Apple tries to explain why it pulled out from EPEAT

Apple turned some heads a few days ago when it was revealed that it pulled all of its products out of the US government's Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT). The list was first released in 2006 and was created by the Environmental Protection Agency to certify tech products that can have their materials recycled.

In a statement to the website The Loop, an Apple spokesperson said:

Apple takes a comprehensive approach to measuring our environmental impact and all of our products meet the strictest energy efficiency standards backed by the US government, Energy Star 5.2. We also lead the industry by reporting each product's greenhouse gas emissions on our website, and Apple products are superior in other important environmental areas not measured by EPEAT, such as removal of toxic materials.

The statement doesn't really state why Apple decided to pull its products from EPEAT. However, this move is already impacting its business. The Wall Street Journal reports that the city of San Francisco's Department of Environment has now issued an order to all of the city's government agencies that Apple's laptops and desktops cannot be purchased with money from the city.

Melanie Nutter, director of San Francisco’s Department of Environment, is quoted as saying, "We are disappointed that Apple chose to withdraw from EPEAT and we hope that the city saying it will not buy Apple products will make Apple reconsider its participation."

Source: The Loop

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Source Filmmaker now available as free beta

Next Story

Microsoft and Motorola stay some patent lawsuits

74 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

If I were a SF resident, I'd be pretty glad that my tax dollars aren't being used to buy overpriced computers that a Windows machine can do just fine. What do government agencies need Macs for?

Out of curiosity, if someone can side load Window 7 on their mac laptop etc. Why can't it be done the reverse way like buying ultra book or buying dell and install OSX. Additionally, up until now how come no hacker that does jailbreak able to install ipad onto other tablet etc. Just curious.

minster11 said,
Out of curiosity, if someone can side load Window 7 on their mac laptop etc. Why can't it be done the reverse way like buying ultra book or buying dell and install OSX. Additionally, up until now how come no hacker that does jailbreak able to install ipad onto other tablet etc. Just curious.

It's possible...but not average user will love to risk it.

I am disappointed in Apple's behavior here. I will not purchase any more Apple products until they correct their behavior.

Apple's insistence on Aluminum and other components that are NOT environmentally friendly are a concern, even if Apple wants to try to fool the public.

(Just by using Aluminum instead of plastic or another composite or metal, Apple's devices produce 40% more green house gases when manufactured.)

This also doesn't even begin to factor the disposal design of the products.

If you don't care about the environment, that is your choice. However, you cannot be a fan of Apple and also dedicated to the environment, as Apple is not eco-friendly despite how often they try to say they are.

(They don't always tell the complete truth and this is where they get by with misinformation.

This is a peeve, that annoys me, especially when they cheat consumers that mean well. For example, their MacBook site today reads that it is the most advanced Notebook, but based on what qualifications?

They don't tell their customers that the GPU is lacking, nor would they dare to do a comparison to other similar notebook models. Even as 'new' and 'cool' as the new MacBook may be, this doesn't remove the fact that there are notebooks that are FASTER, LIGHTER, THINNER - and 1/2 the cost.

So what metric are they using to say it is the most advanced?

The only 'plus' is the display being a jump from the other's 1920x1080 screens, which becomes a problem, as the GPU in the Macbook stutters using even the OS X composer on things like web pages, let alone trying to get a game to get OK FPS, which is a problem even at lower resolutions scaled up due to the lack of a dedicated display controller, forcing the GPU to do the scaling.)


Because apple know majority of consumer won't care much about spec because those people are 99% clouded by their taste of design without even thinking of comparing other notebook base on their look. That's the best answer i can think of.

The big problem is that the MAC fanatic's buy new laptop, phones and gadgets when an update comes out. Eventually, that's going to impact the environment, so making these a bit more unfriendly, poses a higher risk than those who keep their computers. phones and gadgets longer.

hagjohn said,
The big problem is that the MAC fanatic's buy new laptop, phones and gadgets when an update comes out. Eventually, that's going to impact the environment, so making these a bit more unfriendly, poses a higher risk than those who keep their computers. phones and gadgets longer.

1) It is Mac not MAC.
2) Don't pant every Mac user as a fanatic - most Mac users I know tend to hoard their devices for years; I kept my last Mac for 4 years with this current one I'll probably keep for around 4-5 years too.

ahhell said,
It's "paint" not "pant".
Don't knock him on it. He was thinking about the next pair of tight nut squeezing hipster pants he was going to buy while he typed that. Happens to the breast of us.

