Bono, Oprah Launch (PRODUCT) RED iPod nano

i question the true green-iness of posting things like this. bono and oprah hate aids, sure, but when they tout devices that only create more devastating tolls on the materials they use (coltan has been responsible for so much war in africa) and the subsequent pollution they create (the children in china mining for electronics waste) i think that they are surely creating more harm!?

I agree with Yoni. I don't see this as green news at all. If the new ipod was really an answer, then it would imply that there was something wrong with all those other ipods and mp3 players, and this one would alleviate all the damage those old ipods had done. Plus, Bono hijacks causes and turns them into Bono's this and Bono's that. Bono = more harm than good. Oprah = mostly harmless.

The iPod is not there yet, but I think that in the near future these kinds of digital devices will replace a lot of physical things... Tons of CDs and DVDs and bigger stereos and such. Not for everybody, but for many.

It's kind of the product service system thing..

The iPod's not green?

Let's see - no CDs, no DVDs, no cases, no drive to a record or video store, no shipping of CDs and DVDs to the store, no employees driving to the store -- in fact, no store to build, heat, cool, and power.

That versus a tiny device that comes in a tiny package that is hooked to a computer and high-speed line you're already using.

If there is no store, where in the hell do you get your ipod? No drive to record video? Where does it record then? Thin air? Or you mean no hard drive? If you like DRM then itunes is all yours. I don't think any electronic device is green.

If there is no store, where in the hell do you get your ipod?

You're kidding, right?

store.apple.com
amazon.com
and hundreds of things just like it

So, yes, there's one store and one "trip" to it to get the iPod.

No drive to record video?

"To record video"? Huh?

Where does it record then?

Where does it record what?

If you like DRM then itunes is all yours

Oh, so since the environmental argument is sound, you're now going to bash Apple's DRM? The generic notion of a digital player playing digital files downloaded from the Internet -- that's far more green than the paradigm which preceded it. Happy now? The iPod is just a specific manifestation of that new paradigm.

I don't think any electronic device is green.

Good, then go live in the woods in a burlap sack and chew on bark. The rest of us want to live in modern society and applaud efforts to minimize the impact of it.

You brought up the record topic, or some Anonymous did. So what's better shipping a load of products to a central store and let people get there, by green means if they choose. Or use a non-green delivery truck to ship 1 cd to one person and then off to some other residence. I like to live in modern convenience too and applaud efforts to minimize impact. But i do not call something "green" and then stretch to justify why it is green so I don't feel guilty about it.

So what's better shipping a load of products to a central store and let people get there, by green means if they choose.

First of all, there isn't a "central store". In the paradigm which preceded the one we're pretty much in now, there were thousands of retail outlets selling and/or renting media. And though I'm sure some people got to them in a "green" way, the fact is the vast, vast majority of trips in the US are in gas-powered, ICE personal automobiles averaging about 20 mpg.

Or use a non-green delivery truck to ship 1 cd to one person and then off to some other residence.

That "non-green" delivery truck you're mentioning (which is odd, since a company could just as easily have a "green" truck like the "green" personal cars you posit) is already out delivering mail and/or packages. The marginal amount of energy to get that item to an individual is inconsequential compared to the amount of energy it takes for people to get in their 4,000 pound vehicles and drive and go get it. It also saves an enormous amount of time overall.

But that's not we're talking about. We're talking about a digital media device that is 1.5 cubic inches and weighs 1.5 ounces that doesn't require any physical media besides itself to render. No delivery truck besides the one that brought the tiny little thing to your door. After that, no cars, no delivery trucks, no planes - nothing. All just ones and zeros zipping across wires and being recorded onto a little flash drive.

I like to live in modern convenience too and applaud efforts to minimize impact. But i do not call something "green" and then stretch to justify why it is green so I don't feel guilty about it.

Well, you're certainly free to have your own standards for what is "green". I believe Warren McLaren has a wonderful post on that topic that he just put up today.

If there is no store, where in the hell do you get your ipod? No drive to record video? Where does it record then? Thin air? Or you mean no hard drive? If you like DRM then itunes is all yours. I don't think any electronic device is green.

