Sustainable IT | Ted Samson | TAG: Apple

MORE ENTRIES

TAG: Apple

April 07, 2008 | Comments: (0)

Look at this logo for a moment: infoworld: Apple fights NYC over green apple logo

If you saw it on a reusable cloth shopping bag, would you think for a moment, "Hey, that must be Apple's new iBag!"?

Apparently, Apple is worried that's the case. The above logo is actually the emblem of New York City's GreeNYC campaign, the Big Apple's move to encourage denizens and visitors to reduce pollution and greenhouse gases.

In case you can't tell, the GreeNYC logo is a combination of the infinity symbol and a green apple, the implied message being something along the lines of, "Let's keep the Big Apple green for all eternity."

Apple maintains that the GreeNYC looks too much like its own corporate logo, which, of course, looks like this (in green): Apple fights NYC over green apple logo

The company has gone so far as to file a formal complaint with the U.S Patent and Trade Office against the GreeNYC logo, according to Wired, claiming that it will confuse people -- and potentially tarnish Apple's good name. "Any defect, objection or fault found with [GreeNYC's] goods and services marketed under [GreeNYC's] marks would necessarily reflect upon and seriously injure the reputation which [Apple] has established for its goods and services," the claim states.

(I can see it now: "Dude, my iBag ripped! I'm going to send hate mail to Steve Jobs.")

NYC's response, according to Wired: "'The city believes that Apple's claims have no merit and that no consumer is likely to be confused,' says Gerald Singleton, the intellectual-property lawyer representing the Big Apple. 'This well-known city is using its new design in a variety of contexts that have absolutely nothing to do with Apple Inc.'"

The next step, according to Wired: "A series of independent surveys -- what are known as mall-stop surveys -- to gauge people's reaction to the new logo, in order to see whether Apple's opposition holds any merit."

Posted by Ted Samson on April 7, 2008 10:36 AM

February 28, 2008 | Comments: (0)

MacBook Air vs. ThinkPad X300: Which is greener?

Imagine, if you will, that you're a sustainability-minded individual charged with procuring eco-friendly PCs for your company's workforce. You hop on over to the EPEAT (Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool) Web site, where you can find a searchable listing of machines with ratings of Bronze, Silver, and Gold to reflect their varying levels of greenness.

It may be tempting to go straight for the Gold, drawing on the assumption that the category represents the eco-friendliest of the bunch. You might take a moment, however, to probe more deeply as to just what separates a top-tiered machine from a silver-stamped competitor. As I learned this week by comparing the EPEAT standings of Apple and Lenovo's respective, recently released ultra-thin notebooks, a vendor can reap a couple of precious points to boost a product's rating a full color grade by meeting criteria that arguably don't translate into meaningful green benefits for the buyer.

As a bit of background, Apple stirred up some excitement at the MacWorld show with the unveiling of the MacBook Air, a remarkably slender laptop weighing in at a mere three pounds. Just this week, Lenovo answered back with a slightly lighter yet thicker model (one that actually includes a built-in CD/DVD drive, optionally) dubbed the ThinkPad X300.

Beyond the general cool factor of these lean machines (and the back relief they provide weary road warriors), both offer green advantages over rival notebooks. Both boast low-power processors and are Energy Star 4.0 compliant. They not only use fewer materials, thanks to their smaller form factors, but they both exceed the restrictions on dangerous materials set out in the European Union's RoHS (Restriction on the Use of Certain Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic Equipment) directive. Both are designed for easy disassembling for end-of-life management. Yet the ThinkPad has Gold EPEAT status and the MacBook Air has Silver. Why the difference?

The 85-pound charger
First, it helps to understand how the EPEAT ranking works. In order for any piece of hardware to achieve Bronze status, it must meet a full set of 23 required criteria. On top of those requirements, EPEAT has 28 optional criteria. If a product boasts at least 50 percent of the green options (14 or more), it earns Silver status. Seventy-five percent or higher (21-plus) brings home the gold. (Vendors are responsible for self-reporting their products, by the way. The Green Electronics Council, or GEC, maintains the registry and performs spot-checks on occasion to ensure vendors are being honest.)