Lame asses will always be lame asses. The problem is far bigger than apple does this better than the other or vie versa...

Recyclability of a product is necessary if we want our children to have a planet that we just borrowed to them... (I don't remember who said something like that but I think some people should think about it)

Any company choosing to build non recyclable or not easy to dismantle products is commiting a crime against our environment because they are not smart enough to figure out a way to built a better, slimmer, cooler product which is more green altogether...

As for companies trying to built a greener image by using solar power... the impact of building solar panels in terms of CO2 is enormous and not easily balanced by the use of their production...

MaDDentist said,
Lame asses will always be lame asses. The problem is far bigger than apple does this better than the other or vie versa...

Recyclability of a product is necessary if we want our children to have a planet that we just borrowed to them... (I don't remember who said something like that but I think some people should think about it)

Any company choosing to build non recyclable or not easy to dismantle products is commiting a crime against our environment because they are not smart enough to figure out a way to built a better, slimmer, cooler product which is more green altogether...

As for companies trying to built a greener image by using solar power... the impact of building solar panels in terms of CO2 is enormous and not easily balanced by the use of their production...

Agreed - the problem is bigger than Apple. The cause and the solution lays in the hands of consumers demanding replaceable components and more importantly voicing the fact that they would happily trade 'thinness' for the sake of having a computer with more usable replaceable parts. Apple may like to think they're trend setters but the demand for thinner and lighter laptops is an industry wide trend that is being pushed by end users who want devices that are more mobile. If people think the MacBook Pro 'Retina' is bad then I think they need to prepare for the tsunami that the tablets (iPad, Windows 8 RT, Android etc) will unleash given the low price entry point, portability, and short life span when compared to more traditional desktops/laptops/etc.

Trihawk7 said,
Hmm, if Steve Jobs was still here none of this would have happened... Too bad his isn't :'(

Oh Jesus... Of course this comment was incoming sooner or later... *eyeroll*

GS:mac

Glassed Silver said,

Oh Jesus... Of course this comment was incoming sooner or later... *eyeroll*

GS:mac

Nah, not Jesus, STEVE. It's easy to get mixed up I know

Trihawk7 said,
Hmm, if Steve Jobs was still here none of this would have happened... Too bad his isn't :'(

What a load of crap - Steve was involved with the development of a the next line of products right up till his death. I wish some people would shut up and stop perpetuating this messiah crap that some how Steve Jobs was the anointed one just as it irritates me when people go on about how perfect and wonderful Bill Gates is.

I love how Apple products can't be bought by SF anymore so they'll spend money on nastier products which get replaced more frequently, causing an overall larger effect on the environment and cost to the tax payer ... all that tech support they'll need hehe

Spirit Dave said,
I love how Apple products can't be bought by SF anymore so they'll spend money on nastier products which get replaced more frequently, causing an overall larger effect on the environment and cost to the tax payer ... all that tech support they'll need hehe

Apple's model of frequent new stuff, while only typically supporting the "current" product, plus one behind. Apple products don't have longevity.

Whats nastier then getting battery acid all over you ? They glued in the batteries . That's why they fail epeat. ITs hard to remove the glue. You cant use a hair dryer or heat gun or you could make the battery leak or explode. A screw driver could puncture the battery.

Jason Stillion said,

Apple's model of frequent new stuff, while only typically supporting the "current" product, plus one behind. Apple products don't have longevity.


That "model" is not really applicable to Apple's desktop/laptop range. As for their smartphone and tablet products (i.e. iPhone and iPad range), I haven't actually seen better support from their respective competitors.

Jason Stillion said,
Apple's model of frequent new stuff, while only typically supporting the "current" product, plus one behind. Apple products don't have longevity.

And where is your evidence? the first and second generation iPhone were quickly obsolete due to rapid improvements in technology but the 3GS is still with us even 3 yeas after its launch: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPhone_3GS with iOS 6.0 coming to the 3GS iPhone thus pushing the total life span out to almost 4 years (by the time the next iOS is released) if you bought it on launch day. I don't know about you but I can't think of a single Android phone that has received four years worth of Android upgrades from the handset vendor - heck, the Samsung Galaxy S was released almost a year after the iPhone 3GS and Samsung has refused to provide Android 4.0 for the said phone (the claim that it doesn't have the hardware to support Android 4.0 is a load of crap - all Samsung would have to do is remove TouchWiz and it would fit into the builtin storage without any problems).

