tht
About
- Username
- tht
- Joined
- Visits
- 195
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 8,028
- Badges
- 1
- Posts
- 6,023
Reactions
-
Apple's 'carbon neutral' claims are misleading, say EU groups
Apple explicitly stated that they are taking the emissions from charging into account for the carbon neutral Apple Watches. It was stated in their September event, and it is in their product emissions report.22july2013 said:
That's a very smart point, but how do we know Apple is taking those things into consideration when they make their claims?rivertrip said:Carbon neutral manufacturing, data centers, and offices aren't the biggest challenge if a company wants to be carbon neutral. To actually be carbon neutral, a company must also account for the carbon generated by use of the products it makes. This is easy to see when looking at oil companies, but it also applies to manufacturers like Apple.I showed a plot from their report upthread.This point is not worth talking about for the Watch. It’s basically noise. Simple math: 5 yr x 365 days/yr x 1 WHr/day = 1.8 kWHr.
That’s about 1 days worth of energy usage from a refrigerator spread across 5 years. You may be able save this energy usage by unplugging your iPhone 5W power adaptor while it is not in use.If you look at Apple’s charts/report, the energy used to manufacture it is about 80% of its carbon footprint. The other 17% is materials and transport. Sourcing carbon-free energy for manufacturing is by far the most effective thing to do to reduce carbon footprint.The best thing to do reduce carbon footprint is really making the energy grid and transportation carbon free. That’s 80% of carbon emissions. Apple really should have a carbon credit fund to electrify school buses, put solar+battery on schools, etc. This guarantees less emissions. This and direct air capture.
-
Apple's 'carbon neutral' claims are misleading, say EU groups
Apple has reports on the carbon emissions of all their products. For the carbon neutral Apple Watch Ultra 2, this is from its environmental footprint report:
So, for every Apple Watch Ultra 2, with the Alpine Loop, Apple is "removing" 12 kg of CO2 (Trail Loop is 11 kg) from the atmosphere by restoring and maintaining forests: "Located in Brazil and Paraguay, Apple’s three initial investments with Conservation International and Goldman Sachs aim to restore 150,000 acres of sustainably certified working forests and protect an additional 100,000 acres of native forests, grasslands, and wetlands. Together, these projects are forecast to remove 1 million metric tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere per year by 2025."
80% of the carbon neutral claim, versus the baseline of just using existing processes, is done simply by sourcing renewable/clean energy for the manufacturing of the product. Another 10% is nicked at by recycling and using boats instead of airplanes for transportation. The last 10% is done with carbon offsets.
The biggest inherent risk with what Apple is doing with forests, wetlands, etc, in Brazil, Paraguay, and I think they said Kenya (?) is that governments change. A new government in Brazil could simply change laws and burn down these areas. They will literally need to have rangers patrolling and possibly killing farmers who want to burn it down. So, there is an inherent level of trust in the permanency of these areas when using carbon credits, which is typically a bad idea. Also, there is no such thing as permanency with global warming. These areas have to be selected to survive the rigors of global warming. Those areas may become too hot and dry to sustain a forest, etc.
The carbon credit needs to last about 50, maybe 100, years. So, not permanent per se, just long enough. By 50 years, direct air capture will be mature, or other processes for removing CO2 from the atmosphere, so these types of carbon credit systems will fade away in favor of more deterministic methods.
-
Updated 24-inch iMac expected in 2024, 32-inch iMac in 2025
My point still stands. Did you see what was in that $1800 iMac 5K base model? It's only a little more expensive set of components than the A13 system in the current 27" $1600 ASD. It had 8 GB RAM and 256 GB of storage using really cheap CPU and GPU options.9secondkox2 said:tht said:
Apple, arguably, used all those savings from not paying Intel's profit margins, to put more stuff into their computers. To me, they put that budget into displays, batteries and speakers. My general sense is that Apple laptops seem to have larger battery capacities than competitor products, more speakers, and those 254 ppi miniLEDs are very very good. I could be wrong about the batteries, as it really stems from reading lots of laptop reviews, and who knows how good my memory is these days.9secondkox2 said:
When looking to the future, look to the past.tht said:Curious how they are going drive down the price on an iMac with a 32" miniLED.
ProDisplay XDR is $5000. Mac Studio base model is $2000. Hard to believe this thing will start at $7000. The ProDisplay XDR is an early version of a miniLED with only 656 FALD zones or so. If it is like the iPP12.9 or MBP14/16, it could have 40,000 zones. Imagine four MBP16 displays fused into one. Sounds expensive.
Even a regular 32" 6K LCD monitor is probably $3000, if it is available.
The iMac 24 also needs to have a base model at $1000.
when the iMac 5k came out, a 27” monitor was pretty big. And 5k did not exist. 4K was costly and yet Apple came out with a 5k monitor. Not only thst, but they had to invent new internal connectors to drive all those pixels as there was no standard way at the time. Apple was offering the 5k at launch with a novel display for an absolute steal.The XDR and Mac Studio/studio display are huge profit margin padding machines. There is no reason a 32” iMac won’t be a good deal unless apple simply chooses to continue to gouge. And that may be the case. The strategy could be - discontinue iMac at a fair price snd introduce the studio combo for a high price for long enough that customers forget about the great deal the iMac was. Then reintroduce the iMac at a high price. Hoping against hope that such is not the case. It just depends on what apple wants to do.Funny… back when apple silicon was just a rumor, everyone was talking about how much more affordable macs would be. Nope. Quite the opposite.Hopefully the return of the iMac heralds the return of decent pricing once again. There is nothing stopping that from happening.
