"All eligible products" is a key, the new iPad with its glued in battery is not among them.
The "more efficient and longer lasting" case materials he brags about are irrelevant in their disposable products made of low quality components that are not user serviceable or upgradable.
It's like bragging you made your automobile frame out of solid titanium with a carbon fiber shell, but ignoring the fact that you built the engine without any way to change the oil, so you're going to be throwing it out or sending it in for major costly service after a short time. Such planned obsolescent designs are certainly not environmentally sound, and claims of the longevity and strength of the frame materials, and even of certifications, are just PR to distract and hypnotize the marketplace into believing the opposite of the reality of the situation.
Not being user-servicable does not mean it's disposable. You can take it to Apple Stores and they'll fix it for you (and they certainly don't tuck the entire thing in the trash, they probably have some complex machines (that not everyone has) that are able to de-glue screen/battery and case).
It's a compromise most regular customers will probably accept.
And I don't get ""disposable products made of low quality components"" at all. Low quality?!
The user serviceability argument is tired. The readers of HN are disproportionally more willing and eager to service their own tech than the overall population. The only group this really isn't good for is the third-party repair companies.
Apple has made it clear they want a tight relationship with the customer at every step of the product experience. This is (from Apple's point of view) just strengthening that relationship.
Actually, it's not glued with epoxy resin or something like that. The iFixit teardown shows them removing it with a spudger. Hardly a difficult job for recyclers.
Online parts shops are already selling replacement batteries and can even replace it for you if you don't want to send it to Apple. That's the reality of the situation, if you care to do some research.
I've replaced the battery on an iPhone 3GS (also glued in) and it's not a big deal.
I'm sure there were plenty of people who bemoaned integrated circuits being less repairable than circuit boards, and then ASICS for being less repairable than single purpose DIPs. We really need to build everything out of wood, I guess.
Only if oil generally only needed to be replaced once or twice over the lifespan of a car, an oil change was traditionally so easy and convenient that most customers did it themselves, and the "expensive repair", in absolute terms, was only slightly more expensive than the retail price of oil change parts and supplies for otherwise comparable cars.
>"All eligible products" is a key, the new iPad with its glued in battery is not among them.
True, but OTOH, then can't go back in time and change it's design now that they decided to go back with EPEAT, can they?
>It's like bragging you made your automobile frame out of solid titanium with a carbon fiber shell, but ignoring the fact that you built the engine without any way to change the oil, so you're going to be throwing it out or sending it in for major costly service after a short time
Yes, if we ignore the fact that for the analogy to work:
1) Most people would not ever have the oil in their cars changed.
2) The car runs fine without an oil change for as many --or even more-- years as others cars that do permit oil change.
Buying a MBP Retina now, with Apple warranty repairs and/or Apple Care, you get as many years as you would use any Dell or IBM or other laptop.
Maybe some people would like to update RAM and HD and use them for 1-2 more years, but how many are those people? Judging from the giant success of Apple retail stores and the relative obscurity of iFixit and such sites/services, not that many.
I’m not sure, I think laptops have become longer lasting, more appliance like. I think that’s a very positive thing for the majority of people.
The only big issue I see is the battery which will definitely break. Those things have a limited lifetime (shorter than, say, five years you at least would want your laptop to make it) and there is nothing you can change about that.
Read the fine print; it says, "Macbook Pro was rated EPEAT gold." Everywhere else, the Retina Macbook Pro is referred to as "Macbook Pro with Retina Display." They are separate products; and, I'm guessing the EPEAT gold rating does not apply to the Retina MBP (though, if someone can show otherwise, that'd be great).
Interesting! Unless I'm misunderstanding a subtlety here, the common wisdom seemed to be that the retina MacBook's glue made it ineligible to get EPEAT certification and, since that style of design is obviously Apple's future direction, they pulled their EPEAT participation now.
In the post-Jobs era I think we'll see more of this. Jobs was the face of Apple and he can't be replaced in that role. Going forward the best they can do is put other faces out there and let them be authentic and true to themselves in the process. Even when Jobs was being a huge jerk you could at least appreciate he was being authentic. People appreciate authenticity.