When it coms to the iPad for example, the iPad 1st generation model is not supported by iOS but based on the use of the iPad 2 as a 'price fighting product' as they've done with the 3GS I wouldn't be surprised if we end up seeing the iPad hang around for at least 3-4 years. Again, if you look at the history of Apple the best you can do is point out a few examples out of a long history of supporting hardware longer than the industry average - heck, they even provided firmware updates for laptops sold in 2010! even Dell or Lenovo can't be bothered providing an upgrade to UEFI for laptops/desktops from 2010 so then end users can experience the improved boot speed provided by Windows 8 in combination with UEFI.

Edited by Mr Nom Nom's, Jul 11 2012, 4:21pm :

Spirit Dave said,
I love how Apple products can't be bought by SF anymore so they'll spend money on nastier products which get replaced more frequently, causing an overall larger effect on the environment and cost to the tax payer ... all that tech support they'll need hehe

Why would they be replaced more frequently? Apple and their supporters like to point out how many computers are running XP. Many of those computers running XP are quite old. Meanwhile, Apple just obsoleted a bunch of their computers today, including my 4 year old Mac mini, which will soon be upgraded from snow leopard to Win8.

Spirit Dave said,
I love how Apple products can't be bought by SF anymore so they'll spend money on nastier products which get replaced more frequently, causing an overall larger effect on the environment and cost to the tax payer ... all that tech support they'll need hehe
Right. Non-serviceable product=longer lifespan over a repairable and serviceable product. Hmm, I don't think so. If I had to replace my entire car every time a belt went out, how is that better?

KCRic said,
Right. Non-serviceable product=longer lifespan over a repairable and serviceable product. Hmm, I don't think so. If I had to replace my entire car every time a belt went out, how is that better?

Logic is useless against them.

Mr Nom Nom's said,

When it coms to the iPad for example, the iPad 1st generation model is not supported by iOS but based on the use of the iPad 2 as a 'price fighting product' as they've done with the 3GS I wouldn't be surprised if we end up seeing the iPad hang around for at least 3-4 years.

3-4 years? sure, unless Apple plays again their "forced obsoletization" card as they did with the iPad 1, which is way more powerful than the 3GS but they simply decided to drop support for it.
Or well, remember Siri? yeah, a 100% web based product that the iPhone 4 doesn't have the "processing power" for it. As if my Motorola L7e from 2006 with a no-name sub 100mhz CPU couldn't do offline voice recognition...

That's Apple, forcing your product to become obsolete as they please.

gonchuki said,

That's Apple, forcing your product to become obsolete as they please.

Yeh, I hate it when my device stops working completely because it doesn't receive new features/updates. *rolls eyes*

KCRic said,
Right. Non-serviceable product=longer lifespan over a repairable and serviceable product. Hmm, I don't think so. If I had to replace my entire car every time a belt went out, how is that better?

I was just making a joke you bunch of muppets.

But you just made an incorrect statement, as Apple products are all 100% serviceable ... even if it is via Apple. Who in my experience will do a good job quickly. IT support guys in house at companies are almost always lazy ass geeks who will never get things done anyway. Sorry if anyone here is one of those IT Support managers, but I do question every one of them when it comes to their genuine knowledge.

Actually, it's much more simple.

EPEAT requires easy tear down of products for recycling, etc.

Apple does not want people to be able do repairs / replace parts of some of there products.

Apple choose to and prevent user repair / part changes over vs meeting EPEAT standards.

This will cause these products to be excluded from a purchase government bids, etc, that require EPEAT.

"city of San Francisco's Department of Environment has now issued an order to all of the city's government agencies that Apple's laptops and desktops cannot be purchased with money from the city."

People around the nation stopped paying attention to what anyone in California does a long time ago when it comes to government.

Would be interesting to see exactly why they withdrew. The glued batteries sounds like a good reason tough like tmaxxtigger was saying

It's not just California. The Federal government requires most of its contractors to buy only EPEAT-registered items (Federal Acquisition Regulation 52.223-16). By unregistering all their products from EPEAT, Federal contractors will no longer be able to buy Apple desktops, laptops, and monitors.

ILikeTobacco said,
People around the nation stopped paying attention to what anyone in California does a long time ago when it comes to government.

