radarthekat

Soli said:

dantheman827 said:

So does this mean that every Apple facility generates its own power or that the total sum of all power generated by Apple is enough to run all their facilities and the excess renewable power is re-distributed onto the grid?

The latter, which means that (I think) London Apple Stores aren't going to have solar panels on the roof, but that their NV solar farm sends more back to the grid, which probably isn't getting registered by the UK, but maybe they are using wind turbines in the countryside so that each country is 100% renewable for the power it's using. Lots of potential avenues for calculation this which will undoubtedly lead to more questions, but still a remarkable achievement in its own right.

It doesn’t necssarily mean Apple generates all its own power.  It can also mean Apple sources its power from utilities that generate power from clean and renewable sources.  I recall living in the Boston area a decade ago that I had a choice on my power bill which of several sources I wanted to sign up with.  My power still came from the local generator company, but they had in place agreements with many others to essentially pool their output so that customers could support renewable projects across the country.  There’s a name for this sort of arrangement, I just forget what it’s called.  If enough customers demande$ their power come from renewable sources, that’s where the money would flow and more such generation would be built out.  

Soli said:

On the one hand I see this as an amazing milestone, but I also can’t help but wonder if there are caveats to this sort of press release. Can Apple do better outside of just, say, being able to add more anything over 100% of their renewable back to the grid to help reduce costs for others over time? How much more would they have to do to get Foxconn, Pegatron, Corning, LG, Samsung, and all their other major suppliers (for their specific component assembly) to get folded into this mix? How does this translate for all the ground and air transportation fuel expenditures, if that's even possible to convert in a reasonable manner? And does this only account for energy used by one facility once another facility is suppling power, or do they take into consider the resources needed into to create these renewable energy facilities?

There’s even more to consider.  The energy used by its employees’ daily commutes, for example.  But Apple has made a significant start and won’t soon stop in their efforts.  

One area where I think Apple deserves some credit in in making their products more compute efficient.  Control of the entire technology stack allows an iPhone, for example, to perform the same task as a competitor’s smartphone using less energy.  It’s the reason you see larger batteries in many Android phones but holding the same useful time between charges.  You use more energy from your wall outlet to recharge those other phones.  While it might not seem significant to most users, since its only a few watts per charge cycle, there are billions of such devices in use around the world, and so saving a few hundred milliwatts per device per charge would potentially offset the output of a number of power plants.  Apple thinks about such things.   

larrya said:

This long, rambling article turns out to be just another rationalization for headphone jack removal?  Thanks for wasting my time promoting an excuse (reliability) that even Apple didn’t use (they mentioned it was a dinosaur, space, and waterproofing) in a debate that ended a year ago. It seems DED also thinks the bending problem is still debatable even with the hindsight that Apple strengthened the case for the 6s.  

A lot of what Daniel writes about the marketplace, tech journalism, and paid studies seem right on the money, but his inability to see any flaws in Apple whatsoever destroys his credibility. 

Daniel often comes back around on a subject a couple years later to provide historical perspective.  As for not seeing Apple’s flaws, I’d say this article provides ample examples that illustrate that many others (Verge, et al) often see too many flaws; flaws that aren’t there.  I can sympathize with Daniel; in my own 26 year career in the software business in every role from tech support up to designer to VP Prod Dev and company cofounder, it became a tired refrain, “I hate being correct about something two years before everyone agrees.”  Those of us who design the stuff often grok it long before the pundits and prognosticators.  

DavidAlGregory said:

I am an Apple shareholder since about the time of the OS X Public Beta- well before the bandwagon- and would not shell out $1,000 for a cell phone if Steve Jobs arose from the grave and hand delivered it to me.

It is a phone, people. A nice phone, but not worth $1,000. Back when I was buying my first Apple stock that would buy you an iMac.

Not trying to be a troll, but I consider a $1,000 phone to be an IQ test. If you buy it, you lose.

How is it a $1000 phone?  That would be the price if it we’re an Android. You’d pay out $1000, use it for two years and it’d be worth nothing.  But this is an iPhone.  You shell out $1000, use it for three years and then sell it for maybe $400.  Total cost of ownership: $600, $200/year for a great user experience versus constantly futzing with a finicky Android.  

Apple is a platform building monster.  They treat everything as a platform, initially closed for internal use but eventually opened in intelligent and controlled ways to leverage their developer community, which ultimately cements the platform as an integral part of an interconnected and growing ecosystem.

MacOS

iOS

iOS+ (on iPad)

CarPlay

Siri

ApplePay

Watch OS

TVOS

Apple Music

Maps

HomeKit

HealthKit

Metal

Airplay

Machine Learning

AFS (Apple File System)

ARKit

NFC