As it turns out, Lenovo's ThinkPad earns 21 optional points, earning it a Gold rating; the MacBook Air has 19 optional points, putting it squarely in the Silver camp. At first glance, a two-point difference might suggest that Lenovo simply went the extra green mile to make its offering that much more eco-friendly. But you may think differently if you consider how Lenovo earned them.

First, Lenovo meets the optional EPEAT criterion of making available a "renewable energy accessory": "[The covered product] shall have a commercially available accessory for powering the product that uses renewable energy." That certainly sounds eco-friendly. But for U.S. and Canadian customers, that accessory turns out to be a $1,200 85.5-pound solar generator/panel package, the Solar PowerPac II, offered by a partner company called Advanced Energy Group.

Notably, Lenovo also offers, through AEC, the Solar PowerPac Euro, which is available only in European countries. It's slightly more practical than the Solar PowerBehemoth, weighing in at a mere 14.9 pounds with a price tag of $499. But -- no disrespect to AEC for its product line -- neither of these "renewable energy accessories" strike me as particularly practical for the vast majority of users. Nevertheless, by the EPEAT standard, it makes Lenovo's ThinkPad one point "greener" than the MacBook Air.

Lenovo's not the only company offering the AEC's solar-power chargers as a renewable energy accessory; HP, for example, has received EPEAT Gold status for products by offering the same gear.

Lenovo's second extra point comes from the fact that it, unlike Apple, compiles a corporate report based on the GRI (Global Reporting Initiative). Developed under the auspices of the United Nations, the GRI provides a standardized, global reporting framework "for publicly disclosing an organization’s economic, environmental, and social performance," according to the non-profit organization.

Anyone familiar with Apple's reputation for secrecy shouldn't be surprised to learn that the company doesn't deliver a GRI report. Apple has faced its share of slings and arrows from groups such as Greenpeace for refusing to openly disclose its sustainability practices -- even though Apple has demonstrated support for eco-friendly initiatives. Does Apple's decision not to embrace GRI mean the MacBook Air is less green than the ThinkPad? I'm not convinced.

A work in progress
I called on the vendor-neutral Green Electronics Council to weigh in on the subject. Again, the GEC is charged only with managing the EPEAT registry and verification system, not with developing and updating the criteria. The latter task falls on the shoulders of the subscribing members of EPEAT, which includes environmental advocates, private and public purchasers, manufacturers, recyclers, environmental-purchasing specialists, and researchers.

The GEC's outreach director Sarah O'Brien provided some informative responses. "The two points you mention -- the renewable energy accessory and the GRI reporting -- both fall into the 'stretching the envelope' category," she writes. "When stakeholders developed the standard, they wanted to include points that laid down direction for future efforts-- in order to not just reward immediate/accessible design improvements (which the bulk of the criteria do), but also to reward innovation leading to future progress. So while the immediate environmental benefit of these two products may not be significantly different because of the two criteria you mention, the future direction of the market may well be."

Shedding light on the thinking behind the GRI criterion, O'Brien writes, "Stakeholders (in particular purchasers, who want to be able to fairly compare company environmental performance) felt that this step toward consistency and support for global reporting protocols was important and should be rewarded."

O'Brien notes that the stakeholders behind EPEAT always have the freedom to propose and adopt changes to the criteria -- and acknowledges that there's always room for improvement. "Keep in mind also that the EPEAT standard is still in its shakedown stages -- as subscribers begin to meet some of the criteria that have been more of a stretch, we are all discovering ways that the criteria language should be made more precise or clarified to eliminate loopholes," she says.

In the context of the "available renewable energy accessory," for example, "this may be an instance where language which narrows the criterion down to clarify what 'available' means -- more reasonable pricing or size -- will be merited going forward," she writes.