You mean like being the first state to legalize medical marijuana? Or how California is the first state in the country to think about a ban on GMOs? Yeah, you're totally right.

Conclusion:
a) Apple is not green.
b) Apple is a doucheb company that is too arrogant to self claim the "leader of the industry" and "we are superior".

sheesh.
and btw, it is still unclear how the Apple recycle plant works, if it really exists or if it is a simple landfill in the desert or in a third world country.

Brony said,
Conclusion:
a) Apple is not green.
b) Apple is a doucheb company that is too arrogant to self claim the "leader of the industry" and "we are superior".

sheesh.
and btw, it is still unclear how the Apple recycle plant works, if it really exists or if it is a simple landfill in the desert or in a third world country.

Sheesh. Way to draw some awesome conclusions there.

Also, what/where is this Apple recycling plant that you mentioned?

They had to withdraw because the new line of laptops has the batteries glued into the chassis. This prevents them from being easily recycled since removing the battery often causes the contents to leak. iFixIt.com encountered this during their recent tear-downs.

tmaxxtigger said,
They had to withdraw because the new line of laptops has the batteries glued into the chassis. This prevents them from being easily recycled since removing the battery often causes the contents to leak. iFixIt.com encountered this during their recent tear-downs.

Why did Apple withdraw its entire product line though?

Astra.Xtreme said,

Why did Apple withdraw its entire product line though?

Possibly because they're all heading down this direction in terms of design?

tmaxxtigger said,
They had to withdraw because the new line of laptops has the batteries glued into the chassis. This prevents them from being easily recycled since removing the battery often causes the contents to leak. iFixIt.com encountered this during their recent tear-downs.

but what's the point of gluing the battery into the chassis?

Matthew_Thepc said,

but what's the point of gluing the battery into the chassis?

I think (not 100% sure) it's so that some type of frame/mechanism doesn't have to be used to hold the battery in place, thus shaving weight and saving space.

Manish said,

I think (not 100% sure) it's so that some type of frame/mechanism doesn't have to be used to hold the battery in place, thus shaving weight and saving space.
Because having a non-removable back on it won't hold the battery in. Or using a slim piece of metal won't do the trick. It's bs either way they try to explain it. A piece of metal as thin as a piece of paper won't add any extra bulk or weight.

"We also lead the industry by reporting each product's greenhouse gas emissions on our website"
WOW!!!! They make such a huge effort at protecting the environment!! A few lines of text on a website will save us all!!

GO APPLE!!!

ahhell said,
WOW!!!! They make such a huge effort at protecting the environment!!

They actually make more of an effort to be environmentally friendly than a lot of other tech companies. Trying to marginalise this attitude based on one small point seems silly.

Manish said,

They actually make more of an effort to be environmentally friendly than a lot of other tech companies. Trying to marginalise this attitude based on one small point seems silly.


Give some examples on how they are more environmentally friendly than other tech companies, IF you can think of any.

ahhell said,

Give some examples on how they are more environmentally friendly than other tech companies, IF you can think of any.

Feel free to compare various tech companies using Greenpeace's rankings (on which Apple is 4th):
http://www.greenpeace.org/inte...ide-to-Greener-Electronics/

Here's another comparison between Apple and some of its competitors (I tried to find an unbiased article):
http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/new...int-environmental-progress/

As mentioned in the above article, Apple is "the only one whose entire product line meets and exceeds the Environmental Protection Agency's Energy Star specification for power efficiency". For more info.:
http://www.apple.com/environment/energy-efficiency/

Edited by Manish, Jul 11 2012, 2:14pm :

Additionally, I've provided links below discussing Apple's efforts to power some of its massive data centres by renewable energy. There certainly aren't many tech companies that either have deployed or are looking at greener energy on this scale.

http://gizmodo.com/5911203/app...ntirely-by-renewable-energy
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...-totally-green-by-2013.html

As I've managed to find some examples, I'll repeat myself: "Trying to marginalise this attitude based on one small point seems silly."

Manish said,

They actually make more of an effort to be environmentally friendly than a lot of other tech companies. Trying to marginalise this attitude based on one small point seems silly.


Don't bother with ahhell...
His name is what I constantly think when reading his posts.