I agree. Worryingly, it could be evidence of a move away from traditional Steve values, ie don't back down (straight away), don't apologise, don't explain. Alternatively, it could be Apple realise they made a huge mistake, were about to see immense damage to the brand and/or sales, so have taken the drastic, ajobsian action they think is required.
"Apple makes the most environmentally responsible products in our industry."
How is this possibly true? Nothing Apple makes can be easily opened, upgraded, or have their batteries replaced. They are made to be obsolete in 2-3 years.
When my iPad screen cracked, they made me buy a new one (at discount) instead of fixing it. I doubt they even fixed the old one I gave to them - just discarded it. How is that environmentally friendly?
I own almost everything Apple makes. But they need to better explain how built-in obsolescence and impossible-to-fix devices equates to environmentally friendly.
"How is this possibly true? Nothing Apple makes can be easily opened, upgraded, or have their batteries replaced. "
It can be true if ease of opening and component swapping aren't the sole factors in determining the environmental impact of the devices.
"When my iPad screen cracked, they made me buy a new one (at discount) instead of fixing it. I doubt they even fixed the old one I gave to them - just discarded it. "
It was probably refurbished. Someone else is likely using it now. Though neither of us know for sure. At any rate, Apple's policy is to refurbish and resell damaged devices when possible, and they sell refurbished products directly in their online store.
"I own almost everything Apple makes. But they need to better explain how built-in obsolescence and impossible-to-fix devices equates to environmentally friendly."
Here is data from their website on your iPad, for example:
As far as them needing to explain how the factors you mentioned equate to being environmentally friendly, I think that that need rests on your assumption that those two factors are the most important ones. The fact that Apple is probably the biggest reseller of refurbished devices speaks to that point, but again, that question is so complex. An economist could probably write an award winning dissertation just trying to answer it.
Every consumable can be replaced - just not necessarily by you. Every structural component can be replaced and installed according to manufacturer recommendations - just not necessarily by you. Replacement parts are available for a seven year window - just not necessarily sold directly to you.
Pretty much everything Apple makes is obsolete within a year, but that's not due to Apple's design choices, it's due to technological progress. What you're trying to say is that Apple's products are garbage in 2-3 years, but that's obviously not true - other than batteries (which to my knowledge can all be replaced for a fee at the very least), all Apple products can be expected to have useful lifetimes in excess of 5 years.
As for your cracked iPad screen, just because Apple may not have refurbished it in the way you think they should have does not mean it ended up in a landfill. It's quite possible that it's cheaper for them to recycle the case and logic board than to re-validate the machine after putting a new screen on it.
> How is this possibly true? Nothing Apple makes can be easily opened, upgraded, or have their batteries replaced. They are made to be obsolete in 2-3 years.
There are lots of facets to environmental friendliness.
Making everything out of aluminum and glass instead of hydrocarbon-based plastic, for example, or making higher quality devices that have a longer useful life than cheaply made ones.
They didn't make you do anything. You could have gone to a third party repair shop and bought a new screen (glass) for about $40 (first hit i found). If they had welded it together so there was no way to take it apart without destroying it, I'd agree with you. But that's not the case.
Obsolete in 2-3 years? No, those would be Android devices, where a phone 12 months old often can't run or doesn't have an upgraded version of Android OS. However, the iPhone 3GS, released 3+ years ago, will run iOS 6.
Apple's answer to obsolescence is to make their stuff good enough that it doesn't need to be upgraded continually throughout its lifetime in order to remain competitive. I'm pretty sure you'll get more use out of a sealed, non-upgradeable MacBook than you'll get out of most other similar alternatives.
As for your iPad screen, it seems rather unfair to criticize a company by imagining the worst case outcome and then imagining that's what they did. It's pretty common to give customers refurbished replacements, then take back their old broken stuff, refurbish them, and give that out to the next customer who needs a replacement. This way customers are insulated from the annoyingly-long repair times, but they can still reuse repairable equipment. There's no reason to think Apple just tossed your old iPad in the trash.