My two cents on the matter: EPEAT provides an invaluable tool for helping companies and individuals select the eco-friendliest of electronic products. Stakeholders obviously put a lot of thought into developing the criteria, which covers a broad range of environmental considerations: materials used in the product, materials used to package the product, power consumption, and many, many others. As O'Brien notes, though, the standard is still young. It will benefit from ongoing tweaking to ensure that products are properly and fairly rated in a manner to reflect meaningful green benefits that they bring to buyers.

In the meantime, if you're shopping for a green machine, or a fleet of them for your workforce, take a moment to study differences among products. A shinier metallic distinction or a higher price tag doesn't necessarily mean it's a significantly greener product.

Ted Samson is a senior analyst at InfoWorld and author of the Sustainable IT blog. Subscribe to his free weekly Green Tech newsletter.

Posted by Ted Samson on February 28, 2008 03:00 AM

January 17, 2008 | Comments: (0)

From Macworld to CeBIT, trade shows get greener

The wasteful excesses of the trade shows from the dot-com days are blissfully behind us, good news both for the planet and company coffers. (Yes, I have actually worn those ridiculous logo-emblazoned T-shirts handed out at every table back in the day -- but only for sleeping or painting.)

These days, organizers and participants are taking a kinder, greener approach to shows. Not everything is clean, pristine, and carbon-free -- but from CES to Macworld to the forthcoming CeBIT show, sustainability is on display.

Greener Apple
I wrote previously about some of the greenness seen at CES this month. Meanwhile, Dan Frake and Dan Moren have discovered flickers of green on the Macworld floor. "Of course, Steve Jobs noted the environmentally-friendly construction of the new MacBook Air," they note, which makes the laptop that much cooler. (If you haven't seen InfoWorld Chief Technology Office and Apple Enthusiast Tom Yager's take on the MacBook Air announcement, check it out.)

As for the machine's eco-friendliness, Macworld reports that the machine "has a fully recyclable aluminum case, and is 'the first' to have a mercury-free display with arsenic-free glass. All the circuit boards are BFR-free and PVC-free, and the retail packaging uses 56 percent less material than the MacBook packaging." (I'd like to know how much power it consumes compared to rivals.)

Sascha Segan over at PCMag.com offers a particularly interesting take on what he deems Apple's subtlely "radical new environmental vision." The short of it: He says Apple is focusing on new apps and software upgrades, which in effect extends the life of hardware:

"By focusing on the excitement of software upgrades, Steve Jobs is pointing us towards a world that's better for consumers and that's better for the Earth. Software is generally less expensive than hardware ... and it generates no landfills, no heavy-metal poisoning, and no toxic clouds."

Bit o' green at CeBIT
Meanwhile, this year's CeBIT show, to be held March 4 through 9 in Hannover, Germany, will enjoy an injection of green. The Climate Savers Computing Initiative will be contributing content and participating in a variety of Green IT-related activities at the show. (Climate Savers is a consortium of manufacturers, businesses, organizations, and individuals working to significantly increase the energy efficiency of computers and servers.)

The show will feature a Green IT Village in which Climate Savers and individual exhibitors will present their solutions for more energy-efficient computing. A Green IT Guide will provide answers to green-tech questions. Green IT will also feature prominently in the congress program that accompanies CeBIT 2008, according to the announcement.

Related links:
CES grows greener
Apple shocks boneheaded bloggers
Tech companies unite to tackle desktop energy waste

Ted Samson is a senior analyst at InfoWorld and author of the Sustainable IT blog. Subscribe to his free weekly Green Tech newsletter.

Posted by Ted Samson on January 17, 2008 12:15 PM

December 04, 2007 | Comments: (0)

Survey: Apple users more likely to be green-minded

Apple users are proportionally more eco-friendly than users of other vendors' PCs. Moreover, they're more willing to plunk down extra cash for "green" products.

That nugget of information is one of many findings in a report just released by Forrester Research titled "In Search Of Green Technology Consumers: Why Tech Marketers Should Target This Emerging Segment." Forrester surveyed computer users to determine the extent of their green leanings and what drove their environmentally conscientious practices (or lack thereof).

