Just got done watching the video and it's really well done, the only issue I have is with the whole "replace one chip" in computers. I think this is an oversimplification of a processor upgrade, and for the most part, until there is a major revision in the CPU design, they are designed to be replaceable. Now there are major revisions which require new sockets I would guess every 4-8 years or so.
On the same note, I couldn't help but think of Apple during a lot of the video, and not just because that's what she used in the beginning. Apple products are totally designed to fit this model. No way to upgrade the capacity, no replaceable batteries, coming out with newer, hipper versions of the same stuff each year, making them just a little better, something which could have been accomplished much cheaper if they allowed upgrades. For a company that's touting themselves as green (and they definitely ARE one of the greener companies out there), they sure do miss the boat on sustainability, but that's mainly because they are indeed a corporation, and a corp. will only do what's in its best interests 99% of the time, and the other 1% of the time it acts altruistically are for PR purposes which still fulfill this goal.
brainpicker
· 11 months ago
I hear you on the whole planned/perceived obsolescence thing – Apple has truly mastered that game, where they use technology to plan the obsolescence and marketing strategy to make sure it is perceived so.
However, you're actually wrong about Apple's claim to green fame. (And I say this as a devoted Maccie as well as a realistic eco-evangelist.) They're actually among the LOWEST-rated companies on Greenpeace's infamous Green Ranking chart. Any emphasis on green in the last two Keynotes has been the result of precisely that pressure by more and more environmental organizations pointing the blame finger at Apple's sub-par sustainability policies. So, in that respect, you're right it's all PR – what I call reactive rather than proactive. Mostly, I'm just surprised where you got your idea that Apple was eco-conscious in the first place.
Teddy
· 11 months ago
I, actually, don't think it is surprising at all that the average person (someone who is not actively researching the green policies of companies) would assume that Apple is one of the leading ones. Apple is pretty much associated with innovation and hipness, and in the today world these words also embody the notions of environmental-awareness and activism almost by default (it is pretty genius actually that Apple has managed to fool its customers like that). It is also extremely backwards of them and disappointing to the faithful customer that Apple are not on top of that green list.
brainpicker
· 11 months ago
True, although the surprising thing is that Chuck is actually extremely environmentally-conscious, far above average (one of the few people I know who went out of their way to find an alternative energy provider for their house) AND a programmer more than superficially familiar with Apple. Yet even so, he did make that assumption.
As far as "fooling" customers goes, I don't believe it was Apple's intention. (Certainly no evidence of any proactive communication on their behalf to allude to greenness prior to the ranking.) It's just a matter of what I call "goodness by association," or the halo effect of coolness. Customers who see Apple as "cool" (which, these days, is pretty much everyone, including PC-users, as much as they hate to admit it) assume that this "coolness" extends to all the company's touchpoints, thereby assuming what is true of Apple's design and software is also true of its environmental policy.
In Apple's defense, they have made significant strides towards a more sustainable production and distribution process over the past year, from packaging to the plastics used in computer casing. BUT, the disappointing part to me is that it's clearly reactive and not a genuine principle that should've been embedded in the company's DNA.
All Comments
On the same note, I couldn't help but think of Apple during a lot of the video, and not just because that's what she used in the beginning. Apple products are totally designed to fit this model. No way to upgrade the capacity, no replaceable batteries, coming out with newer, hipper versions of the same stuff each year, making them just a little better, something which could have been accomplished much cheaper if they allowed upgrades. For a company that's touting themselves as green (and they definitely ARE one of the greener companies out there), they sure do miss the boat on sustainability, but that's mainly because they are indeed a corporation, and a corp. will only do what's in its best interests 99% of the time, and the other 1% of the time it acts altruistically are for PR purposes which still fulfill this goal.
However, you're actually wrong about Apple's claim to green fame. (And I say this as a devoted Maccie as well as a realistic eco-evangelist.) They're actually among the LOWEST-rated companies on Greenpeace's infamous Green Ranking chart. Any emphasis on green in the last two Keynotes has been the result of precisely that pressure by more and more environmental organizations pointing the blame finger at Apple's sub-par sustainability policies. So, in that respect, you're right it's all PR – what I call reactive rather than proactive. Mostly, I'm just surprised where you got your idea that Apple was eco-conscious in the first place.
As far as "fooling" customers goes, I don't believe it was Apple's intention. (Certainly no evidence of any proactive communication on their behalf to allude to greenness prior to the ranking.) It's just a matter of what I call "goodness by association," or the halo effect of coolness. Customers who see Apple as "cool" (which, these days, is pretty much everyone, including PC-users, as much as they hate to admit it) assume that this "coolness" extends to all the company's touchpoints, thereby assuming what is true of Apple's design and software is also true of its environmental policy.
In Apple's defense, they have made significant strides towards a more sustainable production and distribution process over the past year, from packaging to the plastics used in computer casing. BUT, the disappointing part to me is that it's clearly reactive and not a genuine principle that should've been embedded in the company's DNA.