* Apple makes thin, light, durable products. Reduce > Recycle.
* Raw materials are a small amount of the embodied energy in electronics. The microchips themselves constitute many times the embodied energy. Again, reduce > recycle.
* As others have pointed out, Apple didn't do this because any of their newly-released products weren't eligible.
Putting it all together, Apple did this to send a message to EPEAT: "Disassembly isn't the end-all be-all of green." Looks like EPEAT caved.
One interesting thing to note is that this is from Bob Mansfield, and not Tim Cook. When Jobs was CEO, I don't remember a subordinate ever releasing something like this.
"Our relationship with EPEAT has become stronger as a result of this experience, and we look forward to working with EPEAT as their rating system and the underlying IEEE 1680.1 standard evolve"
Reads to me like EPEAT is moving (a bit) in Apple's direction with the new future IEEE-standards.
Almost all power cords and extension cords in the US contain lead: the lead is added to the plastic part of the cord when the plastic is still "molten" and its purpose is to make the plastic less flammable.
Although I did not do a chemical assay on it or anything, I am pretty sure that the power cord Apple included with my 2011 Mac mini contains no lead. (The cord has a different, more rubbery feel to it that strongly suggests a completely different material, and I might have seen a claim to that effect somewhere on the web.)
I'm a bit thrown by the overall tone of this announcement. I'll totally on board that Apple is doing its best to make "green" products and, apparently they're leading the way - great!
But if it's all true, why did they pull the products from EPEAT at all?
But does this mean their products will now be more recyclable and whatnot? Or it just means they put their EPEAT badge on the site again, although their new devices are still not as compliant as they used to be before?
I’m thinking about whether this is an atypical reaction by Apple and I think it’s not but I’m not sure.
The pattern is typical – more or less. Some criticism appears. Apple is dead silent for a few days. Apple has a comprehensive response to the criticism. (Alternative that also happens frequently: Apple doesn’t ever mention the criticism.) That’s what used to happen in the past, that’s what nearly happened here.
The difference is that they responded with a different message pretty quickly after the criticism (arguing that EPAT isn’t such a great certification) so it’s not true that they staid completely silent.
When it comes to the message itself, I don’t think it’s that atypical. Apple rarely responds to criticism, so there are few situations we can use to compare. It’s not as big a deal as Atennagate – so they picked a less involved way to respond (basically a press release instead of a press conference) – but in every other respect it’s pretty similar.
This time there is a clearer Mea Culpa but the undertone is still that EPAT is a bad certification. (During the Antennagate press conference the undertone was that it’s not really that big of a deal – and it was a much more obvious undertone.) The tradition of Apple execs writing letters is also continued.
I would only say that Steve’s letters tended to be more about presenting arguments. That has certainly something to do with the different purposes (explain why DRM/Flash are bad vs. admit that you were wrong and reverse direction) but I still would have preferred if Bob Mansfield had explained more of Apple’s reasoning.
geez apple, get it together. i was mildly impressed by tim cook when he took over, but now i'm getting the impression that he is apple's steve ballmer. this was a ridiculous and trivially preventable gaff.
[+] [-] droithomme|13 years ago|reply
The "more efficient and longer lasting" case materials he brags about are irrelevant in their disposable products made of low quality components that are not user serviceable or upgradable.
It's like bragging you made your automobile frame out of solid titanium with a carbon fiber shell, but ignoring the fact that you built the engine without any way to change the oil, so you're going to be throwing it out or sending it in for major costly service after a short time. Such planned obsolescent designs are certainly not environmentally sound, and claims of the longevity and strength of the frame materials, and even of certifications, are just PR to distract and hypnotize the marketplace into believing the opposite of the reality of the situation.
[+] [-] pooriaazimi|13 years ago|reply
It's a compromise most regular customers will probably accept.
And I don't get ""disposable products made of low quality components"" at all. Low quality?!
[+] [-] ary|13 years ago|reply
Apple has made it clear they want a tight relationship with the customer at every step of the product experience. This is (from Apple's point of view) just strengthening that relationship.
