Apple is still behind HP and Dell...

Eh, environmentally-friendly products just can't attain that Apple level of cool, though... ;) You gotta destroy the environment in order to be that damn cool.
 
That is really getting on my nerve... I was born in Asia, and now brought a computer from a company that is potentially harming billions of people of where I came from...

I mean, we are getting the best of everything just to have someone else to suffer??
 
It's all moot; Apple products are just too cute to throw out anyhow. I've still got a Tangerine in the basement, and there are people who have super-old Macs hanging around. No need for Greenpeace to worry. :)

edit: The Greenpeace site seems very vague about the hazards in Apple products and about any data showing their effects. PVC is mentioned (isn't it the plasticizing additives and not PVC per se that's harmful?) but little else. How many people have been harmed? iotw, and I don't mean disrespect towards Greenpeace, but why should I believe them?
 
From what I hear, though, Greenpeace is inflating claims and blowing certain things out of proportion concerning Apple's disregard for the environment. Apple has taken steps to try and lessen their impact on the environment -- but Greenpeace will never be satisfied and will continue to bash and berate companies who don't have 99% clean "emissions."

I hate to say so, but it seems these days that Greenpeace has lost their grassroots ties and do most of their bitching just for lobbying purposes. They blow stuff out of proportion consistently.

http://news.com.com/2100-1014_3-6110513.html
http://news.com.com/5208-1014-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=20672&messageID=179031&start=-1
 
You should look for multiple sources before you condemn Apple for their environmental practices..

It's true that they don't have perfect environmental practices, and that's not good. However, Apple is doing a lot less damage than Dell, HP, etc, having less than 10% of the computer market. They're improving though (in both ways).

I'm surprised that Apple hasn't sued the makers of that site, they ripped off quite a bit of apple media..
 
ElDiabloConCaca said:
From what I hear, though, Greenpeace is inflating claims and blowing certain things out of proportion concerning Apple's disregard for the environment. Apple has taken steps to try and lessen their impact on the environment -- but Greenpeace will never be satisfied and will continue to bash and berate companies who don't have 99% clean "emissions."

I hate to say so, but it seems these days that Greenpeace has lost their grassroots ties and do most of their bitching just for lobbying purposes. They blow stuff out of proportion consistently.

http://news.com.com/2100-1014_3-6110513.html
http://news.com.com/5208-1014-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=20672&messageID=179031&start=-1
Click to expand...
Well ok... but are greenpeace right about how Apple is still behind HP/Dell as far as substance/waste/environmental goes?
 
eric2006 said:
You should look for multiple sources before you condemn Apple for their environmental practices..

It's true that they don't have perfect environmental practices, and that's not good. However, Apple is doing a lot less damage than Dell, HP, etc, having less than 10% of the computer market. They're improving though (in both ways).

I'm surprised that Apple hasn't sued the makers of that site, they ripped off quite a bit of apple media..
Click to expand...
Yes I agree greenpeace guys could overact sometimes... that's why I posted here, I also wonder if Apple really does more damage than Dell or what not?
 
As mentioned before they can't do more damage because they have significantly less market share. Also didn't apple reduce the packaging for the ipod mini? The reason they did that was 1)less harm to the evirononment and 2) it cost less to package because less material is being used.

I assume that if apple did this with the mini, they will also do it on other product packaging. I think their other products are pretty much packaged with just what they need though. So maybe the mini was the only thing that needed revisted in terms of packaging.
 
MnM said:
As mentioned before they can't do more damage because they have significantly less market share.
Click to expand...

Oh come on, it makes more sense to talk about how environmental friendly a product by per machine!! We are talking about the quality of the product... or at least I would thought environmental friendliness being part of a product that makes up its quality.

I didn't get a Mac just for OSX, yes OSX is good per se, but what I liked is the hardware design, and its performance and everything is better than HP/Dell IMAO, and if it can be made better in terms of environmental, that's even better.
 
If you're going to fire up the propaganda machine, at least get it right. In the images which purportedly show Apple waste, they have the images shown on Apple displays, with nice Apple logos visible. However, that big stinking pile of crap in the background sure didn't come from any Apple machine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top