[Moogs]

http://www.macrumors.com/2012/07/07/...peat-registry/

This is a pretty lame move IMO. The obvious reason here is the trend being set by the MBP Retina, which can't be certified because it's not easy to disassemble. Seems likely they'll move all their computers in that direction now (causing them to lose certification), as I can't see any other reason for it really. It doesn't cost Apple much in relative terms to comply with these standards so it's not like it's hurting their bottom line. I see this as a cultural difference. Something Cook sees as practical (typical logistics guy) where Jobs would've seen it as an image-limiting move.

[Chinney]

That is pretty lame. I wonder if they will be able to actually do that on a standard basis though, given government/corporate requirements.

[billybobsky]

Industrial design allows them flexibility of (dis)-assembly. They are just taking the shortest routes possible now it seems and probably losing customers to boot. This combined with the fact that the retina MBPs actually seem like a botched introduction makes me worried that Cook isn't holding the reigns nearly as tightly as Jobs was...

[hmurchison]

I'm not surprised.

Eventually something like EPEAT is going to restrict what you can do in design. You may then wake up and realize that simply being EPEAT certified isn't really going to make an impact in the world and why go through the effort?

The Gov sales are probably trivial for Macs. Mobile is another story.

[Bonn89]

Originally Posted by billybobsky This combined with the fact that the retina MBPs actually seem like a botched introduction makes me worried that Cook isn't holding the reigns nearly as tightly as Jobs was...

And how, exactly, did they "botch" the introduction of the Retina MacBook Pro?

They introduced a new MacBook with a brand-new design, super fast flash storage, 2 Thunderbolt and 2 USB 3 ports, and a freakin' Retina Display, while making a computer that's even thinner and gets even better battery life than before, and had them ready to ship when announced with a completely Retina-graphic-optimized operating system and set of core apps.

How exactly is that a "botched" introduction?

[Moogs]

It's botched because there have been numerous reports of problems with the screen's performance including ghosting and sometimes sluggish display at higher resolutions. Also the shipping delays are pretty bad considering the demand. They should've released it a month later than they did (allowing stock to build up) and allow more people taking orders to get the machines quickly.

http://www.macrumors.com/2012/06/27/...play-ghosting/

I agree murch: I don't get the feeling Cook has the reigns the same way Jobs did. It's to be expected really. People like Jobs are very rare in the corporate world. Cook is not a technology thinker or visionary; he's a guy that finds efficient ways to run things. Consequently I think we're going to see a period of minor decline for Apple where the stocks dip a bit and the products aren't as touted, until they can find a balance between where they were with Jobs and where Cook is taking them.

[chucker]

This is rather off-topic, but the rMBP intro hasn't been completely smooth, either.

There's the issue of a transition period as apps and websites look poor. It's largely unavoidable, but not entirely: I'm sure they could have given much better "there'll be a piece of high-resolution Mac hardware in mid-2012" guidance to developers months ago. They said that they've worked with Adobe, but how about working with someone who can actually ship an update on time, at launch day? Weeks later, the Photoshop update, to my knowledge, still isn't there.

There's ghosting.

There's crashiness to the point of logging you out and back in entirely. Fun.

So, yes, hugely impressive machine, and in my opinion not a "botched" launch, but far from flawless either.

[Mugge]

It's going to be interesting to see how this one plays out. Greenpeace and the likeminded are likely to jump on this case and if not then somebody from the competition should be smart enough to pick up on it. How Apple chooses to respond to this should tell us something about Tim Cooks leadership.

One thing that is a little puzzling is that Apple has pulled all it's devices which makes me think Apple might be preparing to put some pressure on EPAT to change their standards in favour of Apple's new designs. I really don't think it matters wether Apple has some good arguments for such a change or not, from an environmental standpoint. The spin on this one is just wrong and if this really is the case then I think its going to bite them in the butt.

[drewprops]

A friend who hates Apple products posted this to his wall on Facebook, do the fanboy army is likely to be doing the same. Not good PR in the tech industry.


...