[+] [-] gnaffle|13 years ago|reply
Online parts shops are already selling replacement batteries and can even replace it for you if you don't want to send it to Apple. That's the reality of the situation, if you care to do some research.
I've replaced the battery on an iPhone 3GS (also glued in) and it's not a big deal.
[+] [-] lloeki|13 years ago|reply
The Retina MacBook Pro is rated gold EPEAT, despite criticism regarding the glue used.
I seem to remember some components were glued in early versions of some iPhones/iPads, but were later silently updated to have no glue.
[+] [-] leberwurstsaft|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Tloewald|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jasomill|13 years ago|reply
So no, not really.
[+] [-] raganesh|13 years ago|reply
EPEAT registry does not yet include certifications for smartphones or tablets.
[+] [-] batista|13 years ago|reply
True, but OTOH, then can't go back in time and change it's design now that they decided to go back with EPEAT, can they?
>It's like bragging you made your automobile frame out of solid titanium with a carbon fiber shell, but ignoring the fact that you built the engine without any way to change the oil, so you're going to be throwing it out or sending it in for major costly service after a short time
Yes, if we ignore the fact that for the analogy to work:
1) Most people would not ever have the oil in their cars changed.
2) The car runs fine without an oil change for as many --or even more-- years as others cars that do permit oil change.
Buying a MBP Retina now, with Apple warranty repairs and/or Apple Care, you get as many years as you would use any Dell or IBM or other laptop.
Maybe some people would like to update RAM and HD and use them for 1-2 more years, but how many are those people? Judging from the giant success of Apple retail stores and the relative obscurity of iFixit and such sites/services, not that many.
[+] [-] mkaltenecker|13 years ago|reply
The only big issue I see is the battery which will definitely break. Those things have a limited lifetime (shorter than, say, five years you at least would want your laptop to make it) and there is nothing you can change about that.
[+] [-] younata|13 years ago|reply
http://www.apple.com/macbook-pro/specs/
[+] [-] bcrescimanno|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] glhaynes|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] derwildemomo|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jsz0|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alpine|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unreal37|13 years ago|reply
How is this possibly true? Nothing Apple makes can be easily opened, upgraded, or have their batteries replaced. They are made to be obsolete in 2-3 years.
When my iPad screen cracked, they made me buy a new one (at discount) instead of fixing it. I doubt they even fixed the old one I gave to them - just discarded it. How is that environmentally friendly?
I own almost everything Apple makes. But they need to better explain how built-in obsolescence and impossible-to-fix devices equates to environmentally friendly.
[+] [-] deveac|13 years ago|reply
It can be true if ease of opening and component swapping aren't the sole factors in determining the environmental impact of the devices.
"When my iPad screen cracked, they made me buy a new one (at discount) instead of fixing it. I doubt they even fixed the old one I gave to them - just discarded it. "
It was probably refurbished. Someone else is likely using it now. Though neither of us know for sure. At any rate, Apple's policy is to refurbish and resell damaged devices when possible, and they sell refurbished products directly in their online store.
"I own almost everything Apple makes. But they need to better explain how built-in obsolescence and impossible-to-fix devices equates to environmentally friendly."
Here is data from their website on your iPad, for example:
http://images.apple.com/environment/reports/docs/iPad2_Produ...
More here:
http://www.apple.com/environment/reports/
As far as them needing to explain how the factors you mentioned equate to being environmentally friendly, I think that that need rests on your assumption that those two factors are the most important ones. The fact that Apple is probably the biggest reseller of refurbished devices speaks to that point, but again, that question is so complex. An economist could probably write an award winning dissertation just trying to answer it.
[+] [-] jpxxx|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wtallis|13 years ago|reply
As for your cracked iPad screen, just because Apple may not have refurbished it in the way you think they should have does not mean it ended up in a landfill. It's quite possible that it's cheaper for them to recycle the case and logic board than to re-validate the machine after putting a new screen on it.
[+] [-] objclxt|13 years ago|reply
'Environmentally friendly' != 'easy to open'. There is a lot more to it than that.
