Apple is back on EPEAT

http://www.apple.com/environment/letter-to-customers/

by kellysutton • 14 years ago

157 169 14 years ago

apple.com

younata2• 14 years ago

The retina macbook is rated EPEAT gold.

http://www.apple.com/macbook-pro/specs/

glhaynes2• 14 years ago

Interesting! Unless I'm misunderstanding a subtlety here, the common wisdom seemed to be that the retina MacBook's glue made it ineligible to get EPEAT certification and, since that style of design is obviously Apple's future direction, they pulled their EPEAT participation now.

younata2• 14 years ago

That's actually the first thing I checked once I saw the press release. It mentions that they're putting EPEAT Gold certification on their eligible products, and I'm curious if ineligible products means some of the accessories they sell, and that all their computers meet EPEAT gold.

cube13• 14 years ago

It means one of two different things:

Either Apple has changed the glue used in the retina MBP's to go in-line with EPEAT's certification, or the glue was not rated by EPEAT, which would cause them to not certify it in the first place, but it did satisfy the other requirements, so Apple was able to force the certification through.

mkaltenecker14• 14 years ago

I think many people misunderstand where the glue is in the Retina MacBook Pro. They say things like “The display is glued to the case.” which is wrong.

The display assembly (the actual screen where the lights shine true) is glued together. I’m not sure but I think that part of the display is always pretty tightly integrated, probably even glued together. (I tried to find information on that and I would be very glad if someone could point me to resources about how laptop displays are usually built.)

The difference with Apple’s design (as far as I understand it) is that the frontmost layer of that assembly is also the front glass of the screen. Other laptops with glass in front of the screen put an extra layer of glass in front of the display assembly. The Retina MacBook Pro doesn’t have that extra glass. (My understanding – but please correct me if I’m wrong, I’m really not sure and I would like to know more – is that old displays had a sort of plastic outer layer, now Apple uses a glass outer layer. But that’s not that a big deal, as far as I know, since on the inside all LCDs use glass substrate also – so it’s not as if Apple introduced glass into the display assembly, some was always there, they just added more. But maybe I’m wrong about that.)

That display assembly is screwed – not glued – to the case. Behind it are the LEDs and light diffusers.

Here is a teardown of the display: http://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/MacBook-Pro-15-Inch-Retina-Di...

The battery is glued to the case - but it seems to that it is eminently removable with the application of some force. If you don’t care about breaking the laptop (since you want to recycle it) that should be no big deal. I mean, Apple replaces the battery for $200, no questions asked. I don’t think they replace the whole Retina MacBook Pro every time they do that, so they must remove the glued-in battery, and that inside a working laptop. If Apple can do it, so can you (especially with a laptop that’s beyond repair).

bcrescimanno2• 14 years ago

Read the fine print; it says, "Macbook Pro was rated EPEAT gold." Everywhere else, the Retina Macbook Pro is referred to as "Macbook Pro with Retina Display." They are separate products; and, I'm guessing the EPEAT gold rating does not apply to the Retina MBP (though, if someone can show otherwise, that'd be great).

glhaynes2• 14 years ago

Their environmental report for the MacBook Pro with Retina Display (PDF: http://images.apple.com/environment/reports/docs/macbookpro_...) specifically says it "Achieves a Gold rating from EPEAT".

derwildemomo• 14 years ago

"I recognize that this was a mistake." strikes me as a very un-appleish communication style.

alpine3• 14 years ago

I agree. Worryingly, it could be evidence of a move away from traditional Steve values, ie don't back down (straight away), don't apologise, don't explain. Alternatively, it could be Apple realise they made a huge mistake, were about to see immense damage to the brand and/or sales, so have taken the drastic, ajobsian action they think is required.

jack-r-abbit• 14 years ago

Recognizing a huge mistake is one thing. It was the publicly admitting it that is un-Apple. They could have just silently stayed the course for awhile before announcing they had changed they're mind.

jpxxx3• 14 years ago

Those aren't values, they're PR techniques. This whole non-event is made entirely out of image vapor and really shouldn't be hard to handle.

