One Hand Clapping for Steve Job's Apple

I think one of the points is that Apple's record is on any rational level no worse than any other company's, and in some respects much better. This is different from what has been claimed by Greenpeace. But no apology, of course, despite the fact that Greenpeace's claims have already been shown to be invalid by many who have analyzed the true situation. Greenpeace will never surrender the moral high ground, and I suppose Steve knows that well.

"Or that Apple recycles 28 percent of their eWaste by weight (almost three times more than other vendors),"

That was a projection for 2010, last year they recycled 9.5%.

Let's get a bit more esoteric.

Apple has become a fashion company which happens to sell electronics. Their whole business model is based on extremely accelerated planned obsolescence. Not by making their products not work, but by making their older products "unfashionable". They learned well from the clothing industry, took some notes from the cell phone industry, and now churn tons and tons of product simply by changing the color and adding some more (unused) memory.

The blind Appelites follow lord Jobs in a deluded fog, thinking themselves to be superior in both intelligence and fashion sense than the 94% of the rest of the computing world. These same clowns also tend to consider themselves "green" and "eco-chic", buying organic produce at Whole Paycheck, buying hemp handbags (every 3 months), and recycling their cans.

How ironic that this crowd doesn't rebel against its lord and demand to be allowed to reach the true height of fashion. I guess its easier to be smug and stupid than smart and responsible.

Graham,

you're right, fixed.

Graham,

The definition of fashion is that an object is replaced by one not of variant quality, but of a different design. Thus, what you purchase is a change of outlook.

I'd hardly classify electronics in that category! While there are ways that electronics could be upgradable, they do need to change as technology adapts and adjusts. Have you used a computer that is 3 years old lately? Especially if it's the PC I used yesterday -- it's inefficient and slooooow.

Even iPods are improved each time they come out. While fashion is an industry that Jobs has learned from in terms of marketing, he hasn't followed them in producing a superficial new product every lifecycle.

PS: Perhaps your thesaurus has some nice things to say as well? If the point is that we want to encourage people to make positive change, it seems it's far more productive to, oh say, be happy when they at least take steps (i.e. hemp rather than vinal handbags, Whole Foods rather than Wal-Mart) towards goals. After all, popularity and "everyone's doing it" is how we actually reduce global warming.

Funny, I read the piece on Apple's website, and thought, "Ok, what he's saying here is, 'My hand is being forced by the shareholders, and I'm damned if I'm going to admit I was wrong before, or give credit to anyone who correctly criticised us'".

I find the widespread reverence towards Apple a little scary...

Willy Bio-

Earlier this year, I sold a 2001 PowerMac G4 for over $600 on eBay (I purchased it for $2000). Besides being 6 years old, it was 2 architectures old in comparison to the Mac Pros available today.

I would like to see a PC sell for anywhere near that after 6 years. You can't give away a 6 year old PC.

Apple focuses on quality. They make a beautiful OS and choose to run it on beautiful machines. Given Moore's law, I think Apple is doing very well. Check eBay. 5 and 6 year old Macs sell for good money because they were built well and continue to work.

Sorry, Willy...you have no idea what you are talking about.

Anonymous, how can you say I don't know what I'm talking about when you obviously did not read my post to see what I was talking about? Your anecdote about your old machine has nothing to do with the fact that Apple sells fashion in the guise of electronics. Even rabid Appelites would agree. I never commented on the quality of those electronics, so who doesn't know what the frakk they're talking about? Yeesh, get your head out of your rear.

As for how wonderful their OS is, well, I guess 6 out of every 100 people agree with you, so we really don't have much to worry about waste-wise. Ipods and their Icrap accouterments, Iphones, ITV, etc are what will clog the landfills every year when a new color with a little more storage space comes out. Cheers.

Willy Bio-

I read exactly what you posted and made a rebuttal. You claimed Apple is in the business of planned obsolescence in the worst way.

My post stated the opposite. They make quality products that continue to work years beyond the obsolescence of the likes of Dell, HP and many others. I'm not trying to make an argument that Macs OS X is better than Windows, so you can calm your inner Microsoft fan-boy down.

Your comment:
"The blind Appelites follow lord Jobs in a deluded fog, thinking themselves to be superior in both intelligence and fashion sense than the 94% of the rest of the computing world. These same clowns also tend to consider themselves "green" and "eco-chic", buying organic produce at Whole Paycheck, buying hemp handbags (every 3 months), and recycling their cans."

Is this based on some kind of research or first-hand knowledge?

Give me a break. I don't know what makes a person like you tick, but you really should consider facts at some point in your life.