GS:mac

Manish said,
Feel free to compare various tech companies using Greenpeace's rankings (on which Apple is 4th):
http://www.greenpeace.org/inte...ide-to-Greener-Electronics/

Here's another comparison between Apple and some of its competitors (I tried to find an unbiased article):
http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/new...int-environmental-progress/

As mentioned in the above article, Apple is "the only one whose entire product line meets and exceeds the Environmental Protection Agency's Energy Star specification for power efficiency". For more info.:
http://www.apple.com/environment/energy-efficiency/

Green Peace rankings mean nothing given that it also includes promises - Dell has consistently promised to remove toxic chemicals from their computers and each year they've failed to do so but according to Green Peace that is perfectly OK to promise but never deliver. Compare that to Apple who promise to remove toxic chemicals and actually follows through with those promises.

Mr Nom Nom's said,

Green Peace rankings mean nothing given that it also includes promises

That isn't the only thing they consider. Additionally, they also issued penalty points previously to Dell and others for not following up their commitments (removed in the latest rankings as some progress has been made now by these various companies). In fact, they're the most well-rounded, properly-considered rankings for tech companies in terms of environmental impact. Feel free to point out something better if these mean nothing.

Regardless, I think I've shown adequate evidence of Apple making an effort to be environmentally friendly and doing more than "just few lines of text on a website".

i was thinking about to buy the new iPhone when it came out to the market but i think i will change my mind i will go to Samsung Galaxy s3 .. apple much be hiding something from us that can cuz trouble to us.

Gaara sama said,
i was thinking about to buy the new iPhone when it came out to the market but i think i will change my mind i will go to Samsung Galaxy s3 .. apple much be hiding something from us that can cuz trouble to us.

Of course you were.

Apple isn't hiding anything. As they try to develop slimmer products, the design makes it difficult to fully disassemble the hardware, thus preventing recyclability of certain components. As a consequence, these products are not likely to get EPEAT certification.

Manish said,

Of course you were.

Apple isn't hiding anything. As they try to develop slimmer products, the design makes it difficult to fully disassemble the hardware, thus preventing recyclability of certain components. As a consequence, these products are not likely to get EPEAT certification.

Why didn't Apple say that? Easy enough and understandable....thus Gaara was correct, they are hiding something if they are refusing to release the reasoning behind their departure.

Nerd Rage said,

Why didn't Apple say that?

How would that help? Complete transparency on the issue wouldn't allow their products to regain EPEAT certification. Apple's statement was made simply to mitigate concerns of the environmental impact of their products. The CEO of EPEAT has said that if the new MBP had been submitted, it would've been ineligible for their certification anyway as the case and battery are glued together (source: http://blogs.wsj.com/cio/2012/...ertification-from-products/).

Gaara sama said,
i was thinking about to buy the new iPhone when it came out to the market but i think i will change my mind i will go to Samsung Galaxy s3 .. apple much be hiding something from us that can cuz trouble to us.

Wow, you're going to buy an inferior product because of your paranoia? Do you smoke weed? Copious amounts?

Gaara sama said,
i was thinking about to buy the new iPhone when it came out to the market but i think i will change my mind i will go to Samsung Galaxy s3 .. apple much be hiding something from us that can cuz trouble to us.

iPhone was never an EPEAT certified product hence your protest is little more than stupidity in action.

Spirit Dave said,

Wow, you're going to buy an inferior product because of your paranoia? Do you smoke weed? Copious amounts?


You did see what he said right? He said HE WAS GOING TO BUY AN iPHONE. See he decided he didn't want to buy the inferior product.

Everyone but stupid fans know the Galaxy S III i way betetr than te iPhone 4S and is betetr than the iPhone 5 of whaever it will be called on some front right now.

How do we know? The next iPhone will be a bit bigger than the 4S, but the GSIII is 4.8" in size. So the iPhone will still apear small. TheGSIII is already quadcore, and the next iPhone will likey get there. SMOLED is still better than bkaclite LCD's because backlites cause the sceen to not be viewable in any light natural or not. The phone also offers new capabilities that iOS doesn't have now jailbroken or not, or may not never have.

Ad the GSIII is being sold NOW...not waitng for October. And buy that time the GSIV will be nearly its production stages. And since Samsung makes the chips for Aple, they already know what Apple is likely doing ext by now which is why the GSIII jumped out with such big guns. Th next iPhone is already to late.

Mr Nom Nom's said,

iPhone was never an EPEAT certified product hence your protest is little more than stupidity in action.

His protest is his choice. How dare you criticize him for how he wants to spend his money.

