apple's actions, the Green Electronics Council probably realized that they couldn't have such a prominent corporation give them the "no confidence" vote. It would be like the USA leaving the United Nations (note that the predecessor League of Nations failed since USA refused to sign up). So the Green Electronics Council folded.
While the public written statements make it sound like Apple's fault, the aforementioned quotes point to something that happened behind the scenes.
It is likely that the Green Electronics Council blinked.
As a matter of fact, Apple probably knew from the beginning that it would end up like this and that they would need some sort of scapegoat (the outgoing Mansfield, a guy who has never really spoken for Apple on a public relations level). They could have left EPEAT last year or next year, it probably wouldn't have mattered. My guess is that they had this planned for a while, and the idea was probably Steve's. They just needed the right opportunity.
This whole thing smacks of a Steve Jobs power play.
I am curious how they came to this decision and why they reversed course so quickly. If it was because of the backlash from consumers how could they not have anticipated this would be the case? And why send someone out to defend the decision only to reverse course a couple days later? Is it amateur hour at Apple or something?
Apple frequently reacts very quickly when they come to the conclusion they made a mistake. It's not the first time, and won't be the last. Think iPhone price drop and refund. Think FinalCut Pro availability.
The ability to change your mind was a hallmark of Steve Jobs. He did it early and often.
This is interesting. I was under the impression (clearly false) that the rMBP did not get an EPEAT rating and therefore Apple pulled everything. That means Apple must be afraid that a future product will not get an EPEAT rating. I wonder which product.
Maybe it was simply a mistake like Apple said.
Or maybe they're firing a shot across EPEAT's bow to get them to listen to Apple's ideas.
Aside from timing and style, the bottom line remains that the standard is outdated based on old technology and very incomplete to accomplish the desired environmental outcome. Apple was right that this needs to change as does the new EPEAT leader, hopefully this will drive change. The cries of foul by press and especially some in Government is mindless attention to rules not effects.
Regarding iFixit, who is identified as early identifier of the compliance for Apple's newest MacBooks, from their perspective this is not a good development, they are out of a job. However, from a total environmental impact and for the user light, responsive, and power efficient device view Apple's new direction makes sense.
If the rules are modernized perhaps the EPEAT can now extend to the Post-PC world of Ultrabook, tablet, and smart phones which will dominate the environmental impact starting now and help all of us have a healthier environment.
Exactly. If EPEAT is making a big deal out of 5-lobed screws and glued batteries, they're living in a strange world. Furthermore, it's about time that environmental groups pay more attention to results than buzzwords - and Apple's results are miles ahead of anyone else.
But the new MBP not being EPEAT certified due to glued battery is still a problem for them right?
Seems like they could use a different glue that wasn't so strong and the battery could be detached more easily.
well if they are going to change the glue why not stop using it all together. And stop using the torque screws that are the other part of the issue.
Not going to happen. Apple does as they want for their reasons. If in 3 years those screws and that glue means nothing qualifies for EPEAT so be it. They will position that the issue isn't them but the standards used by EPEAT for that gold star rating. They will point out that in the meantime they have set up their own recycling system where they remove the batteries etc themselves, where they return usable parts and materials back into the eco system instead of just shredding them etc but EPEAT is ignoring that to focus on screws and glue so that Bubba's EWaste Recycling Center can keep running on old methods etc. And Apple being Apple they will probably win that argument.
Here are the most interesting statements by both sides:
and
This alludes to some sort of power struggle between Apple Inc. and the Green Electronics Council.
Let's say Apple approaches the Green Electronics Council proposing changes to EPEAT, perhaps some that would disqualify some products from its competitors. Perhaps there was an uproar by others in the industry and the Council voted down on Apple's proposed changes to EPEAT.
Or what if it were something like "let's use EPEAT on smartphones and tablets" (the EPEAT standard is so old, neither product category is covered). If other smartphone manufacturers weren't ready for EPEAT, do you think they'd be willing to proceed?
So, then Apple called the Green Electronics Council's bluff by walking away. While the public and media scratched their heads at Apple's actions, the Green Electronics Council probably realized that they couldn't have such a prominent corporation give them the "no confidence" vote. It would be like the USA leaving the United Nations (note that the predecessor League of Nations failed since USA refused to sign up). So the Green Electronics Council folded.
While the public written statements make it sound like Apple's fault, the aforementioned quotes point to something that happened behind the scenes.
It is likely that the Green Electronics Council blinked.