He said "no drive to the record or video store" record as in vinyl. Not drive to record a video.

You are conveniently ignoring the fact that an ipod could last no less then 2 years in terms of life span and people go to the store month, weekly sometimes even daily to buy a cd. The reason that Ipod's and other dap's can be called green is because they are much MUCH more environmentally friendly then the old system and pleeeease don't deny that I really want some kind of rationality and its completely irational to say that ipod's and digital distribution are not greener then cd's and physical distribution.

Normally I agree with you but you seem to just be arguing for the sake of arguing right now. Oh and I agree with you about DRM its crap but it doesn't negate the environmental benefits of digital distribution.

-quote-
...that doesn't require any physical media besides itself to render. No delivery truck besides the one that brought the tiny little thing to your door. After that, no cars, no delivery trucks, no planes - nothing. All just ones and zeros zipping across wires and being recorded onto a little flash drive.
-end quote-

Everyone is prasing the iPod for the virtues of iTunes. These are two separate product so it would be unwise to award one for the virtues of the other. Just as the iPod is sold separately from the services one iTunes, the computer and the high-speed internet that connect them so must the iPod be judged separately as a product on its own. Give iTunes a green award if it deserves one.

So the Global Relief fund gets $5 for every $200 iPod Apple sells.

How much does Apple get?

Come on. I am so sick of mega-rich stars like Bono and Oprah pimping these god damn fund raising efforts that put more money into the pockets of Apple and the likes instead of the hands of the very people they claim to be helping.

Skip the flippin' ipod and send the Global Relief Fund 5 bucks!
[ http://www.theglobalfund.org/en/donate/ ]

I also find it kind of odd that when people object to media players like the iPod that they forget that CDs and DVDs don't just play themselves -- they need a device to render the media as well. And I can only imagine all the e-waste involved in producing all those hundreds of millions (billions?) of CD and DVD players out there, as well as all the extra energy it takes to power those devices relative to an iPod. And the portable CD players often don't have built-in rechargeable batteries, so there's that waste (and cost) as well.

And now that the large iPods render video, you could compare that with the laptops and DVD players (and even televisions and home audio systems) which they are at least partially substituting for.

All of this of course also ignores the VAST difference in capabilities to search, mix, catalog, store, etc between the two paradigms.

But try this on for size -- an 80 GB iPod can hold the equivalent of about 1,365 one hour CDs (ignoring the quality difference between aiff and 128 AAC files, which is essentially imperceptible to the average user on a portable device).

Those 1,365 CDs weigh a little over 250 pounds and take up a little more than 100 cubic feet -- that's about 750 times the weight and 2,700 times the volume of a standard iPod. And that's not even adding in the weight and size of the device(s) to play back those CDs which the iPod replaces.

It's hard to think of another area in our lives when such a radical dematerialization has been accomplished in so short a time and in the mainstream no less.

He said "no drive to the record or video store" record as in vinyl. Not drive to record a video.

LOL ohhh. Now I get it. Who uses the term 'record' anymore? My mind swapped store and video and I read it wrong.

So DAP's are greener because they don't have seperate media? ie cd's, tapes, or 'records' Anything beyond that? I'll agree the physical distribution is greener, bit that does not make the DAP itself green. The distribution of content is greener.

That "non-green" delivery truck you're mentioning (which is odd, since a company could just as easily have a "green" truck

Are there green trucks? The only one I know in use is the hydralic UPS ones. And a 20mpg ICE is still better than those.

Are there green trucks? The only one I know in use is the hydralic UPS ones. And a 20mpg ICE is still better than those.

And the truck isn't going back and forth to dozens of stores to get little tiny CDs. It's moving along a standard delviery route, delivering all sorts of packages.

Technologies are embedded in systems, and its the system of the current paradigm which is factors less harmful than the system of the prior paradigm. This is obvious even at first glance.

Everyone is prasing the iPod for the virtues of iTunes. These are two separate product so it would be unwise to award one for the virtues of the other. Just as the iPod is sold separately from the services one iTunes, the computer and the high-speed internet that connect them so must the iPod be judged separately as a product on its own. Give iTunes a green award if it deserves one.