They've got a top-notch environmental story regardless of what sticker is on what webpage. They're clearly trying in their designs to use less toxic materials. They're clearly working on energy efficiency. They buy back almost any old equipment. They recycle any old equipment for free, including free shipping for chrissakes. And they're swearing up and down they're not just binning their recyclables and washing their hands as it ships off.

masukomi• 14 years ago

it should be noted that they didn't explain. They left. They came back. They apologized. They never explained.

mkaltenecker14• 14 years ago

Think Atennagate. It’s pretty similar.

I’m also not sure why you are worried about that. Not everything Steve did was gold. Some of the things he did were pretty toxic, and I think being unable to really admit you were wrong in public is one of those things.

If this is indeed a change in that direction (and I somewhat doubt it is) it is to me unquestionably a positive one.

isleyaardvark• 14 years ago

Here's Jobs himself regarding MobileMe: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPMjqXa5QLc#t=41s

I don't know if you'd consider that an apology per se, but it's definitely him admitting mistakes.

rickmb• 14 years ago

Am I the only one who thinks that even though it made for a nice source of anecdotes and mystique, this part of Jobs' influence on Apple was actually not particularly relevant to Apple's success? Not everything he did was perfect.

I know some may consider it blasphemy, but I'm hoping certain aspects of Apple will improve now Jobs is gone, especially in the realm of open and honest communication.

mikeash2• 14 years ago

I think it may be a shift, but not a worrying one. Those particular traditional Steve values were not the good ones. Until and unless they show a trend away from Steve's good values (e.g. good taste, favoring customer experience in engineering compromises, willingness to compete with their own products when necessary), I think this is a good thing.

gnaffle6• 14 years ago

I wouldn't worry about it. Actually, I'd worry more if Apple didn't change at all after Steves departure, since that would be a sign that they were afraid of thinking for themselves. I don't think Apples success is dependent on being a dick, and I hope they more towards opening up things (like the Gatekeeper certificates on OSX).

jsz0• 14 years ago

In the post-Jobs era I think we'll see more of this. Jobs was the face of Apple and he can't be replaced in that role. Going forward the best they can do is put other faces out there and let them be authentic and true to themselves in the process. Even when Jobs was being a huge jerk you could at least appreciate he was being authentic. People appreciate authenticity.

hollerith2• 14 years ago

One datapoint:

Almost all power cords and extension cords in the US contain lead: the lead is added to the plastic part of the cord when the plastic is still "molten" and its purpose is to make the plastic less flammable.

Although I did not do a chemical assay on it or anything, I am pretty sure that the power cord Apple included with my 2011 Mac mini contains no lead. (The cord has a different, more rubbery feel to it that strongly suggests a completely different material, and I might have seen a claim to that effect somewhere on the web.)

mkaltenecker14• 14 years ago

I’m thinking about whether this is an atypical reaction by Apple and I think it’s not but I’m not sure.

The pattern is typical – more or less. Some criticism appears. Apple is dead silent for a few days. Apple has a comprehensive response to the criticism. (Alternative that also happens frequently: Apple doesn’t ever mention the criticism.) That’s what used to happen in the past, that’s what nearly happened here.

The difference is that they responded with a different message pretty quickly after the criticism (arguing that EPAT isn’t such a great certification) so it’s not true that they staid completely silent.

When it comes to the message itself, I don’t think it’s that atypical. Apple rarely responds to criticism, so there are few situations we can use to compare. It’s not as big a deal as Atennagate – so they picked a less involved way to respond (basically a press release instead of a press conference) – but in every other respect it’s pretty similar.

This time there is a clearer Mea Culpa but the undertone is still that EPAT is a bad certification. (During the Antennagate press conference the undertone was that it’s not really that big of a deal – and it was a much more obvious undertone.) The tradition of Apple execs writing letters is also continued.