The report finds that, all told, 12 percent of U.S. adults are "bright green," which Forrester defines as those who are "concerned about the environment and global warming, and strongly agree that they would pay extra for consumer electronics that used less energy or came from a company that was environmentally friendly."

Moreover, another 41 percent of U.S. adults are "green consumers": those who "share concerns about environmental issues and global warming, but do not strongly agree that they would pay more for environmentally-friendly electronics."

The remaining 47 percent of the population "do not (yet) share the greens' concerns about the environment or global warming."

Forrester found that 14 percent of Apple users are bright green. From there, the list breaks down like this: 13 percent of Compaq consumers are bright green; then 12 percent of Gateway users; 11 percent of eMachines buyers; 10 percent of Dell fans; 9 percent of Toshiba users; 9 percent of IBM/Lenovo consumers; and 9 percent of consumers who buy their PCs from "Other" vendors. Below the "Other" category are HP users, 7 percent of whom are bright green. (The report notes that these numbers don't reflect the green practices of the companies themselves.)

Forrester notes that PC vendors are already making efforts to embrace more environmentally friendly practices and deliver greener products for several reasons: to appeal to consumers' ever-evolving eco-leanings; to deflect criticism from watchdog groups such as Greenpeace; and to adhere to regulations such as Europe's ROHS directive.

Those greener practices are taking several forms: designing products in a more conscientious manner; boosting system energy efficiency; cleaning up their manufacturing processes; using less wasteful packaging and transport methods; and making it easier for users to recycle their PCs.

Looking forward, Forrester predicts "that green-targeted PCs and other electronics will evolve as part of the consumer electronics industry's move to go beyond "beige box" design and styling and instead incorporate consumer style into its products."

Indeed, we've already starting seeing some of this since Forrester conducted its survey in Q2 of this year. Dell, for example, recently released a greened-up version of its Inspiron desktop. Everex is also focusing on the greenness of its recently unveiled TC2502 Green gPC, which runs on Linux.

The Forrester report "In Search Of Green Technology Consumers: Why Tech Marketers Should Target This Emerging Segment" can be purchased here for $279.

Posted by Ted Samson on December 4, 2007 08:59 AM

October 22, 2007 | Comments: (0)

Chemical industry group defends Apple iPhone

Apple has found a new ally against ongoing criticism from environmental group Greenpeace. The Bromine Science and Environmental Forum (BSEF), the international organization of the bromine chemical industry, today "condemning the environmental lobby group for making unfair criticism of Apple's iPhone's green credentials," according to reports.

The BSEF's declaration comes in response to a report released by Greenpeace last week in which the group blasted Apple for using BFRs (brominated flame retardants), as well as hazardous PVC (polyvinyl chloride), in multiple components of the handsets.

"All the substances reported by Greenpeace are approved for use, and provide critical performance and safety functions in a wide range of electronic products," the organization's declaration says.

The BSEF accuses Greenpeace "raising an alarm" of environmental concerns without "knowing which brominated flame retardants Apple uses in the iPhone."

The BSEF goes on to speculate that "the BFRs most likely used in the iPhone is actually a reactive -- it reacts with other substances to form a plastic and, once reacted, it is also no longer available to the environment."

The BSEF's statement focuses almost entirely on the BFRs, not a surprise, considering the group represent the bromine industry. The report doesn't specifically mention the phthalates found in the headphones wires of the iPhone. Those are a source of contention: Soon after Greenpeace released its report, the Center for Environmental Health threatened to file a lawsuit against Apple, alleging that the company broke California law for failing to carry a warning label on the iPhone alerting consumers of the presence of phthaltes, a reproductive toxins.

Posted by Ted Samson on October 22, 2007 03:21 PM

October 16, 2007 | Comments: (0)

Report: Apple asserts iPhone meets eco standards

Facing a lawsuit for allegedly using toxic substances in the iPhone, Apple today told MacWorld that the device "meets the restrictions placed on hazardous substances."