[Moogs]

Damn... that "crashiness" thread chucker linked to is pretty f-ed up. Inexcusable, really. Sounds like it's more issues with video drivers. I am so sick of Apple being treated like a second rate customer by AMD and Nvidia. It's not that expensive for your assholes to offer us a couple extra GPU options every year and write decent drivers! Worse than that Apple apparently didn't test things very well or they would've held release until ML.

[Dorian Gray]

Now San Francisco has declared it won't buy Apple products, since they're not in the EPEAT scheme.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by Dorian Gray Now San Francisco has declared it won't buy Apple products, since they're not in the EPEAT scheme.

Not surprising at all, but I am glad to see someone being vocal about it already. Many government agencies will only buy EPEAT products, and I'm sure San Fran is only the first of many to be put in this situation.

edit: And from that article:

The US Department of Defense, NASA, and Homeland Security all require EPEAT certification, as do the governments of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand for IT purchases.

Small potatoes, right? I wonder if Apple even cares or if they're playing the economics card and thinking that it doesn't matter since the consumer space is so much bigger.

[Dorian Gray]

Some more EPEAT purchasers, among them Kaiser Permanente (181,900 employees), Ford (164,000 employees), and KPMG (145,000 employees). That might add up to a fair bit, but presumably Apple has carefully considered the impact.

I don't know enough about this topic to know whether Apple has a good reason to withdraw EPEAT certification on new products (though I naturally have my doubts), but it's good to see some noise about this. Awareness is crucial to the success of market-driven initiatives for reducing our environmental footprint.

I think in fifty or a hundred years, when we're in deep environmental doodoo, it will seem incredible that we were so casual about these issues in the early 2000s.

[Chinney]

At the minimum Apple should announce and implement an alternative. If the issue is ease of disassembly with common tools rather than anything inherently unrecyclable about the content of Apple products (and I think that is likely the case), then Apple should simply commit to itself taking back and recycling all of its products. Actually, I have always thought that should be an Apple commitment.

Anyway, I don't discount the possibility that this move by Apple could also hurt them at the consumer level. While perhaps a good deal of the population do not really think of environmental impact, enough do to make a difference in sales and the creation of a general negative buzz could have a further adverse effect. It may influence my own future purchases away from Apple.

[pscates2.0]

Apple responds.

“Apple takes a comprehensive approach to measuring our environmental impact and all of our products meet the strictest energy efficiency standards backed by the US government, Energy Star 5.2,” she said. “We also lead the industry by reporting each product’s greenhouse gas emissions on our website, and Apple products are superior in other important environmental areas not measured by EPEAT, such as removal of toxic materials.” ... EPEAT's governing group, the Green Electronics Council, appointed [Robert] Frisbee to be the organization's first-ever CEO in March. At the time, EPEAT board member Christine Ervin admitted that EPEAT certification had become "a little long in the tooth" and Frisbee would be working to update them. Apple helped develop the EPEAT standard in its early days, but lately it has moved away from the group's requirements that products be easy to disassemble in the interest of recyclability.

[Xaqtly]

Yep. Much ado about nothing. I like how EPEAT is not going to buy Apple products because they don't have an EPEAT certification, even though Apple meets environmental standards that are stricter than EPEAT's. Makes EPEAT look kind of petty, don't you think?

[Mugge]

Hard for me to tell wether EPEAT or Apple is right on the facts. That will certainly require more investigation than I'm willing to put into it.

It's going to be more interesting to see how third parties react to this. Eg. Greenpeace's interests lie solely with the environment, and maybe a little towards generating publicity in favour of said environment, so their reaction will be telling. If they side with Apple or ignore this one, it probably means that EPEAT is indeed not the best yard stick anymore, but if they side with EPEAT then Apple is going to have a looser case on it's hands.

[Chinney]

Originally Posted by Xaqtly Yep. Much ado about nothing. I like how EPEAT is not going to buy Apple products because they don't have an EPEAT certification, even though Apple meets environmental standards that are stricter than EPEAT's. Makes EPEAT look kind of petty, don't you think?