Maybe, but I don't buy this version of events. For one thing, Apple took a PR hit. For another the Green Electronics Council would have gone out of its way to accommodate Apple anyway. There is absolutely no reason to believe they were being intransigent with Apple.
I think Apple simply saw EPEAT as a bureaucratic requirement and failed to understand the value of it as a signal of intent to environmentally conscious consumers.
I think this was all planned. It raised huge press about a rating system that does not rate important things. I bet the EPEAT people came to Apple and said lets see if we can work something out.
Epic fail there Apple. It was pretty obvious they were going to have to rethink this, rather then lose all government sales. Someone seriously dropped the ball.
How many of those sales were looking at computers versus iPhones and iPads which aren't EPEAT certified because they don't qualify for standard (which only counts actual computers). All those companies, schools etc can buy all the iOS stuff they like and that seems to be the trend anyway.
It's unfortunate that Apple is bowing to the asshats and chuckleheads from the usual snowflake that has become an avalanche.
"Asshats" & "Chuckleheads" - Are you feeling ok? lol.
Clearly Apple must have had calls from some of their biggest customers and they could see a big sales hit coming down the line. That's not "bowing" - it's sensible management.
Makes sense to re-instate EPEAT for the vast majority of products that comply. As far as I know it's only the MBP Retina that doesn't comply.
At least they can continue to sell the non-Retina MBPs to these organisations while they lobby the standards body to modify their requirements.
Mansfield under the bus but his stock payout can ignore any flack and will probably get a couple o million to take the blame. I work for the #2 purchaser of Apple products in the US and I can tell you that my company is very heavy in to the Recycle program and is not buying any MacbookR's due to this how it is built... Some might say "big deal" Well maybe not but I think 500+ MacBookPro's per year is a big deal... than comes the Thunderbolt dual monitor setup that goes with them adds up.
My friends on the Government side also see the same as we do and the Retina MBP's are not going to be purchased.
Take if for what its worth if my company has to purchase laptops that we cant do the upgrades on we dont purchase them.
I personally will purchase the next gen mackbook pro "if its upgradeable" to replace my 2011 fully loaded MBP.
Here is what really happened in a terribly paraphrased and simple way
[B]Apple[/B]: we need to update EPEAT standards... we want to do this X, Y, and Z. [B]EPEAT[/B]: no way [B]Apple[/B]: well we'll just leave EPEAT and make our own standards [B]EPEAT[/B]: yeah sure, right... we'll call your bluff [B]Apple[/B]: bye! (removes everything) [B]EPEAT[/B]: oh no.. they are really going to do this... as much as Apple seems to lead the industry, they might cause problems for us if they make competing standards... [B]EPEAT[/B]: Hey Apple, we are going to review some things and change some standards around and work with you more... if you want. [B]Apple[/B]: oh, ok, sounds like a good deal. We'll work with you and hope it works out (while still working on our own stuff too).
Apple frequently reacts very quickly when they come to the conclusion they made a mistake. It's not the first time, and won't be the last. Think iPhone price drop and refund. Think FinalCut Pro availability.
The ability to change your mind was a hallmark of Steve Jobs. He did it early and often.
Well it's a bit worrying to me that they couldn't see this one coming a mile away. I'd love to know the real story on this.
Does this mean Apple are going to have to compromise on some of their future product designs to accommodate for this backtracking?
Oh well, at least Greenpeace will be happier now...
I know it's popular to hate Greenpeace and their tactics can be annoying (intentionally I'm sure) but it's good to have some 'watchdogs' bearing witness and raising awareness. If not for Greenpeace the ozone layer would be gone, the whales would be gone, your kids toys would be made from toxic plastic and the French would still be dumping 50 gallon drums of radioactive waste into the ocean. I'm all for capitalism (I'm a business owner myself) but you can't just destroy everything.
Comments
The new EPEAT certified Macbook Pro. We gave up on the sleek lightweight design and decided the computer should be able to be opened with only a pipe wrench.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GadgetCanada
The new EPEAT certified Macbook Pro. We gave up on the sleek lightweight design and decided the computer should be able to be opened with only a pipe wrench.
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd
That's.....weird.
Not really. Apple likely doesn't really view it as a mistake at all. They like things simple and avoiding confusion over what is and isn't EPEAT goes with that simplicity.