[+] [-] bluthru|13 years ago|reply
>I doubt they even fixed the old one I gave to them
They do. It's sold as refurbished.
[+] [-] ceejayoz|13 years ago|reply
There are lots of facets to environmental friendliness.
Making everything out of aluminum and glass instead of hydrocarbon-based plastic, for example, or making higher quality devices that have a longer useful life than cheaply made ones.
[+] [-] gnaffle|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] therandomguy|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bdcravens|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bdcravens|13 years ago|reply
Despite the attention the new rMBP gets, they are still selling iMacs, Mac Minis, and MBPs that are easily upgraded.
[+] [-] mikeash|13 years ago|reply
As for your iPad screen, it seems rather unfair to criticize a company by imagining the worst case outcome and then imagining that's what they did. It's pretty common to give customers refurbished replacements, then take back their old broken stuff, refurbish them, and give that out to the next customer who needs a replacement. This way customers are insulated from the annoyingly-long repair times, but they can still reuse repairable equipment. There's no reason to think Apple just tossed your old iPad in the trash.
[+] [-] schiffern|13 years ago|reply
* Apple makes thin, light, durable products. Reduce > Recycle.
* Raw materials are a small amount of the embodied energy in electronics. The microchips themselves constitute many times the embodied energy. Again, reduce > recycle.
* As others have pointed out, Apple didn't do this because any of their newly-released products weren't eligible.
Putting it all together, Apple did this to send a message to EPEAT: "Disassembly isn't the end-all be-all of green." Looks like EPEAT caved.
[+] [-] swilliams|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] smackfu|13 years ago|reply
http://www.macrumors.com/2012/06/28/svp-of-hardware-engineer...
[+] [-] dannyr|13 years ago|reply
I wonder how they are going to spin this one.
[+] [-] digitalengineer|13 years ago|reply
Reads to me like EPEAT is moving (a bit) in Apple's direction with the new future IEEE-standards.
[+] [-] hollerith|13 years ago|reply
Almost all power cords and extension cords in the US contain lead: the lead is added to the plastic part of the cord when the plastic is still "molten" and its purpose is to make the plastic less flammable.
Although I did not do a chemical assay on it or anything, I am pretty sure that the power cord Apple included with my 2011 Mac mini contains no lead. (The cord has a different, more rubbery feel to it that strongly suggests a completely different material, and I might have seen a claim to that effect somewhere on the web.)
[+] [-] rabidonrails|13 years ago|reply
But if it's all true, why did they pull the products from EPEAT at all?
[+] [-] mtgx|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] PedroCandeias|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] recursive|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sambe|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tscrib|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] guscost|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] abcd_f|13 years ago|reply
A middle finger, the Apple way.
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] mkaltenecker|13 years ago|reply
The pattern is typical – more or less. Some criticism appears. Apple is dead silent for a few days. Apple has a comprehensive response to the criticism. (Alternative that also happens frequently: Apple doesn’t ever mention the criticism.) That’s what used to happen in the past, that’s what nearly happened here.
The difference is that they responded with a different message pretty quickly after the criticism (arguing that EPAT isn’t such a great certification) so it’s not true that they staid completely silent.
When it comes to the message itself, I don’t think it’s that atypical. Apple rarely responds to criticism, so there are few situations we can use to compare. It’s not as big a deal as Atennagate – so they picked a less involved way to respond (basically a press release instead of a press conference) – but in every other respect it’s pretty similar.
This time there is a clearer Mea Culpa but the undertone is still that EPAT is a bad certification. (During the Antennagate press conference the undertone was that it’s not really that big of a deal – and it was a much more obvious undertone.) The tradition of Apple execs writing letters is also continued.
I would only say that Steve’s letters tended to be more about presenting arguments. That has certainly something to do with the different purposes (explain why DRM/Flash are bad vs. admit that you were wrong and reverse direction) but I still would have preferred if Bob Mansfield had explained more of Apple’s reasoning.
[+] [-] hell0_th3r3|13 years ago|reply