<![CDATA[Apple's shallow critics - Valleywag Comments]]> <![CDATA[Apple's shallow critics - Valleywag Comments]]> <![CDATA[Apple's shallow critics]]> Steve's going to paint his new 246-foot yacht viridity. His motto: Is this green enough for you?

Neil_Anderson

]]> <![CDATA[Apple's shallow critics]]> I'm glad to comment via this paperless form of desktop publishing, which can even be deskless as well.

My comment is that opposition to negative climate change should not be led by overrated name-brand activists, who give environmentalism and political correctness a bad name. Apparently they don't consider the electrical impact of using what should be termed bloatware boxes. Apparently they don't consider a lot of factors.

In any case, while more than a few older computers end up in dumps, such products can be sold on E-Bay or other similar sites. It's good that if it pays to replace my current Mac (the maker of which I don't have blind brand loyalty to) before the thing dies, I could use that very thing to try selling that very thing.

davidj

]]> <![CDATA[Apple's shallow critics]]> whoa, whoa, everybodys getting all bent out of shape here. the point nick was trying to make (at least in the first half of the article) is that environmentalists make a mistake when they fail to take into account the wider impacts of a company. because of itunes, millions of CDs and jewel cases havent been produced, yet i doubt Climate Counts factored this into their evaluation. its a bit like complaining about the mercury-containing fluorescent bulbs on BART. this analogy is less apt with apple than with ebay. btw, i think ebay blows, but they really have done a lot to make us think about reuse vs. obsolescence. and when environmentalists dont take this into account, theyre engaging in lazy thinking.

einnocent

]]> <![CDATA[Apple's shallow critics]]> People pressure Apple for a very simple reason - they think Apple will respond.

You can think of it as game theory, or whatever, but activists tend to protest against two kinds of people (1) darkly evil companies which they have no hope of moving (but provide a press opportunity), and (2) less evil but more flexible companies.

Is it bad that there is great drama, and then a little (further) improvement from (not so evil) Apple? I don't think so.

I'm not involved, just an observer.

And heck, a certain sort of techie does tend to get his head down in a Valley rut and not notice things that might need word.

odograph

]]> <![CDATA[Apple's shallow critics]]> Oh yes, and I would also like to point out that in Apple's case I think this is an especially valid criticism, as none of the board of directors of Dell or HP, to my knowledge, have received 17 awards, including an Oscar, and $50 million, for their work to save the planet from the evils of Global Warming®, like a certain prominent member of Apple's board.

L. M. Lloyd

]]> <![CDATA[Apple's shallow critics]]> Wow, every time I see an article like this (and I have seen a few), I can't help but wonder what the article would look like if it were Dell, Microsoft, and Sony down at the bottom of the list, and Apple, Google, and eBay at the top? Somehow I just bet that we would see a complete reversal of opinion, and suddenly there would be no more important measure of the worth of a company that its environmental score.

I think it is so amazing how, time and again, any criticism of the 'cool kids' of the tech industry, be it human rights abuses, privacy violations, or lack of environmental responsibility, is brushed off as being petty and shallow, yet when one of the 'unpopular kids' makes even the most trivial mistake, like having a system that overheats, or having a software bug, or God forbid, using DRM it is taken as absolute proof of the pure evil that must reside in the dark lairs of their reviled headquarters, and their plot to bring down civilization as we know it.

Have we really reached a point of subjective delusion so insane that putting DRM on a CD is considered a hanging offense by the entire Internet if it is done by Sony, but polluting the environment is just a cheap shot if it is done by Apple?

L. M. Lloyd

]]> <![CDATA[Apple's shallow critics]]> @PuckOTG22: Not at all, I enjoy all forms of rubbing.

But here are the facts: Companies do not care about the environment, or anything else. They are not people, they have no empathy. They are financial organisms that ingest money and excrete money, enslaving people for their benefit (and the peoples' benefit). If a company ingests more than it excretes, it grows large and healthy. If it excretes more that it ingests, it becomes sickly and dies. Nothing wants to die, including companies, so everything it does is, and must be, focused on this. If it pollutes less it's for marketing or financial purposes, not becuase it is a good company. Apple doesn't do good or bad things, it just wants to grow fat with cash. This is not a cynical view of the corporation, it's a dispassionate analysis of the nature of companies.

Strip away people's emotional responses to companies and their actions, and this is what you're left with. Companies are not going to save the world, unless there's a buck in it. And that's a good thing.

sweetness666

]]> <![CDATA[Apple's shallow critics]]> @sweetness666: Oh yeah, like someone shouldn't stand up for what Dell is doing. If anyone ever says anything positive about Apple -- they just know 'the truth' - but if its another company that is doing something positive its all 'marketing'.

Fact is - not just Dell, but HP and other PC manufacturers are doing things to try and impact the enviroment less. Are Apple fans that big of a conspiracy theorists? Do they really think that Greenpeace and everyone else is beating up on them? The facts are the facts. They aren't working to eliminate harmful products from their manufacturing process and other companies are. Period.

Dell even went a step further to let customers plant trees to help offset the carbon generated by the electricity used to power the machine they purchased. I think they said the trees were $2 on the website last I checked. Not sure if they'll plant apple trees or not...

Anyway - your attitude I guess is typical. Don't do anything. Its all pointless. Just keep going and not try to do anything better than what it is now.

For one - I bought a more gas efficent car so I use less fuel and go further - therefore saving me money, putting less gases in the atmosphere and use less resources.

I recently replaced my old washer and dryer with a new set of front loading energy efficent set.

I have purchased rechargable batteries so that I don't have to put as many harmful toxins into landfills. I also use halogen lightbulbs for longer life cycles so, again, fewer toxins in the landfills.

