# Dell, others beat Apple on environmental standards



## doemel (Aug 29, 2006)

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/reports/greener-electronics-guide

I think it is a pity that Apple seems to think different (than Dell and others) on these issues. Apple's highly profitable products would allow them to be more responsible in this area or even be a leader concerning environment friendly (actually, friendlier would be a more appropriate term since you'll always pollute the environment with the production of modern electronics) products.


----------



## fryke (Aug 29, 2006)

Well, what's there left to say. I'd like to see Apple in the "green" on these charts. And I'm sure Apple, too, would rather be "good" than "bad". I guess it's simply not a big selling point yet - and _that's_ where the problem really lies. I guess even *IF* people ask about the "green-ness" of a particular model at a store, the salesperson wouldn't know what to say - but more importantly, users don't even *ask* about it. They evaluate based on price, performance, design and maybe longevity (which could be a green factor, but it certainly isn't part of Greenpeace's study...).


----------



## RacerX (Aug 29, 2006)

Second criteria: _takeback and recycle their products responsibly once they become obsolete._

Here is an odd thought... at what rate do PCs become "obsolete"?

A Dell is generally headed for a landfill between 2 to 5 years after it was originally sold. On the other hand, Apple computers tend to have a very long and extended life. Doesn't the rate of obsolescence play a factor in this? The fact that I have Apple computers from 10 years ago still leading productive lives (and not sitting in landfills) should be taken into note.

And the thing is, it isn't necessarily the quality of the hardware that causes the issues on the PC side. It is a combination of hardware and software that forces the untimely death of these systems.

For example, I thought Windows NT 4 was a pretty nice OS, and I shouldn't have too much of an issue running it on older hardware (keeping that hardware in use). But I wouldn't think of putting NT 4 on real hardware today (and even if I did... it would need to be isolated from the net).

That is the difference between Apple and other PC makers. I can run a Mac OS 8/9 system as safely and securely (and productively) today as I could almost 10 years ago.


And honestly, my first reaction to Apple's recycling program was shock and horror. Specially with all these switchers who are still of the mind set that 2 years is the maximum life span of a system.


----------



## diablojota (Sep 27, 2006)

Apple is at the forefront of computer manufacturers. They are doing the best they can with the technology afforded to them. Using a more green battery product, for example, would decrease the playback time on an iPod significantly, as well as erode in usage far more quickly than the current Li-ion or NiCd batteries. Apple still needs to sell products and compete. If Greenpeace wants to make a statement, they need to go after the industry, not Apple specifically.
I have stopped supporting Greenpeace after this escapade. My donations are now going to the Georgia Aquarium and the Atlanta Zoo and their wildlife research and preservation attempts.


----------



## Trip (Sep 28, 2006)

This is an old issue (brought up a month or so ago on macrumors.com). Apple has already directly responded that environmental concerns are some of their _top_ concerns. They're working on it.


----------



## Thank The Cheese (Sep 28, 2006)

fryke said:


> ...I guess even *IF* people ...users don't even *ask* about it...



since when did you start using asterisks instead of underscores for emphasis?  


It depends who you talk to. Some believe recycling is a waste of time (here is another, more objective review of the episode. I wanted to link to the actual penn and teller episode, but google video took it down). 

I can't say I think recycling is a waste of time, but at the same time I think naming and shaming companies achieves nothing. I don't think Apple or Motorola or Lenovo are much worse than any other. The issue is that our western culture tends to judge a product by its branding/packaging. I guess over the years products have needed to one-up the competition a little more and a little more, until now we're at a point where customers relate sripped-down packages with cheap, sub-par products. 

Besides, one could argue apple saves on packaging by providing small, all-in-one computers like the iMac that require 1 box instead of 2. 

What I hate is when you see packets of candy that are in a bag, and then find each individual piece of candy is also wrapped in plastic. that really is wasteful.

perhaps the internet will help with this, as more customers start shopping online, which doesn't require physical packaging the catch someone's eye.


----------



## doemel (Sep 28, 2006)

Well, I'm sure there's plenty of electronics companies/manufacturers that are a lot worse than Apple, especially when you take into account the longevity of Apple products and the whole life cycle of a product. But there is no point comparing Apple to the bad apples (no pun intended). One should rather take the industry leader in the field as a reference point and try to best it. I also know about recycling issues some of you stated above but recycling is just paert of the story. Environmental friendliness and sustainability (to use that overly used term... just keep in mind this is not a marketing word to me but an integral part of my profession as an Environmental Scientist) goes way beyond that.

Apple could make a difference and sure as hell present itself (to a certain degree) as a leader in the field. Many Apple enthusiasts would welcome the move. At least many of my friends would (and no, my friends are not all tree hugging hippies, but rather a mix of generally well educated creative folks and people in Science and Engineering).

Apple is highly profitable and there's really no point for them to stick entirely to what the market dictates. In other fields Apple succeeds because they don't!


----------



## fryke (Sep 28, 2006)

Thank The Cheese said:


> since when did you start using asterisks instead of underscores for emphasis?



If you cared to look these things up: People use _underscores_ to imply _italic type_ and *asterisks* to imply *bold type*. I use both, depending on what I want to say.


----------



## nixgeek (Sep 28, 2006)

fryke said:


> If you cared to look these things up: People use _underscores_ to imply _italic type_ and *asterisks* to imply *bold type*. I use both, depending on what I want to say.





I always thought the underscores implied an underlined word.  Visually, it would make sense as it give that impression, but that's me.


----------



## lurk (Sep 28, 2006)

Yep, but _underlined_ text is just a poor man's /itallic/

;-)

In the old days GNUS in emacs would properly render those as well.


----------



## nixgeek (Sep 28, 2006)

lurk said:


> Yep, but _underlined_ text is just a poor man's /itallic/
> 
> ;-)
> 
> In the old days GNUS in emacs would properly render those as well.



Heck, even further than Emacs.....I remember typing stuff on a word processor that I ran on my old Apple IIc!  You had to use the same characters to denote underlines, boldface, and italics. So I know where you're coming from.


----------



## reed (Oct 4, 2006)

I loved the IIc. Still have it. Why? I don't know.


----------

