6 ms·

San Francisco turns its back on Apple after green registry pull-out

37 points by jhack 14y ago

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
wahsd 14y ago
Does anyone have any insight into what Apple's play is all about? It has led to the Federal gov't and military to have to pull all Apple devices from procurement and project considerations.
- aoprisan 14y ago
  where did you see this?
- J3L2404 14y ago
  I believe that Retina display devices are too hard to disassemble to qualify for the program.
  - mkaltenecker 14y ago
    Is this an all-or-nothing thing? All other Macs are just as hard or easy to disassemble as ever. And iPhones or iPads are much harder to disassemble than the Retina MacBook Pro.
    - jws 14y ago
      The EPEAT rules required that 95% of your products comply with gold to keep your gold.
- jonknee 14y ago
  Apple has calculated that design is better than ease of recycling. They have been moving this direction for a while, but the completely non-serviceable Retina display MacBook Pros are what likely tipped the scale.
  - schiffern 14y ago
    Right, but why withdraw products that were already certified?
    - twoodfin 14y ago
      Presumably because they'd like the EPEAT standards changed, and they think the best way to do that is to make a big show of pulling out, rather than have one model after another fail to make the cut. Thus they're going to find out in short order whether EPEAT is serious about working with them on their new design directions. If they are, then great: new standards are promulgated and Apple's back in the fold. If not, then this was a big story for a few days in July: The Band-aid came off quick, which is usually good PR.
      - jack-r-abbit 14y ago
        I don't know what the standards are so I can't make any sort of informed guess about if they need to be changed or not. But why does EPEAT need to work with Apple to amend the standards to accommodate their new design direction? Apple chose their new design direction fully aware of the EPEAT standards. You can't blame EPEAT for that and get mad when they don't adjust standards for you. I'm not sure how many people really care, but it seems SF Dept. of Environment cares.
- tallanvor 14y ago
  The government has a mandate to buy a certain percentage of technology that falls under EPEAT standards - something like 95% to account for tech that can't meet it. So it may still be possible for federal agencies to buy some Apple devices, but many will probably refrain from doing so just to help make sure they stay within the law on this.
crusso 14y ago
And the interesting info in the article that makes this headline link-bait: "Observers have pointed out that a tiny percentage (around 1-2 percent) of municipal PC purchases are Macs, and the number of governments that require 100 percent EPEAT compliance is also relatively small, so the impact on Apple's bottom line may end up being minimal."
- jameshawkins 14y ago
  While I see the argument that this the title is link-bait, I don't think they are necessarily trying to overstate it's significance -- how would you title an article like this without it sounding like link-bait? It's just showing some of the backlash to Apple's decision. It may not be a significant percentage, but who knows what other potential purchasers may follow suit.
  - _pius 14y ago
    "... how would you title an article like this without it sounding like link-bait?" Oh, I don't know, maybe by avoiding language like San Francisco turns its back on Apple ...
    - mistercow 14y ago
      That's not an answer to the question. The question was "how would you title it if not like that?", so answering "not like that" is just begging the question.
      - justauser 14y ago
        I submitted the same subject some hours earlier and not sure that title(taken directly from WSJ) is any better. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4224661 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4224661
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
qq66 14y ago
Why do city workers need Macs anyways? They should be using eMachines. Good that Apple pulled out.
- jonknee 14y ago
  Why should the city have poor quality equipment? Besides things like reduced support costs and that Macs only made up a very small percentage of the city's computers, don't you imagine there are city jobs that would be better served with a Mac? I'm sure there are web and print designers on SF city staff for example.
  - qq66 14y ago
    The city should have the bare minimum equipment possible required to perform the functions required of it, because it's purchased from tax revenues, which are forcibly extracted from the population, and thus should be spent only on things that are necessary for the proper governance of the city. Sure, web and print designers should have Macs if they need them but it's pretty clear that a lot of people who don't need them have them.
    - wonderzombie 14y ago
      Yes, heaven forfend that a public employee should have anything more than the lowest possible standard of work and/or living. This kind of thinking is shortsighted at best, for obvious reasons. I'm not saying they should all get two 24" monitors, but if all you give people is the bare minimum to do their job, for all the money that you save up front, I suspect you're not gonna get much more than the bare minimum in return.
    - fpgeek 14y ago
      ______ employees should have the bare minimum equipment required to perform the functions required of it, because it's purchased from money that belongs to shareholders, which invested for the purpose of earning a return, and thus should be spent only on things that are necessary to support the business.
- 14y ago
tpowell 14y ago
This is not meant to be inflammatory, but in my experience Macs last twice as long as most PCs anyways, say nothing of saving the IT department time. I DON'T WANT the thing to come apart easily with common tools.
- ajross 14y ago
  I think your intuition is 100% wrong, actually. PCs in cost-sensitive IT environments (especially government ones), are routinely stretched into useful lifespans far longer than consumer devices. It's routine to walk into a government office and see people limping along with 6-8 year old desktops, dusty CRT monitors with screen burn, etc... The ability to take the machines apart and replace components is an important part of this.
  - pavel_lishin 14y ago
    I could get along with a 6-8 year old desktop, as well. The reason I don't is because it would suck, not because it would physically break down.
- untog 14y ago
  say nothing of saving the IT department time. [...] I DON'T WANT the thing to come apart easily with common tools. You might not, but let me tell you: IT departments do. It doesn't make as much sense for an individual, but the benefits of manually repairing machines increases when you're buying them in bulk.
- bryanlarsen 14y ago
  Tell that to the buyers of first or second generation macbook pros. My family owned 3 of those things, all of which failed within 3-4 years.
51Cards 14y ago
"...and we hope that the city saying it will not buy Apple products will make Apple reconsider its participation" Not sure Apple is willing to reverse their current design trend over this. They would have to move away from 'cutting edge' designs to get back to disassemble-able products (a requirement for the certification) My "wanna-be eco-friendly soul" is somewhat pleased at this stance though. I think the future disposal of a product should be a concern in the design and if it makes it a millimeter thicker, so be it.