Manish said,

Of course you were.

Apple isn't hiding anything. As they try to develop slimmer products, the design makes it difficult to fully disassemble the hardware, thus preventing recyclability of certain components. As a consequence, these products are not likely to get EPEAT certification.

Such as what? So you're telling me that every other manufacturer out there other than Apple has bulky products. Apple has the slimmest products out there? Last time I checked a lot of manufacturers are putting out some very slim products, some thinner and smaller than Apples. Tell me again how a slim product can't be disassembled in a destructive manner? Exactly how does gluing and taping down the battery = slimmer product?

I tried gluing the battery down in my old portable cd player, guess what? It's not any slimmer. In fact the clue isn't helpful in any way, shape, or form when you consider it has a non-removable back on it to hold the battery in.

Kind of annoys me how someone can just up and make a decision as if they're some sort of environmental enthusiast when they've likely never heard of things like EPEAT and probably don't even recycle themselves, let alone are aware of other programs designed to help the environment or organizations that are working to regulate what big corporations do to ensure your not gonna go swimming in toxic waste.

I'm all for folks wanting to help the environment, but this phony idea that they're helping by buying a different product changes nothing, especially as many people out there don't ever send their computers, components, phones, or what have you to any particular recycling place that accepts them. No. They just end up in the trash.

/rant

Edited by dead.cell, Jul 11 2012, 7:15pm :

KCRic said,
Such as what? So you're telling me that every other manufacturer out there other than Apple has bulky products. Apple has the slimmest products out there? Last time I checked a lot of manufacturers are putting out some very slim products, some thinner and smaller than Apples. Tell me again how a slim product can't be disassembled in a destructive manner? Exactly how does gluing and taping down the battery = slimmer product?

I was talking specifically about Apple's design direction. Look at the iFixit teardown of the new retina MBP. In its current form, there is minimal space to add an enclosure to keep the battery stable. Adding a thin sheet of metal, contrary to your belief, would take up additional space and be more difficult to incorporate into an unibody design. If they had used screws that would've required more space and added to the weight (compare how the batteries are held in the MBA vs. rMBP innards).

Face it, this is Apple's methodology. My point is that with the route they're taking, an EPEAT certification isn't possible unless the latter changes its criteria. If anyone wants a laptop that's just as thin and has similar specs (e.g. resolution) as the rMBP but has an easier to replace battery or is branded EPEAT Gold, they're free to buy that.

I don't know why you glued a battery into/onto your CD player, or why you needed to concoct a ridiculous "analogy". It's too stupid to comment on really.

Edited by Manish, Jul 12 2012, 12:23am :

TechieXP said,

Everyone but stupid fans know the Galaxy S III i way betetr than te iPhone 4S and is betetr than the iPhone 5 of whaever it will be called on some front right now.

How do we know?


We don't. We don't know anything definite in terms of the hardware of the next iPhone.

The next iPhone will be a bit bigger than the 4S, but the GSIII is 4.8" in size. So the iPhone will still apear small. TheGSIII is already quadcore, and the next iPhone will likey get there.

So a bigger phone is automatically a better phone? Seems stupid to believe that. Shoving more cores into a phone also does not make it a better phone. Look at WP7 devices running circles around Android and iOS devices in certain tasks. Besides, I'm sure I've heard all of these regurgitated comments from when the Samsung Galaxy S2 was released, yet the iPhone(s), which it competed with, still managed to sell pretty well. Must've been all those millions of "stupid fans" though ay?

For someone who then goes to advocate user choice following the above quoted post, perhaps you could also keep an open mind yourself.

TechieXP said,

You did see what he said right? He said HE WAS GOING TO BUY AN iPHONE. See he decided he didn't want to buy the inferior product.

He clearly said he was buying the Galaxy III now ... you didn't read what he said. He said he WAS going to buy iPhone but changed is mind and is now buying GIII. Don't caps talk down to me when you're completely f**king wrong man.

TechieXP said,
His protest is his choice. How dare you criticize him for how he wants to spend his money.

lol ... wow, "how dare" ? Bit aggressive ...Jeez man, calm down ... you might break your keyboard while trying to protect his rights

Manish said,

I was talking specifically about Apple's design direction. Look at the iFixit teardown of the new retina MBP. In its current form, there is minimal space to add an enclosure to keep the battery stable. Adding a thin sheet of metal, contrary to your belief, would take up additional space and be more difficult to incorporate into an unibody design. If they had used screws that would've required more space and added to the weight (compare how the batteries are held in the MBA vs. rMBP innards).