I don't think Apple is perfect...far from it. They are catching up. In reality, they should be leading the pack. Why? Well, for one, they build in 100% profit into every product they sell.

But, don't forget efforts like the grass roof at the Apple Store on the Michigan Mile. Or the iPod recycling program that has been running in the US for at least 3 years. I'd like to see you take a Creative Zen to Best Buy and demand 10% off. That would be funny.

Oh, one more thing. You said:
"As for how wonderful their OS is, well, I guess 6 out of every 100 people agree with you, so we really don't have much to worry about waste-wise. Ipods and their Icrap accouterments, Iphones, ITV, etc are what will clog the landfills every year when a new color with a little more storage space comes out."

You contradict yourself. We don't have much to worry about waste-wise, but they will clog the landfills?

By the way, the number of iPod owners that run Windows outnumbers those that run Mac OS X. So are all iPod owners "blind Appelites (sic)" even if they are PC users?

Get a clue.

Willy Bio: -1, Flamebait. If you want to yell about how bad Apple computers are compared to their other counterparts, there are much better places for that than here. If you think Apple customers produce more e-waste per capita than the customers of other computer companies, then I challenge you to produce some statistics that back up that assertion. Put up, or shut up.

mdpdb-

I'm glad to say we can agree to agree on this one. : )

OMFG, you are a certified nut job.

Read what you quoted me as saying. How do I contradict myself??? You nut. Let me try to rephrase it for your Apple-addled brain:

MACS: 6% of market, hence 6 out of 100, hence nowhere near as much waste as PCs.

IPODS and all other trendy fashionista Apple crap: TONS AND TONS, Apple is very successful with it.

Again, you DO NOT READ my post. Let me rephrase:

Apple has come up with a new twist on planned obsolescence by making their devices so very fashionable. Apple has been applauded by the business community for doing this. At the same time, I will now comment on their quality FOR THE FIRST TIME: it is generally good stuff, except for the flimsiness of the Nano.

HELLO??? MC FLY??? GETTING THROUGH HERE???

Why assume I am a Windows fan boy (a term coined for Apple fans BTW) Did I say what kind of machine I am typing on? Does it matter?

Oh yea, that recycling program, care to Google what percentage of Ipods actually get recycled WORLD WIDE? Green roof, whoopy f-in doo. Lot of good that will do the people who drink ground water polluted with the heavy metals and other toxins from all the Apple crap.

mdpdb and Anoymous-

hear hear.

There's an element of bullshit about it, but when first Oprah and now the CEO of an influential lifestyle brand like Apple step up to the green plate then tide is turning in America.

Dear Mark,

The points that Jobs made about ROHS compliance, CRT phase out, lead, etc are not and have never been in dispute in the Green my Apple campaign. Sure, these are all credits to Apple. But they were not the target issues.

Until 24 hours ago, Apple hadn't set a date or even committed to phasing out Brominated Fire Retardants and PVC. We set that challenge to HP, Dell, and others when we started this campaign and one by one they committed to phase outs.

We and other NGOs have been in direct contact with Apple on this issue for nigh on two years now, and if there was in fact a plan to phase out these substances all along, I fail to see why they would keep it a secret. They simply refused point blank to commit.

The fact that they now have done so is a genuine step forward, and one which every Apple user who participated in this campaign can pat themselves on the back for.

Apple STILL refuses to commit to a worldwide takeback policy, a point which is absent from the Jobs memo. The (excellent) recycling policies in the States get quite a bit of beautifully crafted ink, but that doesn't change the fact that today's apple product elsewhere in the world is tomorrow's e-waste in China, where some kid is going to be breathing PVC fumes as he cooks a circuit board to recover components. You want to know if that's dangerous, check with your local fire department about the precautions they take against inhaling burning PVC: Chinese e-waste scavengers get no protection whatsoever.

E-waste is a massive problem, and growing every day. Apple has the power to address it, and the power to force the entire industry to address it. Leadership comes with responsibility, and Apple has now acknowledged the need to step up to it, because they were pressured by their customers, stockholders, and employees to do so. That's what activism is about, and you can call it whatever names you want, but it works.

I would have thought TreeHugger would be among the voices welcoming a lessened toxic burden on the planet, and an environment in which major industrial players are competing with one another to go green.

Brian Fitzgerald
Greenpeace International
Amsterdam

"HELLO??? MC FLY??? GETTING THROUGH HERE???"

Well, you're certainly yelling loudly enough. But did you manage to find any statistics? Didn't see any. You just have a flimsy qualitative argument, which is based on some pretty weak premises. I don't have any reason to think any of what you posted is unique to Apple, no matter how much you repeat punctuation and hold down Caps Lock.

[Guys, can we take our feet off the gas a little? ed.]

