6 ms·

I think Marco Arment summed this up nicely. http://www.marco.org/2012/07/09/coverage-of-significant-apple http://www.marco.org/2012/07/09/coverage-of-significan

by MJR 14y ago

I think Marco Arment summed this up nicely. http://www.marco.org/2012/07/09/coverage-of-significant-apple http://www.marco.org/2012/07/09/coverage-of-significant-appl... "I think Apple no longer wants to follow the EPEAT recycling guidelines because they think not following them allows product designs that will be more compelling for consumers and bring more value to Apple than their continued participation in EPEAT. And I don’t think it matters much. Apple still accepts their own computers for recycling. It’s not unreasonable to ask the people who recycle old computers properly, who I imagine are very few, to bring their Apple computers back to Apple to guarantee the “best” recycling."

jmduke 14y ago
I understand it -- and do think that the decision is rational -- from a business perspective, but at the end of the day it's Apple making a conscious choice to make their products less environmentally friendly. That's completely fine for Apple to do, but its still disappointing that they're disregarding environmental standards. More disconcertingly, one can see the comments here -- largely defending Apple and marginalizing the issue -- being completely different if it was, say, Microsoft.
- MJR 14y ago
  That's just not true. They are saying that they will no longer comply with an out-dated standard. Their current practices in manufacturing, materials and offering recycling of their own products are superior to the EPEAT guidelines. They actual already go above and beyond the EPEAT guidelines and now they won't be beholden in their designs to those guidelines. Just take a look at this article and check out the links to see for yourself how Apple was already doing more than the EPEAT guidelines required. http://www.loopinsight.com/2012/07/10/apple-responds-to-epeat-concerns/ http://www.loopinsight.com/2012/07/10/apple-responds-to-epea... http://www.apple.com/environment/ http://www.apple.com/environment/ And as an aside - Microsoft in comparison is not a hardware company and the comments here aren't marginalizing the issue. The articles and reporting have blown this out of proportion to begin with.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - lmm 14y ago
    That sounds like a smokescreen. Sure, Apple does a lot of good environmental stuff that's not covered by EPEAT. But that doesn't change that it's started gluing screens and batteries to cases, making them basically impossible to recycle, which is the real story here.
    - elithrar 14y ago
      > ... making them basically impossible to recycle, which is the real story here. I would argue that they are "much more difficult" to recycle by anyone other than Apple. They can still be recycled.
      - Blara 14y ago
        Do you have a source for that? I've heard that the recycling company that Apple uses in fact does not recycle the newer "glued models".
      - josteink 14y ago
        If it can only be done by Apple, it is safe to assume that in 99%+ of the cases it wont be done.
    - kenrikm 14y ago
      If you get the battery replaced by Apple (the only option) they recycle the battery. If you want to get rid of your old laptop, Apple will recycle it. I have never actually had a completely dead/garbage Apple laptop since I usually sell them after about 5 years, they have a much longer lifespan then your average PC laptop.
    - atirip 14y ago
      I don't know. Why are computers needed to be recycled by HAND? C'mon, cars are recycled by machinery and modern cars use glue like hell. So whats the issue here?
- taligent 14y ago
  Making their products harder to recycle does not make it impossible to recycle. Hence the logic about less environment friendly is simply not true.
  - jmduke 14y ago
    Are you arguing that Retina MacBook which complied with EPEAT would not be more environmentally friendly than one which did not comply?
    - kenrikm 14y ago