Face it, this is Apple's methodology. My point is that with the route they're taking, an EPEAT certification isn't possible unless the latter changes its criteria. If anyone wants a laptop that's just as thin and has similar specs (e.g. resolution) as the rMBP but has an easier to replace battery or is branded EPEAT Gold, they're free to buy that.

I don't know why you glued a battery into/onto your CD player, or why you needed to concoct a ridiculous "analogy". It's too stupid to comment on really.

It was to show how stupid gluing down a battery is. The back is plenty sufficient to hold in the battery. Small plastic edges could have been incorporated into the body around the batter to hold it in. Clips, thin metal, pins, small rivets, all are small and could be done without increasing the size.

This is just plan laziness on Apples part. Yes again, no innovation from Apple. Just taking the easy way in order to gain profit. "Look at us, we cheated and cut corners to do it but look at us!!"

To even begin to defend them doing this shows true fanboyism on your part. Your argument is invalid.

KCRic said,
It was to show how stupid gluing down a battery is. The back is plenty sufficient to hold in the battery. Small plastic edges could have been incorporated into the body around the batter to hold it in. Clips, thin metal, pins, small rivets, all are small and could be done without increasing the size.

This is just plan laziness on Apples part. Yes again, no innovation from Apple. Just taking the easy way in order to gain profit. "Look at us, we cheated and cut corners to do it but look at us!!"

To even begin to defend them doing this shows true fanboyism on your part. Your argument is invalid.


How can you incorporate plastic into an aluminium unibody? It'd have to be attached separately in some way. Even if they added something to hold the battery in place, that doesn't necessarily mean the battery would be easier to remove than it is now. Fact is if they held the battery in a removable enclosure/mechanism, additional space would be required for those parts and to allow people to actually manoeuvre around them in order to remove said bits. You don't seem to be understanding this, but hey if you can design something better then submit it to Apple or some other laptop makers.

If everyone wanted easy to remove components, the MBA wouldn't have been so successful. With the rMBP, Apple has just taken that design approach further. Like I said, no-one's forcing anyone to buy the laptop. Also note that I have not mentioned whether or not I approve of the difficulty in upgrading the various components (I don't), I just understand why they've taken these particular steps to "trim the fat".

Just saying "your argument is invalid" doesn't make it so. Feel free to show me another laptop on sale with equal sturdiness and specs as the rMBP plus an easily removable battery and EPEAT certification, and I'll admit that there's a better way of doing things.

deadonthefloor said,

I'm building a business model to mine landfills.....

and i'm working on one that will be like a pay per play masturbation system.
if you wanna play with your self in the future you will have to give me your cc#
would be a really good business model for clients "attending" prisons

I am Not PCyr said,

and i'm working on one that will be like a pay per play masturbation system.
if you wanna play with your self in the future you will have to give me your cc#
would be a really good business model for clients "attending" prisons


What the f**k are you on about??

"Apple products are superior in other important environmental areas not measured by EPEAT, such as removal of toxic materials."

I don't know how Apple could make it any clearer that they failed some aspect of EPEAT.

ArmedMonkey said,
Silicon has so many toxic waste byproducts *eyeroll* good for you Apple.

Are you being funny?

Or you really think that a component that makes up 1% of an Apple product has any relevance to this discussion?

Go check out what is in the Retina displays, along with the lead and other items in an Apple product, that if you dropped in your drinking water well would kill you.

ArmedMonkey said,
Silicon has so many toxic waste byproducts *eyeroll* good for you Apple.
Silicon is silicon. Not sure how an element can have "byproducts" short of maybe radiation from nuclear decay. However, since silicon is very stable that's not an issue.

Or are you confusing silicon with silicone and silicates? Which again, are by far not a health hazard. Well that is of course except for asbestos. However, since that's not used anywhere these days you have nothing to worry about. Not to mention you must inhale it to be effected. Ingestion or skin exposure is not an issue.

thenetavenger said,

Are you being funny?

Or you really think that a component that makes up 1% of an Apple product has any relevance to this discussion?

Go check out what is in the Retina displays, along with the lead and other items in an Apple product, that if you dropped in your drinking water well would kill you.


You could say the same for almost anything else in your household. What about dropping some of that paint on your walls into your drink?