They got some complaints by companies with a strict not EPEAT, can't buy it rule so they are ditching the whole simple in order to shut up those folks and others like them who don't want to be bothered with trying to get the rules changed. Sometimes you just have to do it rather than stand firm.
but in the end it won't matter much because Apple isn't going to change their design practices to fit EPEAT and in another round or two of releases none of their stuff will qualify anyway and they won't be admitting to any mistakes at that point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
It signals weakness, lack of managerial attention, and/or lack careful planning. Also, the lack of an explanation, in at least the environmental portion of Apple's website, was really horrible PR. Recall the AI article about how Apple was hoping to push standards forward, smartphones and tablets not being covered, etc? Is that all out the window?
Incidentally, to whom exactly is Mansfield apologizing? Was there a mass consumer uprising that we never heard about? Or is it to the Greenpeaces of the world?
Overall, disappointingly un-Apple like in how this has been executed.
Do the thinking first.
Perhaps you are being too harsh. It is a PR fiasco, certainly. What we need is a full explanation from Tim Cook.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alonso Perez
Huh? What does it signal? To me it signals intelligence.
Macho, double-down management is for third-world autocrats and Hitler fans. Flexibility is much smarter, especially when addressing the concerns of an important subgroup of Apple customers.
And Godwins Law makes an early appearance.
Here are the most interesting statements by both sides:
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
Apple makes the most environmentally responsible products in our industry. In fact, our engineering teams have worked incredibly hard over the years to make our products even more environmentally friendly, and much of our progress has come in areas not yet measured by EPEAT.
and
Quote:
We look forward to Apple’s strong and creative thoughts on ongoing standards development. The outcome must reward new directions for both design and sustainability, simultaneously supporting the environment and the market for all manufacturers’ elegant and high-performance products.
This alludes to some sort of power struggle between Apple Inc. and the Green Electronics Council.
Let's say Apple approaches the Green Electronics Council proposing changes to EPEAT, perhaps some that would disqualify some products from its competitors. Perhaps there was an uproar by others in the industry and the Council voted down on Apple's proposed changes to EPEAT.
Or what if it were something like "let's use EPEAT on smartphones and tablets" (the EPEAT standard is so old, neither product category is covered). If other smartphone manufacturers weren't ready for EPEAT, do you think they'd be willing to proceed?
So, then Apple called the Green Electronics Council's bluff by walking away. While the public and media scratched their heads at Apple's actions, the Green Electronics Council probably realized that they couldn't have such a prominent corporation give them the "no confidence" vote. It would be like the USA leaving the United Nations (note that the predecessor League of Nations failed since USA refused to sign up). So the Green Electronics Council folded.
While the public written statements make it sound like Apple's fault, the aforementioned quotes point to something that happened behind the scenes.
It is likely that the Green Electronics Council blinked.
As a matter of fact, Apple probably knew from the beginning that it would end up like this and that they would need some sort of scapegoat (the outgoing Mansfield, a guy who has never really spoken for Apple on a public relations level). They could have left EPEAT last year or next year, it probably wouldn't have mattered. My guess is that they had this planned for a while, and the idea was probably Steve's. They just needed the right opportunity.
This whole thing smacks of a Steve Jobs power play.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
I am curious how they came to this decision and why they reversed course so quickly. If it was because of the backlash from consumers how could they not have anticipated this would be the case? And why send someone out to defend the decision only to reverse course a couple days later? Is it amateur hour at Apple or something?
Apple frequently reacts very quickly when they come to the conclusion they made a mistake. It's not the first time, and won't be the last. Think iPhone price drop and refund. Think FinalCut Pro availability.
The ability to change your mind was a hallmark of Steve Jobs. He did it early and often.
Sure looks like it.
Maybe it was simply a mistake like Apple said.
Or maybe they're firing a shot across EPEAT's bow to get them to listen to Apple's ideas.
Exactly. If EPEAT is making a big deal out of 5-lobed screws and glued batteries, they're living in a strange world. Furthermore, it's about time that environmental groups pay more attention to results than buzzwords - and Apple's results are miles ahead of anyone else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
But the new MBP not being EPEAT certified due to glued battery is still a problem for them right?
Seems like they could use a different glue that wasn't so strong and the battery could be detached more easily.
well if they are going to change the glue why not stop using it all together. And stop using the torque screws that are the other part of the issue.
Not going to happen. Apple does as they want for their reasons. If in 3 years those screws and that glue means nothing qualifies for EPEAT so be it. They will position that the issue isn't them but the standards used by EPEAT for that gold star rating. They will point out that in the meantime they have set up their own recycling system where they remove the batteries etc themselves, where they return usable parts and materials back into the eco system instead of just shredding them etc but EPEAT is ignoring that to focus on screws and glue so that Bubba's EWaste Recycling Center can keep running on old methods etc. And Apple being Apple they will probably win that argument.