      Actually that's possible, for example if the battery in a Retina Macbook lives for 800 - 1k cycles because they use better technology and the battery in a average PC laptop only lives 400 - 500 then yes it's possible that the Mac could be better for the environment. Someone would have to do a thorough check on each component to objectively verify if it's better or worse then EPEAT certified laptop. All things are not equal standards like EPEAT are too generic to rely on in all cases.
danieldk 14y ago
That's really too much Apple love. While it's true that old machines can still be recycled. But, in older models you could easily replace the battery --- you can pop them out with a lever, get a new battery at the Apple store, and put it in. Without removing any screws (or warranty). While this change does not matter that much to most people here (I readily admit that I replace my laptop every one or two years, selling the old one), the average consumer uses a laptop much longer, especially when a laptop is a huge investment for them. Apple's latest designs drastically shorten the lifespan of laptops, unless you want to pay the exorbitant fees of having the battery replaced or adding memory. It is bad for the environment (more laptops need to be produced), the consumer's pocketbook, and only serves Apple.
- neild 14y ago
  I just picked a random laptop off of Dell's small business site: The M4600[1]. Dell will sell you a replacement 97Whr battery for $170[2]. The M4600 gets 3.5 hours of life with the larger battery[3]. Apple will replace the 95Whr battery in a Retina MacBook Pro for $200[4]. $30 more than Dell charges for a similar-capacity battery, but this does include labor and the MPB gets 7+ hours of life with it[5]. I do not believe your assertion of "exorbitant fees" is supportable. [1] http://www.dell.com/us/soho/p/precision-m4600/fs http://www.dell.com/us/soho/p/precision-m4600/fs [2] http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/category.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=soho&cs=ussoho1&category_id=2999&mfgpid=223510 http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/category.aspx?c=us&l=... [3] http://www.notebookreview.com/default.asp?newsID=6400&review=dell+precision+m4600+mobile+workstation&p=4 http://www.notebookreview.com/default.asp?newsID=6400&re... [4] http://www.apple.com/support/macbookpro/service/battery/ http://www.apple.com/support/macbookpro/service/battery/ [5] http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/07/retina-macbook-pro-maximizing-battery-life-with-gfxcardstatus/ http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/07/retina-macbook-pro-maxi...
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - ineedtosleep 14y ago
    Horrible comparison. * For one, choosing a "random laptop off of Dell's small business" is not the equivalent of a MBP. * Second, your choice of power benchmark is ridiculous. FTA: "Before we mention the battery life of the Precision M4600, it's important to point out that our review unit came equipped with the Intel Core i7-2920XM Extreme Edition processor." And based on the source's graph[1] they are dead last by a significant amount. Are you sure you chose this "randomly?" * Third, choosing a laptop slightly more comparable, hell, even if it's not as comparable, will yield significantly better battery life. The ThinkPad Edge [2] ranges from 7.4-5.7 hours; The T series can go up to 16 hours on a 9-cell battery [3] and the X series with up to 23 hours. * As for price, Lenovo is near the same price range at around $179/9-cell battery. The word "exorbitant" may not be completely qualified here, but the prices are neither decent nor cheap. [1] http://i.imgur.com/Ucep7.png http://i.imgur.com/Ucep7.png -- Don't want to take their bandwidth. (Shortened lenovo links below since they were really big. No referral nonsense in there, I promise.) [2] http://lnv.gy/N0mufz http://lnv.gy/N0mufz [3] http://lnv.gy/cVtbKt http://lnv.gy/cVtbKt [4] http://lnv.gy/dBYhVr http://lnv.gy/dBYhVr
BrandonM 14y ago