It's an integrated system. At the Apple website, they have a tab that says "iPod and iTunes". The hardware works seamlessly with the software. That's one of the reasons it's been so successful.

The system. The system.

I can get an ipod and use my Hummer with seal skin hubcaps to buy those 1365 cd's. In this case the ipod isn't green. Nor was it. The distribution system is.
And I can only imagine all the e-waste involved in producing all those hundreds of millions (billions?) of CD and DVD players out there, as well as all the extra energy it takes to power those devices relative to an iPod.The ipod creates waste too. And the culture that Apple has, "by this new ipod that's no different" does not promote long use. No DAP or electronics company does. Where are the companies that provide a return label so you can send back your old electronics to get recycled?

You're 100% right. Everything you have said is absolutely correct. You win.

yes, digital music is better than old school.

no, apple is not a green company by any stretch. in fact, they are one of the worst (dell is one of the best) in terms of being forward-thinking about the manufacture and disposal of their products. apple should spend less on celebrity endorsements like this and more on addressing the serious environmental problems created by their products.

jilted, you are really grasping at straws on this one. apple does have a progressive electronics recycling program, as does dell. how many stereo component manufacturers can say the same? cd manufacturers?

but the larger point is that the ipod (including the integrated itunes software) is far greener than previous music distribution or personal electronics systems. nobody i know makes trips to record stores (as in the place they sell recordings on physical media) anymore and the fact that tower records is closing it's stores as we speak testifies to impact DAPs have had on the market. without a player, it would not work. ergo "integrated system." is it greener than no system at all? no. you got us there.

btw, i've used the same ipod for over 4 years now. jogging with it daily and carrying it to work to transfer files (reduced number of devices=another green improvement). portable cassette players never lasted a year. portable disc players even less. on top of that, i had cassette/disc components at home.

i don't understand you're resistance here.

I heard that Apple designs the iPods to break after a couple of years, after which you can bring them back to the store so Apple can dump them in landfills in other countries.

i agree with jilted

the product launch sustains the current paradigm of insatiable consumption of electronic crap.

without that paradigm, companies like apple wouldn't make any money.

how can an ipod make green product of the year?

we need to stop buying all this junk.

now about those sealskin hubcaps though, they sound kind of bad, where can i get some?

i agree with jilted. the product launch sustains the current paradigm of insatiable consumption of electronic crap.

Yes, and it bothers him so much that he will never buy another piece of elctronic equipment again, including those in cars (and the car itself).

Right?

Or is he just making empty objections?

Previous post someone said: "Oh, so since the environmental argument is sound, you're now going to bash Apple's DRM?"
No, it isn't sound.

And all those things described talk about the computer. You cant download songs on to an ipod without a computer.

No, it isn't sound.

Gee, I guess that settles it then. Nice argument.

And all those things described talk about the computer. You cant download songs on to an ipod without a computer.

You can't put song on an iPod without a computer? You don't say! Thanks for that revelation.

So, you stand on the side that the CD/CD player/drive to the CD store paradigm is better for the environment than the flash or hard drive digital media device and downloadable and rippable media paradigm?

Most people who buy iPods are not buying it to replace their existing stereo setup, so the argument that the iPod is greener than your regular hi-fi system is irrelevant. I suspect most people have both.

As for CD stores closing down, that's probably fuelled as much by the fact that you can buy goods cheaper online, not solely because digital downloads are available.

And how many people, once they pay and download a digital file, burn that file to CD for safe backup? Yes, that wonderfully 'green' piece of software called iTunes actually has a backup facility for CD and DVD.

What's more, a lot of people actually keep the CDs they buy, they don't casually toss them into the trash on a weekly basis. Yes, it's called building up your music collection. And if you want to get rid of some or all of your CDs, are you really going to chuck it all away? Or are you going to put it on eBay or take it to a charity shop?