But if if Apple does not meet the standard of ease of recyclability, then it does not meet environmental standards that are stricter than EPEAT's on that ground. And recyclability is important. It might be though that Apple would argue that their products are still as recyclable or more recyclable than those of other manufacturers if done with proper equipment, albeit not the tools EPEAT has in mind. That would be fair enough, especially if Apple had underscored that with a commitment to take back and recycle all its products or ensure that third-party recycling is in place. I did not see that in their response. Whether from a substantive perspective or from a communications perspective on the environment Apple has done itself no favours by simply withdrawing from EPEAT.

[Xaqtly]

Apple has, and has had for quite a while now, a full blown free, no questions asked recycling policy, they'll even take non-Apple products and recycle them for you. They will even send you a pre-paid shipping label to use to ship it to them, if you can't or don't want to go to an Apple store. This is what makes them compliant, I'm assuming.

http://www.apple.com/recycling/gift-card/

But mostly I was referring to the "backlash" on this issue where for example the city of San Francisco said they won't buy Macs if they're not EPEAT certified. It should be staggeringly obvious that Macs don't suddenly become more harmful to the environment the second they're not EPEAT certified. Apple has already stated their products exceed EPEAT's standards. Furthermore, they're going with Energy Star 5.2 which appears to be an even more stringent set of requirements than EPEAT, and which covers more data points.

So why is San Francisco refusing to buy Macs again?

The point is that the Macs themselves are not going to be any less environmentally friendly, but there are always going to be people who blindly think that EPEAT certification is the only possible way to know if something is environmentally friendly or not. These are the people who should not be in charge of making purchasing decisions, since they are unwilling or unable to do the required research on the topic.

[Dorian Gray]

Originally Posted by Mugge It's going to be more interesting to see how third parties react to this. Eg. Greenpeace's interests lie solely with the environment, and maybe a little towards generating publicity in favour of said environment, so their reaction will be telling. If they side with Apple or ignore this one, it probably means that EPEAT is indeed not the best yard stick anymore, but if they side with EPEAT then Apple is going to have a looser case on it's hands.

Greenpeace isn't happy with this move, Mugge:

"Apple is pulling out of EPEAT so it can make some products in a way that's less recyclable. In doing so, Apple is pitting design against the environment, and choosing design as the priority. […] That's a false choice, and Apple should know better: historically Apple has been a leader in designing products with the environment in mind.

"Customers who have expressed their concerns to Apple in recent months about the energy it's using to power its iCloud will be disconcerted to hear that Apple is now backsliding on making its products recyclable. Apple can resume its position of leadership on the environment, but right now it seems to be betting that people don’t care."

When Steve Jobs wrote his famous letter in 2007, Apple was recycling around 10% of its own products by weight (and estimating that would go up to about 30% in 2010; I don't know if it did). So it's clear that merely offering a recycling programme isn't enough; the products must also be easily recyclable by others.

It's possible that Apple products are very environmentally friendly in some ways, such as energy efficiency and reduction of toxic substances, even while they're becoming less recyclable. And perhaps Apple wants to emphasise the other ways Apple products are environmentally friendly, since apparently, it's costly to make them easily recyclable. But calling Apple's standards "stricter" than EPEAT's doesn't make sense in that case: using less energy but being less recyclable isn't "stricter" across the board, even though high energy efficiency is itself commendable.

You can complain here, if you think it'll do any good (I didn't, since I'm hoping to learn more about this in the near future).

[Brad]

Originally Posted by Xaqtly Apple has, and has had for quite a while now, a full blown free, no questions asked recycling policy, they'll even take non-Apple products and recycle them for you. They will even send you a pre-paid shipping label to use to ship it to them, if you can't or don't want to go to an Apple store. This is what makes them compliant, I'm assuming.

Last I checked, Apple contracts with third-party recyclers to power this program. If the products can't be recycled, such as the fused/glued parts in the new MBPs, this is little more than a glorified disposal service.

Originally Posted by Xaqtly The point is that the Macs themselves are not going to be any less environmentally friendly, but there are always going to be people who blindly think that EPEAT certification is the only possible way to know if something is environmentally friendly or not. These are the people who should not be in charge of making purchasing decisions, since they are unwilling or unable to do the required research on the topic.

They are less environmentally friendly if the materials end up in a landfill instead of in new devices.