But many agencies cannot simply send devices, often containing sensitive information, off to 3rd parties without a specific contract and vetted protocol governing the exchange. Part of the reason that a government agency has to handle disposal themselves is so that they can ensure the legally-mandated destruction of private data. Failing to meet EPEAT guidelines is not merely symbolic; it means that performing secure and environmentally-friendly disposal is rendered much more difficult. It also means the cost of ownership is higher since either the lifespan of the device will be shorter or experts will have to be paid to perform repairs.
beedogs 14y ago
You honestly think bog-standard consumers are going to make up for the hundreds of millions of dollars they're likely to lose from large institutional customers who can no longer purchase Apple products? Okay...
mcbridematt 14y ago
Can I be absolutely certain that the sub-contractors Apple uses won't just chuck the nasty glued bits in landfill as well? Other countries may not benefit from Apple's own recycling programs.
Spooky23 14y ago
I am a member of a group that makes PC standards selections for an organization that buys 30,000-40,000 computers per year. We take stewardship of our IT asset lifecycle seriously -- over 60,000 devices were properly recycled last year. (Includes non-computer equipment and counts monitors separately) Apple was a small growing category for us since 2009. EPEAT is about more than recycling -- it's about reducing the total environmental impact of the PC. Everything from avoiding hazardous materials to energy efficiency to packaging options to end-of-life. It gives folks who give a hoot the ability to quickly do an "apples to apples" comparison of the environmental impact of various products. It also externalizes decisions. Should we not buy that amazing device that everyone lusts over because the bezel contains brominated materials? It's just a bezel! EPEAT makes that decision easier -- it's certified, or not. This is just one more example of the level of contempt that Apple routinely displays for anyone whose needs go beyond buying their products for MSRP at retail, I'm done with them. I'm not sacrificing our standards so that Apple can glue components to their computers.
- MJR 14y ago
  I don't think it's contempt. It may appear to be contempt in the eyes of large customers, but from Apple's perspective they want to make the best products they can. If that is counter to the way the EPEAT guidelines operate, but they can offer equal or superior environmental impact and produce the products they want, isn't that ok? Honest question: Are you not able to compare the EPEAT guidelines with what Apple currently does? They provide details on all of the things you mentioned - hazardous materials, energy efficiency, etc. It seems like they should still stand up to EPEAT, despite the recycling bit, considering that they offer recycling of their products. http://www.apple.com/environment/ http://www.apple.com/environment/
  - Spooky23 14y ago
    That webpage is part-information, part-marketing. It conveys the message that the company wants to tell. EPEAT's criteria come from published IEEE standards, last updated in 2009. Other vendors with similar form-factors seem to be able to meet the EPEAT criteria. The new "Ultrabooks", which are similar form-factor wise to Apple products, seem to be capable of meeting EPEAT Silver criteria. What is Apple's commitment? Right now they may meet EPEAT Gold standards. Will they next month? I suppose that I could hire people to figure this out, but why should I? There are plenty of competitors with quality products. Why couldn't Apple have proposed updates to EPEAT, if it's so hopelessly out of date? A: They hold the institutional/corporate customer in contempt.
abalone 14y ago
Except Apple has NOT confirmed that they actually recycle these new models with glued components. In fact their official response* dodged this question, directing attention to other aspects of their green efforts. But no word on the key design change, the gluing of components that would need to be separated in order to be recycled. Does Marco have a source for his claim that Apple actually recycles the new models if you bring them back? *http://www.loopinsight.com/2012/07/10/apple-responds-to-epeat-concerns/ http://www.loopinsight.com/2012/07/10/apple-responds-to-epea...

