Green My Apple

At 14:28 on 31-10-2006, John C. Welch wrote:
> On 10/31/06 01:39, "Google Kreme" <gkremegmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> And all the people I know with iBooks have needed them repaired
>>> at least once in the first three years.
>>
>> Applecare ftw. This is why everyone I know who is a Mac professional
>> considers Applecare to be /de rigeur/ on a laptop.
>
> I'll agree here to the point of saying that a laptop without AppleCare is a
> thing of silliness indeed

If AppleCare is essentially necessary for Apple's laptops to work for
more than 1-2 years, then it should be included in the price of the
computer itself. I personally don't understand how the computer
industry (not just Apple) has got away with such short warranties.
They should be building products that they are confident will work
for more than one year (warranties obviously don't cover accidents or
'undue' wear-and-tear).

_________________
=> Jolin Warren, Edinburgh, Scotland

Hm. I'm not sure how thorough of an example of things it is, but consider the packaging used for these products.

All good points actually and were referred to in Jobs's last keynote. (But of course this particular Greenpeace campaign is about toxic chemicals.)

Two other points which occur:

1. I'm still not convinced Apple are that interested in environmental matters. When the Carbon Trust polled the world's top 1000 organisations last year on energy and carbon impact, Apple was one of the highest profile non-respondents (of the only 20something percent who didn't respond).

2. Al Gore on the Apple board. Discuss.

And finally, in the interests of reducing packaging, doesn't the Greenpeace case boil down to this?

- Apple still use more bad stuff than other manufacturers and could (should) be using less.

- Apple could run its business in a way that creates less waste.

- C'mon Apple: walk the talk.

And, er, that's it.

Not sure that this constitutes

lies, half-truths, and deception.

On Nov 1, 2006, at 1:06 AM, Sander Tekelenburg wrote:

> Agreed. Exactly which lies, half-truths and deception by Greenpeace
> are you referring to?
>
> My impression is that Greenpeace is reasonably clear about what
> this action is based on. They explain this in
> <http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/
> greener-electronics-guide.pdf>,
> which I (indirectly) pointed to in my original message but no one
> here seems to have looked at.

It's apparently exactly this document which first created the
misleading picture. You can almost always come up with criteria to
justify your desired conclusion, but if your criteria are crap, then
it's likely your conclusion is as well. Daniel Eran of Roughly
Drafted Magazine wrote a series of articles pointing out problems
with Greenpeace's criteria, analysis, and tactics.

<http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/Home/E83D58B3-10E0-4A9C-8847-BCE665EE235C.html>

On 11/1/06 14:19, "Jolin M Warren" <JolinWarrenOakAndApple.org> wrote:

>>>> And all the people I know with iBooks have needed them repaired
>>>> at least once in the first three years.
>>>
>>> Applecare ftw. This is why everyone I know who is a Mac professional
>>> considers Applecare to be /de rigeur/ on a laptop.
>>
>> I'll agree here to the point of saying that a laptop without AppleCare is a
>> thing of silliness indeed
>
> If AppleCare is essentially necessary for Apple's laptops to work for
> more than 1-2 years, then it should be included in the price of the
> computer itself. I personally don't understand how the computer
> industry (not just Apple) has got away with such short warranties.
> They should be building products that they are confident will work
> for more than one year (warranties obviously don't cover accidents or
> 'undue' wear-and-tear).

I said nor implied nothing of the sort, and I'm not sure where you got that
from. Laptops, by definition, take more abuse than desktops. I've never,
2-3x a day dropped a desktop and monitor in a bag, and shoved it in my car.
I do that daily with my laptop. My desktops don't get used outside, or in
other less-than friendly situations. My laptop does. My now three-year old
PB 17" shows the way I deal with portable machines.

It is because of the difference in use, and the tediousness of
self-maintaining a laptop, ANY laptop, that I will not purchase a laptop
from any vendor without an agreement in place.

--
John C. Welch Writer/Analyst
Bynkii.com Mac and other opinions
jwelchbynkii.com

On 11/1/06 14:19, "iain043" <iainmaplescombe.com> wrote:

> - C'mon Apple: walk the talk.

I'm sorry, I missed where Apple publicly stated that they were going to lead
the charge for the environment at all levels.

--
John C. Welch Writer/Analyst
Bynkii.com Mac and other opinions
jwelchbynkii.com

However, it doesn't appear that GP was booted from the Apple Expo
because they called on Apple to reduce their pollution. They were
booted because several other attendees/exhibitors complained that
they were being jerks.

--
Marshall Clow Idio Software <mailto:marshallidio.com>

On 1/11/06 20:19, "iain043" <iainmaplescombe.com> wrote:

> And finally, in the interests of reducing packaging, doesn't the Greenpeace
> case boil down to this?
>
> - Apple still use more bad stuff than other manufacturers and could (should)
> be using less.
>
> - Apple could run its business in a way that creates less waste.