37 points by jhack 14y ago

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

wahsd 14y ago

Does anyone have any insight into what Apple's play is all about? It has led to the Federal gov't and military to have to pull all Apple devices from procurement and project considerations.

aoprisan 14y ago
where did you see this?
J3L2404 14y ago
I believe that Retina display devices are too hard to disassemble to qualify for the program.
- mkaltenecker 14y ago
  Is this an all-or-nothing thing? All other Macs are just as hard or easy to disassemble as ever. And iPhones or iPads are much harder to disassemble than the Retina MacBook Pro.
  - jws 14y ago
    The EPEAT rules required that 95% of your products comply with gold to keep your gold.
jonknee 14y ago
Apple has calculated that design is better than ease of recycling. They have been moving this direction for a while, but the completely non-serviceable Retina display MacBook Pros are what likely tipped the scale.
- schiffern 14y ago
  Right, but why withdraw products that were already certified?
  - twoodfin 14y ago
    Presumably because they'd like the EPEAT standards changed, and they think the best way to do that is to make a big show of pulling out, rather than have one model after another fail to make the cut. Thus they're going to find out in short order whether EPEAT is serious about working with them on their new design directions. If they are, then great: new standards are promulgated and Apple's back in the fold. If not, then this was a big story for a few days in July: The Band-aid came off quick, which is usually good PR.
    - jack-r-abbit 14y ago
      I don't know what the standards are so I can't make any sort of informed guess about if they need to be changed or not. But why does EPEAT need to work with Apple to amend the standards to accommodate their new design direction? Apple chose their new design direction fully aware of the EPEAT standards. You can't blame EPEAT for that and get mad when they don't adjust standards for you. I'm not sure how many people really care, but it seems SF Dept. of Environment cares.
tallanvor 14y ago
The government has a mandate to buy a certain percentage of technology that falls under EPEAT standards - something like 95% to account for tech that can't meet it. So it may still be possible for federal agencies to buy some Apple devices, but many will probably refrain from doing so just to help make sure they stay within the law on this.