I would only say that Steve’s letters tended to be more about presenting arguments. That has certainly something to do with the different purposes (explain why DRM/Flash are bad vs. admit that you were wrong and reverse direction) but I still would have preferred if Bob Mansfield had explained more of Apple’s reasoning.

ajross• 14 years ago

Are you sure you aren't too far into the tea leaves here? Swap out the specifics in what you wrote and it could describe basically any corporate PR organization. Not everything has to be a what-would-the-dead-guy-have-done-differently kind of analysis. They goofed. They thought the market didn't care about EPEAT. It did. They flipped. Yawn.

mkaltenecker14• 14 years ago

Hm, I think you have a point. I’m reading tea leaves. I still think that’s an interesting point to ponder, even if the results are probably highly subjective and very much open to interpretation.

st3fan• 14 years ago

"Apple is dead silent for a few days." - Why is this special or even worth mentioning? You expect a multi-billion dollar company with 20K employees to discuss something like that happily in a public forum or so?

mkaltenecker14• 14 years ago

You would think it’s not special or worth mentioning, wouldn’t you, but it actually kind of is. Many companies respond to a crisis with very confused initial communication before they get their shit together and can internally agree on a message and strategy.

Apple has been pretty consistent in being able to just stay silent until they really have something to say. (I think that has more to do with their general lack of chattiness than anything else, though.)

gnaffle6• 14 years ago

Most companies have "damage control" (PR) departments that move very quickly to respond to and contain any criticism before a story explodes.

earl• 14 years ago

I wonder if this was due to criticism, or cities and companies that have epeat requirements for purchasing.

   San Francisco officials told the Journal this week that "they are moving to 
   block purchases of Apple desktops and laptops, by all municipal agencies" 
   due to a 2007 policy that requires all desktops, laptops, and monitors 
   procured with city funds be EPEAT-certified. [1]

and

   In 2007, President George W. Bush issued an executive order mandating that 
   all federal agencies procure EPEAT-registered electronic products "for at 
   least 95 percent of electronic product acquisitions, unless there is no 
   EPEAT standard for the product," as outlined by the EPA. [1]

A lack of epeat bugs me, but I don't spend millions or tens of millions of dollars a year on computers.

[1] http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2406948,00.asp

mkaltenecker14• 14 years ago

Hm, I tend to think Apple (or any company, really) is clever enough to foresee the obvious consequences of policy changes.

This is one of those. Apple knew that certain government agencies are required to purchase only EPEAT certified hardware. They knew they would lose that business. And they nevertheless decided for the change, knowing that consequence.

That leads me to think that Apple changed direction because of other consequences they did not expect and (apparently) could not predict, in this case the public outrage.

ralfd• 14 years ago

John Gruber wrote on his blog that all federal US agencies require EPEAT for computer purchases. While government business is probably not that crucial for Apple, it was still stupid to withdraw all products from registration and explains the reversal of that decision.

mkaltenecker14• 14 years ago

But Apple knew about the consequence beforehand. It’s easy to predict. (I would expect that even companies which are not all that competent can foresee something simple like that.) I really doubt that’s the reason.

swilliams• 14 years ago

One interesting thing to note is that this is from Bob Mansfield, and not Tim Cook. When Jobs was CEO, I don't remember a subordinate ever releasing something like this.

smackfu• 14 years ago

They announced his retirement a few weeks ago too.

http://www.macrumors.com/2012/06/28/svp-of-hardware-engineer...

mtgx• 14 years ago

But does this mean their products will now be more recyclable and whatnot? Or it just means they put their EPEAT badge on the site again, although their new devices are still not as compliant as they used to be before?

PedroCandeias2• 14 years ago

I don't think their products changed much in a couple of days. Some are still EPEAT compliant, some are not, just like last week.

sigzero• 14 years ago

Though the last paragraph is interesting that there relationship is now "stronger". I wonder if Apple was just using this to say "See, it needs updating."