"Like all Apple products worldwide, iPhone complies with RoHS [Restriction of Hazardous Substances], the world's toughest restrictions on toxic substances in electronics," an Apple spokesperson told Macworld. "As we have said, Apple will voluntarily eliminate the use of PVC and BFRs by the end of 2008."

The declaration comes in the wake of a report from Greenpeace accusing Apple is using phthalates in the plastic earphone wiring. Phthalates is considered a reproductive toxin.

Although the iPhone may meet ROHS standards, the Center for Environmental Health (CEH) is asserting the Apple has violated California law, which says that products that can expose consumers to phthaltes or other such chemicals must carry a warning label.

The CEH has given Apple 60-days legal notice, which is the first required by California law before a lawsuit is launched.

Posted by Ted Samson on October 16, 2007 11:27 AM

October 15, 2007 | Comments: (0)

Apple faces lawsuit over toxins in iPhone

It's a good thing Apple put such a high price tag on its iPhone. The company is going to need the cash to cover iPhone-related legal fees.

The latest legal threat comes from The Center for Environmental Health in response to Greenpeace's report that the iPhone earphones contain "phthalates," which, according to Greenpeace, is known to cause sterility in mammals.

According to an article in the Sydney Morning Herald:

"An information sheet on the Phthalate Information Centre website, produced by the American Chemistry Council, said studies found that high doses of some phthalates, when administered to pregnant rodents shortly before they gave birth, 'suppressed levels of testosterone, a male hormone key to sexual development in the male fetuses, and interfered with the development of male reproductive organs.'"

"But it also noted a newer study conducted by the Society of Toxicology found similar tests conducted on monkeys had no negative effects on the development of the male reproductive tract."

However serious a threat the substances may pose to sterility, "under California's Proposition 65 law, products that can expose consumers to phthaltes or other chemicals that are reproductive toxins or carcinogens must carry a warning label, according to the Center for Environmental Health," Macworld's Jim Dalrymple reports.

This threatened lawsuit is just one of a laundry list Apple faces. By now, you've likely read about at least a couple of the lawsuits Apple faces. To recap: In September, a New York woman for price discrimination after the company cut the price of the device last month by $200 and then issued a $100 credit to some owners.

Soon after, as reported by Computerworld, a California man filed an antitrust lawsuit against Apple, accusing the company of forces buyers to use AT&T's wireless service and for "bricking" phones that had been modified to call over other networks.

The same day, "a [separate] class-action lawsuit targeting Apple and AT&T was filed ... accusing the companies of illegally conspiring to tie iPhone customers to the telecommunications company's wireless network," as reported by Computerworld.

And, of course, before the iPhone was even released, the company faced legal action from Cisco as both laid claim to the moniker "iPhone." The two companies settled outside of court, agreeing to pursue interoperability between their respective iPhone offerings.

Posted by Ted Samson on October 15, 2007 08:25 PM

October 15, 2007 | Comments: (0)

Report: Toxic materials, unfriendly design make iPhone ungreen

Greenpeace International is once again calling out Apple, this time over the company's decision to use some unsavory toxic materials in the iPhone that other cell phone manufacturers have managed to eliminate. Moreover, the environmental organization has criticized the device's battery design, which makes replacement and recycling difficult.

According to Greenpeace, an independent lab tested 18 internal and external components of the iPhone and confirmed the presence of brominated compounds in half the samples, including in the phone's antenna. A mixture of toxic phthalate esters was found to make up 1.5 per cent of the plastic (PVC) coating of the headphone cables.

"Two of the phthalate plasticisers found at high levels in the headphone cable are classified as 'toxic to reproduction, category 2' because of their long-recognized ability to interfere with sexual development in mammals," said Dr. David Santillo, senior scientist at the Greenpeace Research Laboratories, who coordinated the project and deconstructed the iPhone for analysis. "While they are not prohibited in mobile phones, these phthalates are banned from use in all toys or childcare articles sold in Europe. Apple should eliminate the use of these chemicals from its products range."