by MJR 14y ago

jmduke 14y ago

I understand it -- and do think that the decision is rational -- from a business perspective, but at the end of the day it's Apple making a conscious choice to make their products less environmentally friendly. That's completely fine for Apple to do, but its still disappointing that they're disregarding environmental standards. More disconcertingly, one can see the comments here -- largely defending Apple and marginalizing the issue -- being completely different if it was, say, Microsoft.

MJR 14y ago
That's just not true. They are saying that they will no longer comply with an out-dated standard. Their current practices in manufacturing, materials and offering recycling of their own products are superior to the EPEAT guidelines. They actual already go above and beyond the EPEAT guidelines and now they won't be beholden in their designs to those guidelines. Just take a look at this article and check out the links to see for yourself how Apple was already doing more than the EPEAT guidelines required. http://www.loopinsight.com/2012/07/10/apple-responds-to-epeat-concerns/ http://www.loopinsight.com/2012/07/10/apple-responds-to-epea... http://www.apple.com/environment/ http://www.apple.com/environment/ And as an aside - Microsoft in comparison is not a hardware company and the comments here aren't marginalizing the issue. The articles and reporting have blown this out of proportion to begin with.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- lmm 14y ago
  That sounds like a smokescreen. Sure, Apple does a lot of good environmental stuff that's not covered by EPEAT. But that doesn't change that it's started gluing screens and batteries to cases, making them basically impossible to recycle, which is the real story here.
  - elithrar 14y ago
    > ... making them basically impossible to recycle, which is the real story here. I would argue that they are "much more difficult" to recycle by anyone other than Apple. They can still be recycled.
    - Blara 14y ago
      Do you have a source for that? I've heard that the recycling company that Apple uses in fact does not recycle the newer "glued models".
    - josteink 14y ago
      If it can only be done by Apple, it is safe to assume that in 99%+ of the cases it wont be done.
  - kenrikm 14y ago
    If you get the battery replaced by Apple (the only option) they recycle the battery. If you want to get rid of your old laptop, Apple will recycle it. I have never actually had a completely dead/garbage Apple laptop since I usually sell them after about 5 years, they have a much longer lifespan then your average PC laptop.
  - atirip 14y ago
    I don't know. Why are computers needed to be recycled by HAND? C'mon, cars are recycled by machinery and modern cars use glue like hell. So whats the issue here?
taligent 14y ago
Making their products harder to recycle does not make it impossible to recycle. Hence the logic about less environment friendly is simply not true.
- jmduke 14y ago
  Are you arguing that Retina MacBook which complied with EPEAT would not be more environmentally friendly than one which did not comply?
  - kenrikm 14y ago
    Actually that's possible, for example if the battery in a Retina Macbook lives for 800 - 1k cycles because they use better technology and the battery in a average PC laptop only lives 400 - 500 then yes it's possible that the Mac could be better for the environment. Someone would have to do a thorough check on each component to objectively verify if it's better or worse then EPEAT certified laptop. All things are not equal standards like EPEAT are too generic to rely on in all cases.

danieldk 14y ago

That's really too much Apple love. While it's true that old machines can still be recycled. But, in older models you could easily replace the battery --- you can pop them out with a lever, get a new battery at the Apple store, and put it in. Without removing any screws (or warranty). While this change does not matter that much to most people here (I readily admit that I replace my laptop every one or two years, selling the old one), the average consumer uses a laptop much longer, especially when a laptop is a huge investment for them. Apple's latest designs drastically shorten the lifespan of laptops, unless you want to pay the exorbitant fees of having the battery replaced or adding memory. It is bad for the environment (more laptops need to be produced), the consumer's pocketbook, and only serves Apple.

neild 14y ago
I just picked a random laptop off of Dell's small business site: The M4600[1]. Dell will sell you a replacement 97Whr battery for $170[2]. The M4600 gets 3.5 hours of life with the larger battery[3]. Apple will replace the 95Whr battery in a Retina MacBook Pro for $200[4]. $30 more than Dell charges for a similar-capacity battery, but this does include labor and the MPB gets 7+ hours of life with it[5]. I do not believe your assertion of "exorbitant fees" is supportable. [1] http://www.dell.com/us/soho/p/precision-m4600/fs http://www.dell.com/us/soho/p/precision-m4600/fs [2] http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/category.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=soho&cs=ussoho1&category_id=2999&mfgpid=223510 http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/category.aspx?c=us&l=... [3] http://www.notebookreview.com/default.asp?newsID=6400&review=dell+precision+m4600+mobile+workstation&p=4 http://www.notebookreview.com/default.asp?newsID=6400&re... [4] http://www.apple.com/support/macbookpro/service/battery/ http://www.apple.com/support/macbookpro/service/battery/ [5] http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/07/retina-macbook-pro-maximizing-battery-life-with-gfxcardstatus/ http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/07/retina-macbook-pro-maxi...
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- ineedtosleep 14y ago
  Horrible comparison. * For one, choosing a "random laptop off of Dell's small business" is not the equivalent of a MBP. * Second, your choice of power benchmark is ridiculous. FTA: "Before we mention the battery life of the Precision M4600, it's important to point out that our review unit came equipped with the Intel Core i7-2920XM Extreme Edition processor." And based on the source's graph[1] they are dead last by a significant amount. Are you sure you chose this "randomly?" * Third, choosing a laptop slightly more comparable, hell, even if it's not as comparable, will yield significantly better battery life. The ThinkPad Edge [2] ranges from 7.4-5.7 hours; The T series can go up to 16 hours on a 9-cell battery [3] and the X series with up to 23 hours. * As for price, Lenovo is near the same price range at around $179/9-cell battery. The word "exorbitant" may not be completely qualified here, but the prices are neither decent nor cheap. [1] http://i.imgur.com/Ucep7.png http://i.imgur.com/Ucep7.png -- Don't want to take their bandwidth. (Shortened lenovo links below since they were really big. No referral nonsense in there, I promise.) [2] http://lnv.gy/N0mufz http://lnv.gy/N0mufz [3] http://lnv.gy/cVtbKt http://lnv.gy/cVtbKt [4] http://lnv.gy/dBYhVr http://lnv.gy/dBYhVr