Who knows....not I.

crusso• 14 years ago

Was Apple able to re-categorize the compliance issues as misunderstandings? Did Apple agree to make product modifications or agree to follow standards in future designs? Or did Apple coerce EPEAT to just change their ratings?

dannyr2• 14 years ago

When Apple decided to leave EPEAT, Apple Apologists/Fanboys said it's because EPEAT is outdated.

I wonder how they are going to spin this one.

jfoutz• 14 years ago

Lots of ways, but you'll only remember the one that fits your worldview.

adrr2• 14 years ago

Apple fanatics have similar brain patterns to religious people. No amount of logic and reason will sway them. I recently had discussion with a bartender who was asking about my rubber case that was on my iphone. He didn't like it because it didn't have a cut out for the apple symbol to show through. I asked him why does it matter and he replied "i want people to know i use apple products because it represents who i am". Criticizing Apple would be the same as criticizing them in their minds.

Article on brain scans http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/apple-causes-religiou...

ceejayoz3• 14 years ago

> Apple fanatics have similar brain patterns to religious people.

Any fanatic does. Find someone passionate about Android, or model railroading, or knitting, and they'll show up the same way in a brain scan.

If you think Apple is unique in having over-the-top fans, that may be a sign that you're some sort of a fanatic yourself.

moron2• 14 years ago

And people who like to throw around the word "fanboy" said it was because Apple is contemptuous of everyone but themselves and don't care about the environment at all.

I wonder the same thing about them.

dannyr2• 14 years ago

I make a distinction between Apple Fans & "Fanboys".

I have no problem with Apple Fans.

I dislike Fanboys whether they are for Google, Apple or Microsoft.

georgespencer• 14 years ago

"[Brand] Apologist" and "[Brand] Fanboy" are the kind of ridiculous, loaded terms which shouldn't appear anywhere on a site like HN. When people praise Apple it's not because they're fanboys. When people criticise Apple it's not because they hate everything Apple does with a passion.

EPEAT is outdated. Horribly outdated. By EPEAT's own admission.

Apple made a mistake by opting out of it rather than working with EPEAT to try to improve it. I think that's what they are doing now.

mun2mun• 14 years ago

So you are saying that putting a laptop in a shredder after removing the toxic battery easily is an outdated recycling practice?

recursive4• 14 years ago

What a coincidence! It just so happens that EPEAT is now relevant again!

sambe• 14 years ago

The entire thrust of their response - perhaps even half of the text - is that EPEAT remains outdated. So not really, no.

hell0_th3r3• 14 years ago

geez apple, get it together. i was mildly impressed by tim cook when he took over, but now i'm getting the impression that he is apple's steve ballmer. this was a ridiculous and trivially preventable gaff.

digitalengineer• 14 years ago

"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"

Reads to me like EPEAT is moving (a bit) in Apple's direction with the new future IEEE-standards.

droithomme• 14 years ago

"All eligible products" is a key, the new iPad with its glued in battery is not among them.

The "more efficient and longer lasting" case materials he brags about are irrelevant in their disposable products made of low quality components that are not user serviceable or upgradable.

It's like bragging you made your automobile frame out of solid titanium with a carbon fiber shell, but ignoring the fact that you built the engine without any way to change the oil, so you're going to be throwing it out or sending it in for major costly service after a short time. Such planned obsolescent designs are certainly not environmentally sound, and claims of the longevity and strength of the frame materials, and even of certifications, are just PR to distract and hypnotize the marketplace into believing the opposite of the reality of the situation.

leberwurstsaft• 14 years ago

Tablets are not rated by EPEAT.

wtallis3• 14 years ago

I think that's the number one thing people have been overlooking in this scandal: EPEAT is behind the times by not even offering relevant standards for Apple's most important product segments.

mkaltenecker14• 14 years ago

I’m not sure, I think laptops have become longer lasting, more appliance like. I think that’s a very positive thing for the majority of people.