I also recycle cans from the sodas I drink and recycle paper too.

I'm practical. I can't buy an electric car or a hybrid. I can't afford it at this point. But I appreciate it when a corporation trys to better themselves. That does mean something to me. I'm not a marketing machine or some robot. Just pointing out the facts.

Sorry the facts rub you the wrong way.

PuckOTG22

]]> <![CDATA[Apple's shallow critics]]> Why not mention what Apple has committed to do to help the environment? But it's not just about a computer getting put in a landfill. There's also the toxins that are in the product that people are exposed to every day. Anyone hear the news about lead paint and Thomas the Tank Engine Toy? With companies that manufacturer lots of products, small changes can have a huge impact. Sure, maybe critics are a little loud right now, but it's a good thing for companies to improve their products.

Preston

]]> <![CDATA[Apple's shallow critics]]> Well, 'recycling' electronics (usually done in China) generally means piling them up and setting them aflame and then collecting the various precious metals that leech out. So your right on the point that putting them in a landfill might not be as bad.

Good point on eBay, maybe not so good on desktop publishing -- paper consumption has gone way up since the introduction of personal computers, as a previous commenter pointed out.

Finally, I think a Congolese coltan miner might have a dimmer view on the electronics industry than those of us here in the Valley. And speaking of the Valley, there are so many wonderful public transportation options in the six lanes to everywhere sprawl south of San Francisco!

I think that it's important to point out that just because computers don't run on coal (which, indirectly, most in America do) doesn't mean they're the greenest industry on earth.

Jackson West

]]> <![CDATA[Apple's shallow critics]]>
"Apple's pioneering of desktop publishing did away with much of the filthy print industry"

Are you *entirely* insane? I mean, for the most part you're making a valid point, but that's a counterexample and a half.

DTP caused an absolute bloody explosion in the number and volume of printed things. And brought with it laser printers -- with their toner cartridges, non-ceramic drums that need replacing every other week, minor mechanical problems always requiring complete replacement, ozone which is spat right into your face, landfill... yada yada yada etc etc can't be bothered to write the rest.

Plus, ya know. Plastic. The whole industry really does have quite an issue with petroleum byproducts. There's probably more non-renewable crap being used up in a (nonrecyclable) inkjet cartridge and its packaging than in the next Ryanair seat I buy.

John Handelaar

]]> <![CDATA[Apple's shallow critics]]> @PuckOTG22: Ugh. You sound like a Dell marketing droid. Please stop. Anyway who cares about what Dell or Apple are doing or not doing? It's all tinkering around the edges. Every one of us is destroying the planet every day. Our cars, our computers, our houses, our toasters, everything. Who's calling you and me to account?

Greenpeace and endless other organisations like to take potshots at Apple becuase it is a marketing machine. A little of Apple's publicity rubs off on you. If I shot Steve Jobs I would have the most popular blog in the solar system.

sweetness666

]]> <![CDATA[Apple's shallow critics]]> It seems that perhaps the people that are huge fans of the shiny white plastic company are upset that ANYONE could possibly say anthing againt Apple. Fact is they aren't doing enough.

Look at Dell. They are a primary example of a company that is being Eco friendly and doing more than what is required of them in that arena.

Dell isn't just fixing the way they make computers -- they are going further than any other technology company with the goal to be the 'greenest' technology company on the planet. Apple and most other technology company doesn't even begin to touch the level that Dell has gone to in an effort to offset the effect the products and the electricity they consume do to the enviroment.

If you go to www.dell.com/earth it talks all about it.

There are other technology companies that are doing a lot -- so its not just 'picking on poor apple' -- even HP is trying to do more: [searchcio.techtarget.com]

Why not stop yelling at greenpeace and start demanding that Apple get with the program and try to be leader in something other than shiny plastic music players.

PuckOTG22

]]> <![CDATA[Apple's shallow critics]]> I like how they don't boycott the shipping industry or the airlines. You know, people that burn more fossil fuel in one day then the rest of the world uses in a month.

Maybe because they actually use those things and they cant possibly be responsible enough to change their own lifestyles.

gundark

]]> <![CDATA[Apple's shallow critics]]> Whatever. This post is really a fanboy shrill. If these companies are obviously not meeting the benchmarks, then they're not going to pass. Whether if Apple, eBay, and Google are your most favorite companies in the world, they're just not doing good enough. So that's why there are reports like these. It's not to be mean, but it's to tell the truth. You might think Apple, eBay and Google are doing tons of great stuff that help the environment. And it may be true. But obviously other companies are more eco-friendly, and these 3 still need to do some more work.

Hopefully, they'll meet the better standards that the other companies do. That's all I have to say for them.

quikboy

]]> <![CDATA[Apple's shallow critics]]> Seconded.

Apple has been at the forefront of responsible reuse and recycling for as long as I can remember, from free UPS labels for shipping back toner cartridges in the early 90s to the innumerable recycling and reuse bins at the company.

Meanwhile, Google - which has purchased a widebody 30-pounds-of-fuel-per-second-on-takeoff... jetliner for Larry and Sergey to play around in - gets a score eight times higher than Apple's.

What bullsh!t. This really turns me off to anything these groups have to say.

CaliforniaCajun

]]> <![CDATA[Apple's shallow critics]]> another way ebay is pro-environment: it encourages the reuse of many, many items that would otherwise get thrown out for being thought unwanted. a similar principle is the way in which it provides a market for otherwise-rare replacement parts. this reduces demand for new goods.

its hard to see how an environmentalist could be pissed-off about any of this.

einnocent

]]>