Finally, there are other MP3 players that have better battery life than iPods - does that make them automatically greener? There are also other music services that let you download MP3s. They don't restrict your choice of MP3 player to a particular brand either which means they can offer their services to a potentially far wider range of users. That sounds far 'greener' to me than Apple's solution.

The actual event was in Chicago though, some friends of mine were there.

jilted, you are really grasping at straws on this one. apple does have a progressive electronics recycling program, as does dell. how many stereo component manufacturers can say the same? cd manufacturers?I'm not grasping at anything. I know Apple and Dell have recycling programs. But do they have a return recycle label in the new products box? That's what I was suggesting might be cool. Guess not.

And I won't hide I dislike Ipod. I've had trouble with mine and I can't see why people fawn over them so much. When it works it's great, but it was built cheaply in my opinion. But if you really want to know more of that you can go to my blog.

I'm not contending the whole system is not green. I've already said the distribution system is green. I'm contending that the IPOD and other DAPS are not green. Which by themselves are not.

AH and there goes Anonymous Coward trying to taunt again. NO I buy my electronic equipment. But I'm a pack rat and never throw anything away. But I'm guessing you don't really care for an answer, you just want to cause trouble, then call me a troll when I respond.

So once again DAPS are not green. itunes, pirating and other online music is.

I find the proliferation of product placements next to charity disturbing... check my blog for my take on AIDS exploitation.

So if you order lead pellet shotgun shells and have them delivered to your doorstep via Fed Ex, that product is suddenly green? The Ist generation of Ipods are headed to the dump where they'll be as much use as a spent shell casing.

Extemist positions...

No, the iPod is not "green". It's a disposal problem, and built to obsolesce (fall appart) too quickly, like most modern consumer hardware.

Yes, iTunes is a greener paradigm, way greener, than physical CD sales. And with movies it will become greener still.

So, the net effect of this thing is lower energy and material use. Can't argue honestly against that. However, this wasn't why Apple did this, and where they've had choices they've been pretty conventional. They use exploited labor in a country (China) with poor environmental control, and they ship their devices long distances, by air, just like the rest of the industry.

Given the alternatives, I wouldn't feel green guilt about getting an iPod (and I have one), but I wouldn't take any green credit for doing so either, and neither should Apple.

Apple has to either make their products more durable, or implement a full cradle to cradle lifecycle, which they don't have now, though they have made a bit of progress in that direction.

They should also get their working conditions and manufacturing impact up to higher standards. This is a company that charges a premium on their products, but are not delivering much outside of their outstanding industrial design and user interface.

Most people who buy iPods are not buying it to replace their existing stereo setup

Do you have any data to support that?

As for CD stores closing down, that's probably fuelled as much by the fact that you can buy goods cheaper online

Do you have any data to support that?

And how many people, once they pay and download a digital file, burn that file to CD for safe backup?

I don't know. I've done it exactly twice myself, for people who don't have digital audio players. Perhaps you have some data on the matter?

What's more, a lot of people actually keep the CDs they buy, they don't casually toss them into the trash on a weekly basis.

I see, so the material never goes to a landfill in the end? How does that work?

Finally, there are other MP3 players that have better battery life than iPods - does that make them automatically greener?

Gee, I don't see anyone here singling out the iPod specifically for being more "green". It's an icon. It is the most common and prevalent form of that type of device, controlling around 80% of the market. It has pushed the paradigm forward very quickly. So that's probably why it gets singled out.

You really shouldn't let your obvious hatred of Apple cloud your rationality. What's under discussion is the difference between media paradigms and their effect on the environment. Let us know when you want to address that specifically.

I mean, really, the topic is Bono and Oprah latching onto a cultural phenomenon, a device which will be sold regardless, and helping take a little money out of that big stream of money and helping out some people in need. But I guess some people can't just be happy with that (ie, people trying to make the world a little bit better) and just like pissing and moaning about things that have nothing to do with the actual topic.

But what else is new.

you don't really care for an answer, you just want to cause trouble

That's your entire game here.

So if you order lead pellet shotgun shells and have them delivered to your doorstep via Fed Ex, that product is suddenly green?