BrandonM 14y ago

But many agencies cannot simply send devices, often containing sensitive information, off to 3rd parties without a specific contract and vetted protocol governing the exchange. Part of the reason that a government agency has to handle disposal themselves is so that they can ensure the legally-mandated destruction of private data. Failing to meet EPEAT guidelines is not merely symbolic; it means that performing secure and environmentally-friendly disposal is rendered much more difficult. It also means the cost of ownership is higher since either the lifespan of the device will be shorter or experts will have to be paid to perform repairs.

beedogs 14y ago

You honestly think bog-standard consumers are going to make up for the hundreds of millions of dollars they're likely to lose from large institutional customers who can no longer purchase Apple products? Okay...

mcbridematt 14y ago

Can I be absolutely certain that the sub-contractors Apple uses won't just chuck the nasty glued bits in landfill as well? Other countries may not benefit from Apple's own recycling programs.

Spooky23 14y ago

I am a member of a group that makes PC standards selections for an organization that buys 30,000-40,000 computers per year. We take stewardship of our IT asset lifecycle seriously -- over 60,000 devices were properly recycled last year. (Includes non-computer equipment and counts monitors separately) Apple was a small growing category for us since 2009. EPEAT is about more than recycling -- it's about reducing the total environmental impact of the PC. Everything from avoiding hazardous materials to energy efficiency to packaging options to end-of-life. It gives folks who give a hoot the ability to quickly do an "apples to apples" comparison of the environmental impact of various products. It also externalizes decisions. Should we not buy that amazing device that everyone lusts over because the bezel contains brominated materials? It's just a bezel! EPEAT makes that decision easier -- it's certified, or not. This is just one more example of the level of contempt that Apple routinely displays for anyone whose needs go beyond buying their products for MSRP at retail, I'm done with them. I'm not sacrificing our standards so that Apple can glue components to their computers.

MJR 14y ago
I don't think it's contempt. It may appear to be contempt in the eyes of large customers, but from Apple's perspective they want to make the best products they can. If that is counter to the way the EPEAT guidelines operate, but they can offer equal or superior environmental impact and produce the products they want, isn't that ok? Honest question: Are you not able to compare the EPEAT guidelines with what Apple currently does? They provide details on all of the things you mentioned - hazardous materials, energy efficiency, etc. It seems like they should still stand up to EPEAT, despite the recycling bit, considering that they offer recycling of their products. http://www.apple.com/environment/ http://www.apple.com/environment/
- Spooky23 14y ago
  That webpage is part-information, part-marketing. It conveys the message that the company wants to tell. EPEAT's criteria come from published IEEE standards, last updated in 2009. Other vendors with similar form-factors seem to be able to meet the EPEAT criteria. The new "Ultrabooks", which are similar form-factor wise to Apple products, seem to be capable of meeting EPEAT Silver criteria. What is Apple's commitment? Right now they may meet EPEAT Gold standards. Will they next month? I suppose that I could hire people to figure this out, but why should I? There are plenty of competitors with quality products. Why couldn't Apple have proposed updates to EPEAT, if it's so hopelessly out of date? A: They hold the institutional/corporate customer in contempt.

abalone 14y ago

Except Apple has NOT confirmed that they actually recycle these new models with glued components. In fact their official response* dodged this question, directing attention to other aspects of their green efforts. But no word on the key design change, the gluing of components that would need to be separated in order to be recycled. Does Marco have a source for his claim that Apple actually recycles the new models if you bring them back? *http://www.loopinsight.com/2012/07/10/apple-responds-to-epeat-concerns/ http://www.loopinsight.com/2012/07/10/apple-responds-to-epea...