Laptops and external display OLEDs haven't quite ridden the mass production of economies of scale just quite yet. Especially robust ones that can last 8 to 10 years. Maybe by 2024. And, Apple is the only one shipping miniLEDs in millions of units. My sense is miniLEDs cost 1.5x to 2x as much as regular LCD displays at the same ppi, and don't get the benefit of the rest of the market shipping more millions. Perhaps it is a chicken or egg problem, but there are reasons why there are very few PC OEMs using miniLEDs like Apple's. Cost has to be a big factor. Seems not paying Intel gives them an advantage there.
Anyways, regarding that 27" 5K display in the iMac 5K. It's been 10 years. The cheapest one you can get is the LG UF 27" 5K at still has $1300 MSRP after 6+ years, while Samsung's 27" 5K Viewfinity S9 has an MSRP of $1600. This are just regular 220 ppi LCDs with edge-lit monolithic back lights. There is some bigger gross margins in this LG and Samsung monitor prices, but they aren't miniLEDs either.
What's a 32" 220 ppi miniLED with 40k zones going to cost, then? It is both larger and use more advanced display tech and is less mass produced than these 27" 5K displays. Really can't see how such a display can be anything less than $3000? Maybe? An M3/4 Pro Mac mini base system would cost $1500?
So, it seems to me that a miniLED 32" 220 ppi (6K) iMac is going to have a very 2017 iMac Pro like price of $4500 to $5000. If it was a 27" 5K LCD, I can see base model prices starting at $3000.
Perhaps you can think of it this way. A MBP16 base model price is $2500. Now think of how much 3 more of those 16" miniLED displays is going to cost. $500 per 16" display? That would make it $4000. The issue with that is Apple sells 10s of millions of 16" miniLED. A 32" miniLED, would it even be a million across its lifetime? That means more expensive.I’d give you your point…Except we aren’t talking laptops (which now indeed do have phenomenal screens). We are talking imac, which is the desktop category.And no, Apple hasn’t put money in the iMac screens, thr Pro Display xdr (which is unchanged) or the Studio display. That latter is an easy cash grab for apple.And your point about a base 27” 5k iMac needing a $3000 start… when the brand new 27” iMac 5k was under $2000 is laughable. Especially considering that 5k screen was novel tech. Not the old hat it is now.
There's a bit of nuance, or perhaps a blaring detail, about Intel iMacs. Intel systems can be dirt cheap. Like $300 worth of parts cheap for CPU, RAM, and storage. That's what Apple put in their base model iMacs.
If you say Apple is going ship an iMac 27" 5K with M2, 8 GB RAM and 256 GB storage for $1800. I'd definitely say that it is possible. I don't think Apple is going to do that. I don't anyone should get it either.
If it is an M2 Pro, 16 GB RAM, and 512 GB of storage in an iMac 5K, it would be $3000. This would just be putting the $1300 M2 Pro Mac mini configuration, at $1300, into a ASD at $1600. That M2 Pro is binned too. The full M2 Pro Mac mini is a $300 upgrade option.
-
Updated 24-inch iMac expected in 2024, 32-inch iMac in 2025
Curious how they are going drive down the price on an iMac with a 32" miniLED.
ProDisplay XDR is $5000. Mac Studio base model is $2000. Hard to believe this thing will start at $7000. The ProDisplay XDR is an early version of a miniLED with only 656 FALD zones or so. If it is like the iPP12.9 or MBP14/16, it could have 40,000 zones. Imagine four MBP16 displays fused into one. Sounds expensive.
Even a regular 32" 6K LCD monitor is probably $3000, if it is available.
The iMac 24 also needs to have a base model at $1000. -
Apple's climate change efforts far exceed rivals, says environmental report
No, you were misinformed. Fossil fuel waste is about 3 orders of magnitude more than renewables, at least. That's not 3x, that's 1000x more. Here is an example comparing coal ash waste to solar panel waste for the next 30 years.hexclock said:
Perhaps you are not aware of the enormous increase in mining we will need in order to live the renewable energy dream, and the environmental toll it will take, along with the problem of disposing of all these spent batteries, solar panels, and turbine blades in the future.chasm said:I like technology companies (and their suppliers) that work to make sure the planet is still livable for me and future generations.It’s just not as cut and dried as they make it seem.
The biggest issue is not shown. If it is was just solid waste, people would just deal with it. But burning fossil fuels releases CO2 into the atmosphere and that will cause the atmosphere to heat up. That heat will transfer to the oceans, lakes and land and heat them up. If we continue on a path of burning fossil fuels, it will threaten our current cultures and political states, and there is a possibility of threatening humanity itself.
Also not shown as that wind turbines and solar panels will increasing become recyclable. A lot of municipal waste is compostable and will degrade. The e-waste can be mined. Even the plastic has a chance of being composted and degraded properly, but coal ash? It's just going to sit there, lifeless, waiting on the toxicity and radioactive chemicals to leech and dilute into the surrounding environment. CO2 in the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels? The worst part. Those are thousand year problems without human treatment of some kind.
Batteries will be recycled. PV panels will be recycled. Carbon-fiber wind turbine blades are inert solid waste, but even with that, there will eventually be ways to recycle them.
Really, renewables is a gigantic improvement over fossil fuels, especially solar+PV. The waste is solid, most of the product can be recycled, and just not having the gaseous and solid waste from fossil fuels will be a big boon for public health and the vitality of society.