Brian Fitzgerald-

Thank you. Seriously. Well written comment. I appreciate your insight (and assume other TreeHuggers do as well).

Question though, my understanding of the situation was that TreeHugger was "welcoming a lessened toxic burden on the planet, and an environment in which major industrial players are competing with one another to go green."

Did I miss something?

We and other NGOs have been in direct contact with Apple on this issue for nigh on two years now, and if there was in fact a plan to phase out these substances all along, I fail to see why they would keep it a secret. They simply refused point blank to commit.

Brian: Apple is notorious about keeping the details about product updates secret, not just environmental details, so it's no surprise there wasn't a public timetable. However, there's no reason to believe they wouldn't have phased out those chemicals before other manufacturers would. The fact is that Apple has a history of doing just that. The fact that you look at this as some sort of victory for the environment is disingenuous, in fact, what it really is is a victory for Greenpeace PR.

Despite the questions you've raised in this post, your campaign's assessment of these companies was overly weighted towards lip service paid to future planned changes, and not to the current amount of environmental damage being done. How about expending more effort attacking companies that are actually doing the most harm to the environment right now, than bullying an easy target into publicly disclosing what they were privately planning to do anyway?

And as far as Apple sales outside of North America are concerned, anyone can see they're pretty dismal. What percentage of e-waste in China do Apple products represent? My guess is that it is very low.

[Guys, can we take our feet off the gas a little? ed.]

Sorry if my post seems upset, I meant for it to sound pretty level headed, although I wonder why you chose to call out my post instead of the one it was in response to...

[Other guy, you too! ed.]

Let me as you two something (you know which two):

Has Apple taken the blatant (and successful) approach of turning its product line into status/fashion symbols?

If yes, how does one reconcile product upgrades which amount to no more than a color change and storage increase, with green/socially responsible business practice?

If no, upon which planet do you reside?

If yes, is there any way they can do business in any kind of green/socially responsible way since their entire business model is based on reinventing fashion trends each year to induce consumers to replace already well made, fully functional devices with ones which are arguably the exact same in function (maybe not style)?

If no, in which of the known 11 dimensions do you reside?

Apple has been in a unique position to change the way consumer electronics are consumed for the past 5 years. They have done so, just not for the better. Imagine if those idiotic commercials could show how green Apple was when compared to PCs? They've tried to blast PCs on almost every other imaginable point.

Wal-Mart is a more ecologically responsible company. That's pathetic.

I know people who work at Apple that are not in any management positions. These friends are more concerned with obtaining the iphone when it is released (and any other new cool product the company produces) than helping the planet.

A company can try to mandate an environmental policy but it will fail if the employees are not behind it. My friends think recycling is the only thing that can help and do not look at their multiple computer, cell phones, ipods, itvs, tivo, cable boxes, various small appliances, etc that are always on adding to the problem. They are smart people but not informed.

Al Gore sits on the Apple board, but my friends have not seen an Inconvenient Truth! I wish Al wuld have a special broadcast for them. They do not understand why global warming is such a big deal and how they can help out.

And then there is the consumption reward for doing good work. Apple gives its employees the latest product for creating the product. So my friends each have 5 ipod and they buy a new computer every year or so. My friends believe in staying cool-hip-current and throwing away the obsolete products. I suggested to my friends, that Apple could offer a program to give the reward ipods to school kids for a reward not employees. Or at least give the employees a choice of whether they wanted the latest shuffle. My friends just stared at me like I had sprouted two heads and stated "why shouldn't we get the reward!"

Until environmental responsibility hits my friends, the company will not have a sucessful environmental agenda.

Willy Bio: I don't disagree that Apple does that. I just don't agree that it leads consumers to replace their products early without any concrete data, nor do I think it's something characteristically Apple that no other manufactures do. Competitors like iRiver, Creative, Archos, etc., all do incremental upgrades to their products and attempt to make them appear fashionable, and that's only the portable media player market, the cell phone market has been doing the same thing for even longer.

Because Jobs chose to open his mouth, and Apple is in a league of its own compared to the others you list. That's why.

Concrete data my butt, the constant upgrading going on in the Apple/Ipod world are well known and expected by Apple stockholders, hence the fashion aspect of their business.

Again, Wal-Mart is doing much more to lessen its footprint than Apple has even hinted at.

Apple/Jobs dropped the ball on this one and it will be looked back on as a prime example.

Bravo to Greenpeace for making smug old Apple have to answer to it's own shareholders and customers!

I submitted one of the ads on greenmyapple.org.

They should also take some knocks for blindly leading the electronics industry into extensive use of energy-intensive aluminum, and toxic chromium-plating. Trendmakers should be aware of the monsters they may be creating....