crusso 14y ago

And the interesting info in the article that makes this headline link-bait: "Observers have pointed out that a tiny percentage (around 1-2 percent) of municipal PC purchases are Macs, and the number of governments that require 100 percent EPEAT compliance is also relatively small, so the impact on Apple's bottom line may end up being minimal."

jameshawkins 14y ago
While I see the argument that this the title is link-bait, I don't think they are necessarily trying to overstate it's significance -- how would you title an article like this without it sounding like link-bait? It's just showing some of the backlash to Apple's decision. It may not be a significant percentage, but who knows what other potential purchasers may follow suit.
- _pius 14y ago
  "... how would you title an article like this without it sounding like link-bait?" Oh, I don't know, maybe by avoiding language like San Francisco turns its back on Apple ...
  - mistercow 14y ago
    That's not an answer to the question. The question was "how would you title it if not like that?", so answering "not like that" is just begging the question.
    - justauser 14y ago
      I submitted the same subject some hours earlier and not sure that title(taken directly from WSJ) is any better. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4224661 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4224661
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

qq66 14y ago

Why do city workers need Macs anyways? They should be using eMachines. Good that Apple pulled out.

jonknee 14y ago
Why should the city have poor quality equipment? Besides things like reduced support costs and that Macs only made up a very small percentage of the city's computers, don't you imagine there are city jobs that would be better served with a Mac? I'm sure there are web and print designers on SF city staff for example.
- qq66 14y ago
  The city should have the bare minimum equipment possible required to perform the functions required of it, because it's purchased from tax revenues, which are forcibly extracted from the population, and thus should be spent only on things that are necessary for the proper governance of the city. Sure, web and print designers should have Macs if they need them but it's pretty clear that a lot of people who don't need them have them.
  - wonderzombie 14y ago
    Yes, heaven forfend that a public employee should have anything more than the lowest possible standard of work and/or living. This kind of thinking is shortsighted at best, for obvious reasons. I'm not saying they should all get two 24" monitors, but if all you give people is the bare minimum to do their job, for all the money that you save up front, I suspect you're not gonna get much more than the bare minimum in return.
  - fpgeek 14y ago
    ______ employees should have the bare minimum equipment required to perform the functions required of it, because it's purchased from money that belongs to shareholders, which invested for the purpose of earning a return, and thus should be spent only on things that are necessary to support the business.
14y ago

tpowell 14y ago

This is not meant to be inflammatory, but in my experience Macs last twice as long as most PCs anyways, say nothing of saving the IT department time. I DON'T WANT the thing to come apart easily with common tools.

ajross 14y ago
I think your intuition is 100% wrong, actually. PCs in cost-sensitive IT environments (especially government ones), are routinely stretched into useful lifespans far longer than consumer devices. It's routine to walk into a government office and see people limping along with 6-8 year old desktops, dusty CRT monitors with screen burn, etc... The ability to take the machines apart and replace components is an important part of this.
- pavel_lishin 14y ago
  I could get along with a 6-8 year old desktop, as well. The reason I don't is because it would suck, not because it would physically break down.
untog 14y ago
say nothing of saving the IT department time. [...] I DON'T WANT the thing to come apart easily with common tools. You might not, but let me tell you: IT departments do. It doesn't make as much sense for an individual, but the benefits of manually repairing machines increases when you're buying them in bulk.
bryanlarsen 14y ago
Tell that to the buyers of first or second generation macbook pros. My family owned 3 of those things, all of which failed within 3-4 years.

51Cards 14y ago

"...and we hope that the city saying it will not buy Apple products will make Apple reconsider its participation" Not sure Apple is willing to reverse their current design trend over this. They would have to move away from 'cutting edge' designs to get back to disassemble-able products (a requirement for the certification) My "wanna-be eco-friendly soul" is somewhat pleased at this stance though. I think the future disposal of a product should be a concern in the design and if it makes it a millimeter thicker, so be it.