They made a mistake and they big enough to admit it and correct it - nice to see.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cvaldes1831
Here are the most interesting statements by both sides:
and
This alludes to some sort of power struggle between Apple Inc. and the Green Electronics Council.
Let's say Apple approaches the Green Electronics Council proposing changes to EPEAT, perhaps some that would disqualify some products from its competitors. Perhaps there was an uproar by others in the industry and the Council voted down on Apple's proposed changes to EPEAT.
Or what if it were something like "let's use EPEAT on smartphones and tablets" (the EPEAT standard is so old, neither product category is covered). If other smartphone manufacturers weren't ready for EPEAT, do you think they'd be willing to proceed?
So, then Apple called the Green Electronics Council's bluff by walking away. While the public and media scratched their heads at Apple's actions, the Green Electronics Council probably realized that they couldn't have such a prominent corporation give them the "no confidence" vote. It would be like the USA leaving the United Nations (note that the predecessor League of Nations failed since USA refused to sign up). So the Green Electronics Council folded.
While the public written statements make it sound like Apple's fault, the aforementioned quotes point to something that happened behind the scenes.
It is likely that the Green Electronics Council blinked.
Maybe, but I don't buy this version of events. For one thing, Apple took a PR hit. For another the Green Electronics Council would have gone out of its way to accommodate Apple anyway. There is absolutely no reason to believe they were being intransigent with Apple.
I think Apple simply saw EPEAT as a bureaucratic requirement and failed to understand the value of it as a signal of intent to environmentally conscious consumers.
I think this was all planned. It raised huge press about a rating system that does not rate important things. I bet the EPEAT people came to Apple and said lets see if we can work something out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by enjourni
Epic fail there Apple. It was pretty obvious they were going to have to rethink this, rather then lose all government sales. Someone seriously dropped the ball.
How many of those sales were looking at computers versus iPhones and iPads which aren't EPEAT certified because they don't qualify for standard (which only counts actual computers). All those companies, schools etc can buy all the iOS stuff they like and that seems to be the trend anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
It's unfortunate that Apple is bowing to the asshats and chuckleheads from the usual snowflake that has become an avalanche.
"Asshats" & "Chuckleheads" - Are you feeling ok? lol.
Clearly Apple must have had calls from some of their biggest customers and they could see a big sales hit coming down the line. That's not "bowing" - it's sensible management.
Makes sense to re-instate EPEAT for the vast majority of products that comply. As far as I know it's only the MBP Retina that doesn't comply.
At least they can continue to sell the non-Retina MBPs to these organisations while they lobby the standards body to modify their requirements.
I work for the #2 purchaser of Apple products in the US and I can tell you that my company is very heavy in to the Recycle program and is not buying any MacbookR's due to this how it is built...
Some might say "big deal"
Well maybe not but I think 500+ MacBookPro's per year is a big deal... than comes the Thunderbolt dual monitor setup that goes with them adds up.
My friends on the Government side also see the same as we do and the Retina MBP's are not going to be purchased.
Take if for what its worth if my company has to purchase laptops that we cant do the upgrades on we dont purchase them.
I personally will purchase the next gen mackbook pro "if its upgradeable" to replace my 2011 fully loaded MBP.
[B]Apple[/B]: we need to update EPEAT standards... we want to do this X, Y, and Z.
[B]EPEAT[/B]: no way
[B]Apple[/B]: well we'll just leave EPEAT and make our own standards
[B]EPEAT[/B]: yeah sure, right... we'll call your bluff
[B]Apple[/B]: bye! (removes everything)
[B]EPEAT[/B]: oh no.. they are really going to do this... as much as Apple seems to lead the industry, they might cause problems for us if they make competing standards...
[B]EPEAT[/B]: Hey Apple, we are going to review some things and change some standards around and work with you more... if you want.
[B]Apple[/B]: oh, ok, sounds like a good deal. We'll work with you and hope it works out (while still working on our own stuff too).
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoXoM
Does this mean Apple are going to have to compromise on some of their future product designs to accommodate for this backtracking?
Oh well, at least Greenpeace will be happier now...
I know it's popular to hate Greenpeace and their tactics can be annoying (intentionally I'm sure) but it's good to have some 'watchdogs' bearing witness and raising awareness. If not for Greenpeace the ozone layer would be gone, the whales would be gone, your kids toys would be made from toxic plastic and the French would still be dumping 50 gallon drums of radioactive waste into the ocean. I'm all for capitalism (I'm a business owner myself) but you can't just destroy everything.