Is it me, or did I hear him, after the final sentence, muttering something about "D**n Treehuggers...." ?

Graham, apologies, I meant to address my earlier reply to Willy Bio -- got confused with the speech tags being above, not below the author's name.

Concrete data my butt

Well, that pretty much sums it up. You were asked to defend your position, and all we got was more empty rhetoric.

It's a good thing you're so against companies involved in the fashion and obsolescence game. Certainly you have own no such products, right?

Willy Bio: Don't know what to tell you. You've still yet to produce a single shred of evidence for your claims, and it's not like it's an underanalyzed market. From what I've read, it's a market that's still expanding, so I still don't know where you're coming from.

/shrug

Hi Brian,

Thanks for posting.

TreeHugger frequently points out to our readers that "green design" can be a basis of increased market success and customer satisfaction. It therefore comes as no surprise to us that plans for supply chain management or design criteria are guarded as proprietary information, and released when the company feels it is in the mutual interests of their suppliers and stockholders to do so. "First in advantage" would otherwise be lost.

Relative to the sharing of priorities, the one goal TreeHugger thinks all environmental interests ought to share is the reduction of climate risk. How does this particular Greenpeace campaign help with that goal? TreeHugger often points out that one has to look at the full life cycle of a product to appreciate the cumulative effect of design on environmental footprint. Does Greenpeace have any information to share regarding how the phasing out of PVC as a component of electronic goods either increases or decreases the burden of climate forcing gases throughout the product life cycle? If so, we look forward to sharing that information with our readers. I'm certain that Apple would feel the same.

Plastic and many other components of electric goods, if heated sufficiently, certainly may emit fumes or breakdown products that could pose a health hazard to people continuously exposed to them. Does Greenpeace have evidence indicating that a small amount of PVC, if heated in the manner and in the context described in the scrap processing scenario, poses a uniquely high health acute health hazard in comparison to all other materials of construction commonly used in e-goods?

Deciding who or what is to be most credited for the progress reported is something we prefer to leave up to our readers.

MD,

Why should I do for you what Google can do for you? There are a bazillion market analysis available which specifically address product churn and upgrading statistics. Same goes for laptops and desktops of both kinds, but the trend and frequency with the sub-$300 PMP and cell phone market is extreme. Apple leads the pack with the Ipod, and plans to do so with the Iphone.

Do it yourself, why dontcha?

Why should I do for you what Google can do for you?

Translation: I can't support my assertions, so I'll insult you again and again, because then I can feel better about myself momentarily, despite ranting with no basis.

[This is getting out of the realm of productive discussion. Perhaps you both could reframe the issues that the post brought up for you, and work from there? ed.]

This should settle some of the WB flame fest here!

The problem with poorly designed products is they go to the landfill, and not just poorly designed from a sustainable materials standpoint, but from workmanship and even the physical product and the user interface. I have had a nokia phone which broke on me after 3 months of not intensive use, and it was a pain to use. My current motorola phone is a piece of doodoo which responds sooo slowly to key presses and the speaker is starting to not work and the paint is chipping off (on the inside of the flip part, so not because I've been hard on it).

All this means I'm getting an iPhone. It's six times as much as I've ever paid for any phone, but it's worth it from a sustainability standpoint. Bottom line is if you aren't going to create a product worth using (which I sincerely believe for my current and last phone, with all of my heart, even before the iPhone was on the horizon), it's a waste of material and a waste of carbon and it's going to end up in the trash can because people simply don't respect the product.

I can't say that _all_ people will know to recycle their iPhones when they reach the end of their lifecycles, but it is true that Apple's take back program lets them reuse the materials within and there is very little waste. A friend of a friend of mine works in management for one of Apple's recycling centers and I don't claim that his stories lend me any authority, but between what I've heard and Apple's new green and translucent (as in more transparent) stance, I would buy products from them any day over any other competing electronics companies I know of, certainly including the ones Willie mentioned.

At the end of the day, if other companies merely caught up to Apple's level of eco-consciousness, based on volume etc. it would be a huge boon for fewer hazardous materials and e-waste. Apple should be applauded.

I hope their market share continues to increase just like I hope Whole Foods' market share continues to increase with respect to Safeway, etc. I know Apple is no WF, but you can see the line of reasoning.

Apple, Orange or any other company - they are all driven by profit. Cos do care for environment; as long as it benefits them for being "green savvy" or atleast from being so ruthless that their product wipe out the jungles of Jafna.

A hundred years from Steve Jobs will be remembered alongside the likes of Alexander Graham Bell and Ben Franklin. At least I hope that is what the case will be, as it should.