Actually, no it doesn't.

The Greenpeace case, if you stop to read through their report, is nothing to
do with packaging, and states mainly that "we marked them down because they
didn't tell us what they are doing".

Apple got bad marks because "They only published details about the chemicals
that were on their own restricted list, and they didn't publish that list"

Apple got bad marks because "they didn't have a complete 'take back'
programme", even though they did operate one in the US, in Europe and in
Asia (Apples three most significant markets).

Apple got bad marks because, while they had a stated aim of eliminating
PCBs, they didn't say when they would do it.

Apple got bad marks because, while they had a stated aim of eliminating PVC,
they didn't say when they would do it.

Apple were marked down, not for what they did, but for not saying what they
were doing. There was no clear finding (or any unclear one, that I could
see) that they were actually doing worse than others who scored better.

Now, I don't believe anyone in this thread has intimated that Apple are
perfect, I think we all recognise that any company could always be
criticised because they could do more - Apple included. However, the major
criticism I have seen aired here (and I have contributed to) has been
because Greenpeace have been seen as disingenuous in the way that they have
applied arbitrary measure to produce results that would 'play well' in the
media, and for their apparently provocative tactics against a target that
was not in a position to argue back against innuendo, allusion and
misinformation.

--
Barry

At 12:19 -0800 1/11/06, Jolin M Warren wrote:
>I think it's certainly true that the driver for these changes has
>been based on cost -- less spent producing the packaging, less spent
>shipping, less spent storing. The environmental improvements are a
>nice side effect. That's not to say they aren't really or useful, but
>I don't believe environmental concerns were the drivers here.

Way back in Gil Amelio's days, or possibly late John Sculley, Apple changed
the packageing to brown recycled cardboard and dropped the multi-colour
logo. This was portrayed at the time as being an environmentaly driven
change.

Of course dropping the six colour logo had a very large cost element as it
was allegedly one of the most expensive corporate logos to print etc.

        f

Jolin M Warren wrote:
> At 14:28 on 31-10-2006, John C. Welch wrote:
>> On 10/31/06 01:39, "Google Kreme" <gkremegmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> And all the people I know with iBooks have needed them repaired
>>>> at least once in the first three years.
>>>
>>> Applecare ftw. This is why everyone I know who is a Mac professional
>>> considers Applecare to be /de rigeur/ on a laptop.
>>
>> I'll agree here to the point of saying that a laptop without
>> AppleCare is a
>> thing of silliness indeed
>
> If AppleCare is essentially necessary for Apple's laptops to work for
> more than 1-2 years, then it should be included in the price of the
> computer itself. I personally don't understand how the computer
> industry (not just Apple) has got away with such short warranties.
> They should be building products that they are confident will work
> for more than one year (warranties obviously don't cover accidents or
> 'undue' wear-and-tear).

I don't know about Scotland but here in the US purchase price trumps
almost everything else. My wife works for a major airlines in a call
center. Folks would buy a $300 no frills ticket over a $310 ticket that
included door to door car service at the beginning and end of the trip.
(And if you know airline parking in the US this would be a great deal.)
They regularly do pay $200 for a flight that changes planes in two
cities and takes 8 hours over one for $250 that's direct and takes 90
minutes.

Price points mater.

As to laptops, it depends on your use. I have two in my house that
rarely leave the house. They really don't need Applecare. One that would
go with me out the door daily, that's a very different situation.

>On Oct 31, 2006, at 2:39 AM, Google Kreme wrote:
>I've never disposed of a Mac. I've sold, traded in, or given away all
>of my Macs when I no longer needed them, since they were still in
>working condition and someone could still use them. Most recently, I
>gave my old (!) B&W G3 to a neighbor's kid. It's now being used instead
>of gathering dust. If an old Mac is too slow to be used with a modern
>OS, you can usually install Linux on it and make it into a nice server.

Looking in late, I can only guess what good old Greenpeeace is about.
As for disposing old Macs, my Quadra 950 which I bought in August
1992 has had only one failure during its 24,312 hours of operation.
One of the SIMMs contributing to the 224 MB RAM failed so I replaced
it. I used old trusty twice today. As for tired or discarded Macs, I
intercepted 165, upgraded them, and placed them in classrooms, gave
them to teachers, to students, to training programs for the
unemployed, and to low income families. Only 2 or 3 went to e-waste.

