« The Apple Core: What iTunes could learn from Aperture 1.5 | Home | Intel's 80 Core Processor »
September 26, 2006
Greenpeace Targets Apple (Again)
Apple is not Greenpeace's favorite computer company, as we all know (though I'm not sure what company Greenpeace actually likes, but that is a subject for a different blog). Continuing their 'Why must Apple sell poison' campaign Greenpeace has launched a site that parodies Apple.com. While this is a clever idea, I have to wonder why there is no Dell page.
Posted by Jason D. O'Grady at September 26, 2006 8:19 PM
Category: Environment
Buy from: Apple, iTunes
, Amazon
Digg This |
Post to del.icio.us |
Post to Furl
- Live TV En Route to iPhone, iPod Touch
- Newer Releases Voyager SATA Hard Drive Docking Station
- Adobe to Pass on MWSF Booth, Still Offer Training Sessions
- Apple Patent Explores Idea of Liquid-Cooled MacBooks
- Apple Removes Antivirus Knowledge Base Article
- Apple Now Taking Orders for In-Ear Headphones
- Joost Makes its Way to iPhone, iPod Touch
- Recent Apple Knowledge Base Article Advocates Use of Anti-Viral Utilities Under Mac OS X
- Apple Releases iPhone Configuration Utility 1.1
- Apple Begins Licensing Mini DisplayPort for Free
- VMWare Offering "Cyber Monday" Deal
- iTunes 8.0.2 Purchase Bug Located, Workaround Discovered
- Windows Vista Service Pack 2 Update Expected Next April
- Battech Releases iPower SX Solar Charger
- Bevy of Deals Located on App Store
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.powerpage.org/mt/mt-tb.cgi/9130
Comments
I have to say, I used to be a Greenpeace supporter, but after reading another article on how Greenpeace just uses their own system to judge Apple, I am losing faith in them. Some how, they have made me wonder if they are really here to help Apple to be "green" or for other hidden agenda.
Posted by: Jason at September 26, 2006 8:58 PM
Greenpeace's research may be true(ish). However, Apple has like 2-3% of the market. Their volume is not the same as Dell or HP. I hope that Apple does "green" what it can. Also, if you check out buyblue.org Apple is in the blue. So don't they get some points for supporting politicians who actually want the EPA to protect Americans?
Posted by: 926guy at September 26, 2006 9:41 PM
I suspect Greenpeace is targeting Apple because Apple's customers are more likely to take an interest in environmental issues and be more likely to pressure Apple to do something about it. If you have a company (say Dell) that is primarily interested in low margins and selling to institutions, then customer pressure won't be as effective against those companies.
Also, I think it's reasonable to expect Apple to be a first-mover on green computing considering the company's innovative and socially liberal past.
Posted by: NKC at September 27, 2006 4:45 AM
NKC has that right. (Full disclosure: I work for Greenpeace on this particular campaign) Apple's customer base is the power that will flip them. Apple sets industry standards in a whole range of areas, and we think the Environment is one of them. And while Dell (who we do target and expose) has the bigger market share, they've also made better commitments than Apple has. And 926guy, while you're right that Apple is in the blue at buyblue.org, that only tracks their US policies. Apple will take back and recycle products in the US, but elsewhere in the world you're out of luck. What's good enough for America ought to be good for the rest of us as well.
--brian
Posted by: Brianfit at September 27, 2006 9:14 AM
Apple has an identity and marketing image that are easy to target, mimic and lampoon. Apple's superior visual flare and cultural caché make them a superior target for promoting Greenpeace's position, over a "typical" (boring) company like Dell. Apple's typical customer base is certainly a factor, as NKC has posited above.
Not to be forgotten in this though is that entities respectful of freedoms and responsibilities are typically the ones most vociferously targeted in any attempt to sway public opinion and governing policy. It is simply "safe" to do so. A Venezuelan president can make comments on US soil that would be illegal about him under his own regime. Detractors of Western societies are free to harangue and verbally savage democracies where they would find no such freedoms or protections in their homelands. It's simply easier to target the party who 1) cares and 2) won't make your life hell in retaliation.
Posted by: Thomas at September 27, 2006 9:16 PM
All the greenpeace comments to date amount to nothing more than flatulence. It stinks and doesn't come from a great place.
The manifold pieces of analysis expose, truly expose greepeace's effort for what it is.
I mean, who in their right minds judges the ACTUAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT of a company based solely on what they report on their websites. Further, the independent analysis they paid for totally exonerates Apple as being among the very best PC manufactureres and they are demonstrating their continued commitment to the environment by continuing to refine their packaging to be greener and greener.
I just purchased a Mac Pro and a 30" ACD monitor and I gotta say that the amount of packaging was miniscule compared to past Apple purchases. Fewer cords mean fewer resources required. The functioning sleep mode saves significant power. The Intel migration and reworking of the Mac Pro interior means less cooling is required and lower power requirements. As well, with every order, the offer is made to recycle the old computer for FREE.
Now, besides ALREADY being RoHS compliant, uh...what more are they supposed to do? I realize that greenpeace is awaiting the computer made from lettuce, but in the mean time, why not laud those companies that demonstrate a commitment to the environment?
Posted by: MacKeyser ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.powerpage.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at September 27, 2006 10:41 PM
Copyright © 1995-2008 Bolt, LLC. All rights reserved.