I don't believe anyone made such a claim. As for what's "green", there's wonderful thread posted yesterday devoted to that topic.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/10/ecotip_what_mak.php

Most people who buy iPods are not buying it to replace their existing stereo setup

Do you have any data to support that?Have any evidence contrary?

Have any evidence contrary?

Sure. Personal experience.

But that's not the point. The point is different paradigms. I'm sure some people still have 8-Track players. But CDs pretty much killed off cassettes and records, and cassettes killed off 8-Track.

Now digital audio players and compressed digital files (mp3, aac, etc) are supplanting CDs.

Eventually, people won't be collecting thousands of CDs. It's inevitable. And that's better for the environment on the margin.

Capice?

Ahh so your anecdotal evidence is superior to Firoz. Ya I see how that works....

Yes the distribution of digital files is greener, but the electronics are not green themselves.

Ahh so your anecdotal evidence is superior to Firoz. Ya I see how that works....

You miss the point as usual, looking to whine some more.

Yes the distribution of digital files is greener, but the electronics are not green themselves.

By that logic, nothing is green.

I think using consumerism to promote something like this extremely smart and business savvy. What a concept... it's hip to be aware of a humanitarian crisis. Let's make it fashionable. I'm sure they realized it would produce a few groans among the die-hards, which really is unfortunate, because it becomes mainstream which a lot of die-hards don't like. We live in a consumerized society, yes.... why not use it. It's certainly a way to raise awareness of an important thing. And lets face it, Bono has practically singlehandedly popularized awareness of whats going on in Africa right now, and put it on the Americans' radar, (which is incredible feat in itself). The pandemic in Africa is the biggest humanitarian crisis in our world today, and it's emabarrassing when people cant get over their pride and pointless cynicism a little to see that maybe.... just maybe he might actually be doing something positive. Listen... crying about what a big rock n roll star megalomaniac Bono (which he might be)and actually saying he is doing more harm than good is nothing but self-righteous arrogant cynicism. Bono is a mega-celebrity, has a huge heart, has world leaders's listening, enough charisma to bring Jesse Helms to tears about the pandemic in Africa, and is on our side. Be thankful.

You know what I'm sick of? The continual misuse of Thomas Khun's understanding ofo the term "paradigm." A new paradigm, i.e. the product of a pardigm shift is akin to an epistemological revolution, Khun came to this understanding after studying scientific anomolies which could not be explained by the existing paradigm, a paradigm shift would then occur and a new paradigm would be born. Key to Khun's argument, an INCOMENSERABILITY between the two existing paradigms, the easist examples are optical illusions, the young woman who looks like an old woman; a duck that looks like a rabit. You can only see one at a time and never both.
Problems with the above commentaries use of the term paradigm: First, technological advancements are not necessarially changes in epistemology, they are better understood as the scientific effects of epistemic changes. Technological changes, especially in the form of media, as discussed above, is better understood in semotic terms where, as Marshall McLuhan and many others before discussed, changes in the medium change our interpretation of the message. Second, a paradigm shift requires an incomenserability between the two paradigms. The fact this debate over the green value of iPods is actually occuring means that .mp3's and iPods didn't create a paradigm shift. People are still buying cds and records, ripping those cds and records onto their computer. As well, people are still taking those .mp3s that they get from itunes and burning them onto cd for their friends or car stereo. There maybe a shift within how the majority of americans consume music, but they're still consuming music through the amplification of an audio signal. If we all started eating cds and ipods to listen to music and shoving apples and oranges in our ears, I'd consider that a paradigm shift. Pierre Bourdieu said it best when he claimed that social science's epistemological disposition towards reflexivity leads it to be post-paradigmatic or at least, non-paradigmatic.

As far as green or aids reliefing apple ipods go, I think its important to consider the difference between effect and affect. Was the environmental considerations of digitally distributed music an intended effect of its creation or did it affect the way consumers understand the environmental impact of their prior forms of music consumption? If the prior was apple's intent (which I highly doubt, remember those rediculously huge boxy packages they use to ship iPods in - I got mine for christmas 4 years ago in one of those), then MAYBE i'd start considering the apple iPod a green pro