The only big issue I see is the battery which will definitely break. Those things have a limited lifetime (shorter than, say, five years you at least would want your laptop to make it) and there is nothing you can change about that.

pooriaazimi3• 14 years ago

Not being user-servicable does not mean it's disposable. You can take it to Apple Stores and they'll fix it for you (and they certainly don't tuck the entire thing in the trash, they probably have some complex machines (that not everyone has) that are able to de-glue screen/battery and case).

It's a compromise most regular customers will probably accept.

And I don't get ""disposable products made of low quality components"" at all. Low quality?!

kalleboo5• 14 years ago

But you can't upgrade them. I just added 4 GB of RAM and an SSD to my mom's 4-year-old MBP, ensuring it'll last another 3-4 years. 2 GB RAM and a 5400rpm drive just wasn't cutting it anymore. Several of my friends extended the lives of their MacBooks by replacing the DVD with a secondary SSD.

Apple's new generation design of Macs have soldered-in RAM and a proprietary disk. Will we be able to upgrade them in 4 years?

edit: Imagine if you could upgrade the RAM in an iPad. I could still have used my original iPad now instead of it being junk.

recursive4• 14 years ago

Fantastic. Just a 5 hour round-trip to my nearest apple store. Why would I want to service it when I have access to that level of convenience?

lloeki• 14 years ago

> that are not user serviceable or upgradable.

The Retina MacBook Pro is rated gold EPEAT, despite criticism regarding the glue used.

I seem to remember some components were glued in early versions of some iPhones/iPads, but were later silently updated to have no glue.

gnaffle6• 14 years ago

Actually, it's not glued with epoxy resin or something like that. The iFixit teardown shows them removing it with a spudger. Hardly a difficult job for recyclers.

Online parts shops are already selling replacement batteries and can even replace it for you if you don't want to send it to Apple. That's the reality of the situation, if you care to do some research.

I've replaced the battery on an iPhone 3GS (also glued in) and it's not a big deal.

mathieuh2• 14 years ago

IIRC the problem is that there has to be absolutely no glue present for them to be able to recycle it. Even if they can just pry the batteries out, they need to be free of glue entirely.

ary2• 14 years ago

The user serviceability argument is tired. The readers of HN are disproportionally more willing and eager to service their own tech than the overall population. The only group this really isn't good for is the third-party repair companies.

Apple has made it clear they want a tight relationship with the customer at every step of the product experience. This is (from Apple's point of view) just strengthening that relationship.

rogerchucker4• 14 years ago

Tight relationship at every step of the product experience => almost forcing the customer for paying a fucking premium for every little service you need for a device you have already paid for and own. Too bad educated people on HN still justify that kind of BS.

novalis• 14 years ago

In this day and age I really don't see user serviceability for tired argument, it is a fact that lack of it is prejudicial and that is important to people both on and off HN. If it isn't there is something wrong.

I also don't understand how alienating the implications of how apple manages to get to this poor state of pissing on everyone and just going with shallow statements like this, erodes to: "The only group this really isn't good for is the third-party repair companies.". That is really past the point of this whitewash of a public relations exercise and a further non important apologetic unrelated point by itself.

You responded to a poster that takes the spin out of the statement and all you have is; you don't care it isn't done properly. You don't mind glued batts, say it. Let us not further this pathetic marketing spinfest. That, is very tiring and at this point really see through when it comes to speaking about apple like if any negative view on this brand is to be squashed by people that never even seen a spinning beachball while waiting for their computer to catch up... please.

jasomill• 14 years ago

Only if oil generally only needed to be replaced once or twice over the lifespan of a car, an oil change was traditionally so easy and convenient that most customers did it themselves, and the "expensive repair", in absolute terms, was only slightly more expensive than the retail price of oil change parts and supplies for otherwise comparable cars.

So no, not really.

raganesh• 14 years ago

"All eligible products" - in terms of product categories that EPEAT covers.

EPEAT registry does not yet include certifications for smartphones or tablets.