[Chinney]

Originally Posted by Brad Last I checked, Apple contracts with third-party recyclers to power this program. If the products can't be recycled, such as the fused/glued parts in the new MBPs, this is little more than a glorified disposal service. They are less environmentally friendly if the materials end up in a landfill instead of in new devices.

Yes. And in Canada that is even more clear. There is no 'bring it back to Apple' program here. Apple's 'program' in Canada is simply to direct you to contact government or third-party private recycling entities.

[turbulentfurball]

We have the Weee directive here (awesome name - I like to pronounce it as if I were a kid on a slide). It basically means that retailers who sell electrical goods must offer the customer the opportunity to bring their old equipment for recycling. Coming from experience, not many people do actually bring their old equipment back to a retailer; most local authorities offer a recycling site to bring such things (and other recyclables).

[pscates2.0]

Apple changes their mind.

Everyone can breathe again.

[Yontsey]

This was way over blown. Me personally, I couldn't care less.

[pscates2.0]

Same here. It just bothered me that their large government sales would've been affected. San Francisco (and others) can now lift their "no Macs" order and all returns to normal. I guess. Hell, there will probably be another blow-up in a week or so about who-knows-what (Phil Schiller is photographed kicking a baby duck, etc.).

[splacid]

Slightly off topic, but John Gruber linking to Bob Mansfield's letter with the comment "That’s how you admit a mistake" finally confirms for me that this guy is a complete Apple apologist. I've started to grow tired of his blowhard tendencies with his insistence on "claim chowder" bashing of idiot industry analysts (we knew that already), his sudden turn against Google and his kicking of RIM while they're down, but come on. Apple makes a boneheaded decision that could have seriously affected large enterprise purchases by federal, state and local governments, corporations and international customers and then backpedals, and the only thing Gruber has to say is that they apologized well?

[Kraetos]

Looks like you missed this:

Apple would have been better served by issuing a statement like this before it turned into a controversy.

And this:

It’s not just a label; many government agencies and business will only purchase EPEAT-approved computers.

All I did was text search the DF homepage for "EPEAT."

And even in spite of that, the fact that Gruber is an Apple apologist is not news. I'm an Apple apologist. Many people on this board are Apple apologists. By no means does that automatically invalidate our opinion. Tim Bray is a Google apologist and he still has a lot of insightful things to say, even though his company of choice is full of shit.

Also, he himself admitted recently he's gone overboard with claim chowder. That said; basically no-one ever calls out the boneheads on their boneheadedness and I honestly believe that the fact that some of their boneheaded opinions are taken as gospel is hurting the industry as a whole. The perfect example of this is "tablets are consumption devices." Maybe if the pundits stopped banging that drum, we would see Android devices that take content creation seriously; instead they all seem to be resigned to the fact that tablets are only good for books and movies.

Technology pundits should be held more accountable, but I am first to admit that it's a nebulous and unenforceable goal. Thus, Gruber does what he can: writes about it on his own website.

His turn against Google was all but sudden... when the rivalry started heating up he believed it was a "Generals War" and that the rivalry was overblown. It wasn't until Google got really brazen (like when they got caught spying on Safari users, or when they threw Net Neutrality out the window to get in bed with Verizon) that his criticism of Google became more pointed. I find myself in the same boat. In 2009 and 2010 I wasn't sure what the fuss was about, but recently it's become obvious to me that Google is a horribly two-faced company and I've weened myself all their products except Search and Chrome on Windows. (And I wouldn't even use their search if I could make DuckDuckGo the default in Safari and MobileSafari.)

[Bryson]

I genuinely don't understand this need everyone has for people to be fully neutral to have relevance. Bias is fine, if that bias is stated (or obvious!). Everyone has biases. If you insist on all media you consume being unbiased, you'll have a short media diet, indeed.

Yes, Gruber is biased in favour of Apple. Does that mean nothing he says is relevant? No. Also, if you don't like his website, stop going there. It's really that easy.

I went through a little bit of this recently with Boing Boing. Some of their "causes" or biases made me infuriated. And then a zen-like calmness came over me and I realised that I could still enjoy their content without neccessarily agreeing with it. Try it on for size.

[pscates2.0]

I'm biased and and I'm right. It's totally doable!