Richard

On 01 Nov 2006, at 13:19 , Jolin M Warren wrote:
> At 20:15 on 31-10-2006, Chris Devers wrote:
>> On Oct 31, 2006, at 5:28 PM, iain043 wrote:
>>
>>> 9. Despite being an Apple user for over 20 years, I have never been
>>> encouraged to believe that the they care anything about
>>> environmental issues. I just don't believe it's ever been on their
>>> agenda.
>
>> Cynically, you could point out that the operating cost to ship &
>> store inventory of products in denser packaging gets a lot
>> cheaper --
>> pay less to UPS/FedEx, pay less in real estate costs for warehouses,
>> etc -- and that certainly must be true.
>
> I think it's certainly true that the driver for these changes has
> been based on cost -- less spent producing the packaging, less spent
> shipping, less spent storing. The environmental improvements are a
> nice side effect. That's not to say they aren't really or useful, but
> I don't believe environmental concerns were the drivers here.

Actually, I think the driving force on this is better packaging.
Packing stuff for shipment via UPS or FedEx takes serious packaging,
and those carriers want a MINIMUM of 2" of packing around every side
of whatever you are shipping, and they recommend DOUBLE that for
electronics. A MacPro is still a fairly large piece of hardware, and
add two inches to each side and 2 inches top and bottom and you are
talking a seriously large box. Now imagine it with 4" all around.
Yeah.

However, the foam that Apple uses now is much better than the old
squeaky styrofoam, and Apple is able to use considerably less. Also,
pallets of inventory are "wrapped" in a shrinkwrap-like plastic,
which further protects the integrity of individual pieces. Result,
ability to pack more in less.

> But that doesn't mean the environmental issues have been on the
> agenda. They happened as a bonus.

But without being a mind reader or a member of the board, at least,
you cannot know if the environmental aspects were an agenda or not.
Did Apple change from squeaky-foam<1> because it was cheaper (I
seriously doubt that) or because it allowed them to reduce the size
of packaging? And was that motivated by less waste, or less shipping
cost?

<1> Anyone else thinking what I'm thinking? Squeaky Fromme? Sorry.
Never mind.

On 01 Nov 2006, at 13:19 , Jolin M Warren wrote:
> If AppleCare is essentially necessary for Apple's laptops to work for
> more than 1-2 years, then it should be included in the price of the
> computer itself.

Well, most people do consider it part of the cost of the computer.

> I personally don't understand how the computer industry (not just
> Apple) has got away with such short warranties.

They're about on par, or better, than warranties in the rest of the
electronics world. 90 days is not uncommon. Anything over a year is
rare. Our dishwasher had a 90 warranty on labor and 1 year on
parts. Parts are the cheap part of the Dishwasher, of course.

Most computers are covered for a year, and have an option of 3 years
with an additional charge.

> They should be building products that they are confident will work
> for more than one year (warranties obviously don't cover accidents
> or 'undue' wear-and-tear).

That's not really what a warranty means though. It's not "This
product's expect lifetime is 1 year" but rather "We don't expect to
be making this product in 1 year an we don't want to keep parts
stocked for it."

On 01 Nov 2006, at 13:19 , iain043 wrote:
> Not sure that this constitutes lies, half-truths, and deception.

Well, it's lies because Greenpeace is the source of the criteria AND
is the source of the research. Everyone knows, by now, that that is
just a recipe for soap-boxing your agenda and has nothing to do with
presenting a balanced objective view on anything. It is half truths
because Greenpeace is looking at a tiny and specific and targeted
issue and implying that because Apple doesn't 'comply' with their
stance on this one tiny specific issue, that it is a 'bad' company
that needs to change. It is deception because there is so much more
to this issue that Greenepeace ignores completely.

If you are talking about "Green" issues you have to look at the TOTAL
picture. Anything less is meaningless. It's like saying that an
electric heater is automatically better than a gas heater because
it's electric and not using up fossil fuels, while ignoring that the
electric generators the power company uses are burning coal and the
electric heater is far less efficient than the gas one. Which one
REALLY has a greater effect on the environment and the use of fossil
fuels?

Frankly, I trust Greenpeace about as much as I trust Fox News, and
for the same exact reasons: they both have an axe to grind and an
agenda to serve and neither allows anything like piddly little facts
to get in their way.

On Wed, Nov 1, 2006 at 8:19 pm -0800, Jolin M Warren wrote:

>At 14:28 on 31-10-2006, John C. Welch wrote:
>>
>> I'll agree here to the point of saying that a laptop without
AppleCare is a
>> thing of silliness indeed
>
>If AppleCare is essentially necessary for Apple's laptops to work for
>more than 1-2 years, then it should be included in the price of the
>computer itself. I personally don't understand how the computer
>industry (not just Apple) has got away with such short warranties.
>They should be building products that they are confident will work
>for more than one year (warranties obviously don't cover accidents or
>'undue' wear-and-tear).

Thank you - I was about to post something similar, but you put it much
better. I'm constantly amazed by the regularity with which Apple
customers - customers! - trot out this line that it's perfectly
acceptable to expect to add nearly 25% (based on UK prices for MacBook
Pro and Applecare) to the cost of your purchase, in order to have
confidence that the thing will last 3 years without incurring an
uneconomic repair bill.