Tloewald• 14 years ago

I'm sure there were plenty of people who bemoaned integrated circuits being less repairable than circuit boards, and then ASICS for being less repairable than single purpose DIPs. We really need to build everything out of wood, I guess.

batista7• 14 years ago

>"All eligible products" is a key, the new iPad with its glued in battery is not among them.

True, but OTOH, then can't go back in time and change it's design now that they decided to go back with EPEAT, can they?

>It's like bragging you made your automobile frame out of solid titanium with a carbon fiber shell, but ignoring the fact that you built the engine without any way to change the oil, so you're going to be throwing it out or sending it in for major costly service after a short time

Yes, if we ignore the fact that for the analogy to work:

1) Most people would not ever have the oil in their cars changed.

2) The car runs fine without an oil change for as many --or even more-- years as others cars that do permit oil change.

Buying a MBP Retina now, with Apple warranty repairs and/or Apple Care, you get as many years as you would use any Dell or IBM or other laptop.

Maybe some people would like to update RAM and HD and use them for 1-2 more years, but how many are those people? Judging from the giant success of Apple retail stores and the relative obscurity of iFixit and such sites/services, not that many.

unreal37• 14 years ago

"Apple makes the most environmentally responsible products in our industry."

How is this possibly true? Nothing Apple makes can be easily opened, upgraded, or have their batteries replaced. They are made to be obsolete in 2-3 years.

When my iPad screen cracked, they made me buy a new one (at discount) instead of fixing it. I doubt they even fixed the old one I gave to them - just discarded it. How is that environmentally friendly?

I own almost everything Apple makes. But they need to better explain how built-in obsolescence and impossible-to-fix devices equates to environmentally friendly.

bluthru• 14 years ago

Apple products avoid plastic. They are not "made to be obsolete in 2-3 years".

>I doubt they even fixed the old one I gave to them

They do. It's sold as refurbished.

DigitalJack2• 14 years ago

No doubt the "new" one he got at a discount was a refurb as well. I had to exchange my 3gs due to a bad battery. The Apple guy brought out a white box 3gs as a replacement. I asked if it was new, and he got a little cryptic only saying it was in "like new condition."

objclxt• 14 years ago

Apple sell refurbished iPads, as well as Macs, online. They also use the broken units for reconditioned parts.

'Environmentally friendly' != 'easy to open'. There is a lot more to it than that.

gnaffle6• 14 years ago

They didn't make you do anything. You could have gone to a third party repair shop and bought a new screen (glass) for about $40 (first hit i found). If they had welded it together so there was no way to take it apart without destroying it, I'd agree with you. But that's not the case.

deveac• 14 years ago

"How is this possibly true? Nothing Apple makes can be easily opened, upgraded, or have their batteries replaced. "

It can be true if ease of opening and component swapping aren't the sole factors in determining the environmental impact of the devices.

"When my iPad screen cracked, they made me buy a new one (at discount) instead of fixing it. I doubt they even fixed the old one I gave to them - just discarded it. "

It was probably refurbished. Someone else is likely using it now. Though neither of us know for sure. At any rate, Apple's policy is to refurbish and resell damaged devices when possible, and they sell refurbished products directly in their online store.

"I own almost everything Apple makes. But they need to better explain how built-in obsolescence and impossible-to-fix devices equates to environmentally friendly."

Here is data from their website on your iPad, for example:

http://images.apple.com/environment/reports/docs/iPad2_Produ...

More here:

http://www.apple.com/environment/reports/

As far as them needing to explain how the factors you mentioned equate to being environmentally friendly, I think that that need rests on your assumption that those two factors are the most important ones. The fact that Apple is probably the biggest reseller of refurbished devices speaks to that point, but again, that question is so complex. An economist could probably write an award winning dissertation just trying to answer it.

jpxxx3• 14 years ago

Every consumable can be replaced - just not necessarily by you. Every structural component can be replaced and installed according to manufacturer recommendations - just not necessarily by you. Replacement parts are available for a seven year window - just not necessarily sold directly to you.

therandomguy• 14 years ago

The products I use the longest are from Apple.

obituary_latte• 14 years ago

I have to agree.