Greenpeace also found that the iPhone's battery is glued and soldered into the handset, which hinders replacement and makes separation for recycling, or appropriate disposal, more difficult.

Apple has not issued a statement in regard to Greenpeace's report.

I've defended Apple in the past against Greenpeace's criticism, and I've suggested that Greenpeace be consistent in going after electronics companies for their eco-unfriendly ways, rather than fixating so much on Apple. But here, I have to side with Greenpeace. There's no reason Apple should be using toxic chemicals that its competitors have managed to eliminate. And I'm even more bothered by the battery design, both from an environmental perspective and a basic user-friendliness perspective.

These lapses are especially notable considering that some iPhones out there might be making a premature trip to the garbage bin, given that Apple has transformed so many iPhones into expensive paperweights.

For more on this story, check out Computerworld's Gregg Keizer's report.

Posted by Ted Samson on October 15, 2007 12:35 PM

July 09, 2007 | Comments: (0)

Sony hits bottom of Greenpeace eco rankings

Despite Sony's consistently poor showings, Greenpeace remains fixated on Apple

Given Greenpeace's seeming obsession with Apple, I'm having an even more difficult time taking the environmental group's ongoing eco-policing of electronic companies seriously.

Greenpeace last week released the latest edition of its "Guide to Greener Electronics," in which it ranks fourteen companies based on particular environmental practices, such as their toxic-chemical policies and recycling programs.

This time around, Sony tumbled to the bottom of the list, down from 11th place. The reason for the drop: Greenpeace says Sony was "penalized for double standards on their waste policies" in terms of individual producer responsibility (IPR), referring to vendors taking responsibility for the environmental impact of their wares instead of expecting customers to do so.

"Sony is a founding member of the European Recycling Platform which supports IPR; however, in the U.S., Sony is part of a coalition that has been opposing producer responsibility and lobbying for U.S. consumers to pay an advanced recycling fee (ARF)," Greenpeace states in the current guide.

Lenovo, which was at the top of the heap last April, is now in third place. "Closer examination of Lenovo's takeback and recycling services has revealed some weaknesses e.g. time-limited takeback in Thailand, therefore Lenovo loses points on that criteria. Lenovo also still fails to score any points for providing models on the market that are free of PVC and BFRs," says the report.

Meanwhile Nokia crept to the No. 1 slot. "Nokia gets top marks for its support for [IPR], (each company should take care of the electronic waste from its own-branded discarded products). But, it loses points for poor reporting on the amounts of discarded mobiles that it recycles as a percentage of past sales."

Yet despite Sony's free-fall to last place, as well as the other changes in the rankings since April, Greenpeace appears utterly fixated on the fact that Apple managed to increase its standing from last place to tenth.

"Clearly, companies are racing to produce greener products" says Iza Kruszewska, Greenpeace's toxics campaigner on the Greenpeace Web site. "Steve Job's latest commitment to eliminate toxics materials moved Apple up the chart and they now face a challenge, with the iPhone, to meet customer expectations to be the environmental leader Apple-lovers want."

Notably, Greenpeace has been criticizing Apple for its allegedly poor green practices for quite some time, even going to far as to launch a "Green my Apple" campaign.

So Greenpeace: If you are going to police the environmental practices of companies, I suggest that you be consistent -- if you want your rankings to be taken seriously. Yes, it's good to see that Apple is doing more for Mother Nature, but meanwhile, Sony, by your standards, has continued to slip over the past several months. Should we expect a flashy, targeted marketing campaign drawing attention to Sony?

Or are you determined to continue getting as much mileage as you can breathing down Apple's neck, even though the company ships far fewer products -- and thus has a relatively smaller environmental impact -- than Sony?

Posted by Ted Samson on July 9, 2007 12:37 PM

Technology White Papers

InfoWorld Technology Marketplace

» Technology White Papers Library

Technology White Papers by Topic

Technology White Papers E-mail Alert