TimH

> As someone who is actually *at* the MacExpo, I can tell you that, if
> they were being benign, they wouldn't have been kicked out. They were
> being rude and abrasive.

Can I just say - in the interests of balance in this discussion -
that I and my son attended the London MacExpo and the Greenpeace
people were politeness itself, not at all rude or abrasive. I quite
welcomed their 'agitprop' - it doesn't matter to me particularly if
they attack Apple or not - it was good to be challenged and think
about it going into the show. I can appreciate all of Apple's good
points without feeling I have to defend their weaknesses. And those
issues need to be addressed whether you like Greenpeace or not.

Ralph Kinnear

My apologies Shawn (I don't mean to pick on you, but I couldn't resist) -- I spent the whole show being accosted by stallholders, trying to get through blocked aisles, couldn't make out any of the 'signage', and lost count of the pamphlets being stuck in my hands and carrier bags - but I guess that's all ok because it's just people selling stuff... all the usual stuff young "marketeers" do.

At 17:28 10/31/06 -0800, iain043 wrote:
>7. Greenpeace has to take an extreme position to get noticed and to move
>the rest of the world on a little bit.

An absolute like "has to" demands support, and I see none here.
Organizations with similar goals, such as the Sierra Club and The Nature
Conservancy, take far more moderate approaches and accomplish a great deal
more. The difference is that the people in those organizations have learned
how to work *with* people, even people with whom they disagree on some
major points. People in Greenpeace seem to only know confrontation.
Probably this is self-selection, since Greenpeace is known for
confrontation and thus draws those inclined to confrontation, and everyone
who has learned more effective ways of moving the world avoids Greenpeace
like the plague.

Edward

On 11/7/06 06:52, "Marshall Clow" <marshallidio.com> wrote:

> However, it doesn't appear that GP was booted from the Apple Expo
> because they called on Apple to reduce their pollution. They were
> booted because several other attendees/exhibitors complained that
> they were being jerks.

and their answer was, of course, "Sometimes the end justifies the means". Oy

--
John C. Welch Writer/Analyst
Bynkii.com Mac and other opinions
jwelchbynkii.com

On 11/7/06 8:14 AM, "Ralph H Kinnear" <rkinnearmac.com> wrote:

> My apologies Shawn (I don't mean to pick on you, but I couldn't resist) -- I
> spent the whole show being accosted by stallholders, trying to get through
> blocked aisles, couldn't make out any of the 'signage', and lost count of the
> pamphlets being stuck in my hands and carrier bags - but I guess that's all ok
> because it's just people selling stuff... all the usual stuff young
> "marketeers" do.

Agreed. But there are ways to do it that don't upset those around you.

--
Shawn King
Host/Executive Producer
Your Mac Life
http://www.yourmaclife.com

> 3. There is indeed (IMO) a glaring discrepancy between Apple: leading
> edge, cool, knowing, visionary, and Apple: minimum compliance with
> environmental standards.
>
> 4. I have been an Apple user for over 20 years (help me!). I have
> never replaced a machine because it broke down terminally, but only
> because I wanted newer, faster, higher etc. often because the latest
> software won't perform on older hardware. I reckon on a 3-4 year
> cycle. So I personally don't think the lifespan criticism is fair.
>
> 5. However, iPods are reinvented and promoted as more or less
> disposable, with a pathetically short life-cycle. Like mobile phones.
> I know that's the market, but it drives me mad.
>
> 5. Despite being 'leading edge, cool, knowing, visionary' etc, Apple
> is a business. Steve Jobs has done an amazing job bringing it back
> from the brink. But now they are cash rich. They could indeed afford
> to take a wider, longer view. Remember how they used to spend far
> more on R&D than other computer companies? (and be criticised for
> it). Why shouldn't they now be the ones who spend a disproportionate
> amount 'greening up'?
>
Should Apple design big clunky products with screws and bolts and easily
swapped parts that no one buys? I don't like the situation but small and
"tight" (as my son says) sells. That means snap together hard to get
apart construction using highly integrated low count parts and currently
LIon batteries. I'd like them to be more repairable but that would also
drive up costs and make them physically less appealing. Ditto cell
phones. Small flip phones sell be cause they are small. (I really wish a
flip Palm would come back so I could get a new phone I could put in my
pocket.

And not having a hot selling iPod could run the company out of that cash
very quickly. I haven't looked but what IS their cash flow vs. cash on
hand. What is the overhead of the stores before they sell the first thing?

Wanting folks to be more eco is a nice goal, but companies don't exist
unless they can sell their product. Greenpeace, and others, are after
the wrong target. The target is public attitudes. And not way they say,
but what they buy. Cape Cod wind mills being a prime example of this
disconnect in my opinion.