I recently upgraded to a new tower after my old one worked dutifully (running ~95% of the time) for 7 years. And it still works OK; the videocard sometimes takes a few minutes to kick on both monitors, and the latest software/OS is sluggish on the older hardware, but otherwise it's fine.

I foresee it running headless for years to come. Perhaps running an older OS or another OS--but running nonetheless. Come to think of it, it will definitely be an older or other OS as it's one of the ones that isn't upgradable to Mountain Lion :P

mikeash2• 14 years ago

Apple's answer to obsolescence is to make their stuff good enough that it doesn't need to be upgraded continually throughout its lifetime in order to remain competitive. I'm pretty sure you'll get more use out of a sealed, non-upgradeable MacBook than you'll get out of most other similar alternatives.

As for your iPad screen, it seems rather unfair to criticize a company by imagining the worst case outcome and then imagining that's what they did. It's pretty common to give customers refurbished replacements, then take back their old broken stuff, refurbish them, and give that out to the next customer who needs a replacement. This way customers are insulated from the annoyingly-long repair times, but they can still reuse repairable equipment. There's no reason to think Apple just tossed your old iPad in the trash.

wtallis3• 14 years ago

Pretty much everything Apple makes is obsolete within a year, but that's not due to Apple's design choices, it's due to technological progress. What you're trying to say is that Apple's products are garbage in 2-3 years, but that's obviously not true - other than batteries (which to my knowledge can all be replaced for a fee at the very least), all Apple products can be expected to have useful lifetimes in excess of 5 years.

As for your cracked iPad screen, just because Apple may not have refurbished it in the way you think they should have does not mean it ended up in a landfill. It's quite possible that it's cheaper for them to recycle the case and logic board than to re-validate the machine after putting a new screen on it.

bdcravens7• 14 years ago

I don't know of a single product Apple makes that's obsolete in a year: obsolete doesn't mean "doesn't have latest and greatest features". 3GS phones run pretty much all the apps a 4S runs; ditto on the original iPad compared to a new one.

ceejayoz3• 14 years ago

> How is this possibly true? Nothing Apple makes can be easily opened, upgraded, or have their batteries replaced. They are made to be obsolete in 2-3 years.

There are lots of facets to environmental friendliness.

Making everything out of aluminum and glass instead of hydrocarbon-based plastic, for example, or making higher quality devices that have a longer useful life than cheaply made ones.

bdcravens7• 14 years ago

"Nothing"? I assume you're referring to phones and tablets. You do remember that Apple makes more than iPhones and iPads, right?

Despite the attention the new rMBP gets, they are still selling iMacs, Mac Minis, and MBPs that are easily upgraded.

bdcravens7• 14 years ago

Obsolete in 2-3 years? No, those would be Android devices, where a phone 12 months old often can't run or doesn't have an upgraded version of Android OS. However, the iPhone 3GS, released 3+ years ago, will run iOS 6.

rabidonrails• 14 years ago

I'm a bit thrown by the overall tone of this announcement. I'll totally on board that Apple is doing its best to make "green" products and, apparently they're leading the way - great!

But if it's all true, why did they pull the products from EPEAT at all?

tscrib• 14 years ago

Glad to see that Apple is listening to customer feedback and acting on it.

abcd_f• 14 years ago

> Signed Bob

A middle finger, the Apple way.

schiffern• 14 years ago

Things that everyone seems to be forgetting

* Apple makes thin, light, durable products. Reduce > Recycle.

* Raw materials are a small amount of the embodied energy in electronics. The microchips themselves constitute many times the embodied energy. Again, reduce > recycle.

* As others have pointed out, Apple didn't do this because any of their newly-released products weren't eligible.

Putting it all together, Apple did this to send a message to EPEAT: "Disassembly isn't the end-all be-all of green." Looks like EPEAT caved.

guscost• 14 years ago

Well, I have less respect for Apple now, and still none for Greenpeace.

Apple is back on EPEAT

Related Stories