Slashdot Mirror


Apple: 75% of Our World Wide Power Needs Now Come From Renewable Power Sources

skade88 writes "Apple now owns and runs enough renewable energy power plants that 75% of their world wide power needs come from renewable sources such as wind, solar, geothermal and hydro. From the Apple Blog Post: 'Our investments are paying off. We've already achieved 100 percent renewable energy at all of our data centers, at our facilities in Austin, Elk Grove, Cork, and Munich, and at our Infinite Loop campus in Cupertino. And for all of Apple's corporate facilities worldwide, we're at 75 percent, and we expect that number to grow as the amount of renewable energy available to us increases. We won't stop working until we achieve 100 percent throughout Apple.'"

262 comments

  1. And by Renewable Power Sources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    We mean human souls... Muahahahaha

    1. Re:And by Renewable Power Sources by hackula · · Score: 2

      hmm.. how can we spin this one... Apple Computers: Soul Powered

    2. Re:And by Renewable Power Sources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      (And by human souls, we mean sweaty human souls.)

    3. Re:And by Renewable Power Sources by erroneus · · Score: 3, Funny

      I was thinking along similar lines:

      "Is child labor considered renewable energy?"

      I appreciate the energy conscious choices being made. I appreciate the leadership value in it. There are lots of ways they can clean up their image and in my opinion, they aren't addressing the more serious concerns. All they are doing is better ensuring that when people come charging their offices with torches and pitchforks in hand, they will be able to stay in their buildings for a bit longer.

    4. Re:And by Renewable Power Sources by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Funny

      "Is child labor considered renewable energy?"

      Clean, safe, and too cheap to meter.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    5. Re:And by Renewable Power Sources by BasilBrush · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There are lots of ways they can clean up their image and in my opinion, they aren't addressing the more serious concerns.

      Opposing child labour and sweatshops, and being green are pretty serious concerns in my book. All of them certainly far more serious than how much they are in tune with the demands of the OSS community.

    6. Re:And by Renewable Power Sources by Goaway · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "More serious concerns", like your previously addressed child labor?

      News flash: Apple is pretty much the only tech company that is actually addressing that concern. Apple actually investigates their manufacturers and drop them if they use child labor. Other tech companies by and large don't.

    7. Re:And by Renewable Power Sources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can dig it! /Soul powered

    8. Re:And by Renewable Power Sources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck Apple.

    9. Re:And by Renewable Power Sources by Dishevel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You do realize that in the countries where child labor is practiced that the children NEED the work.
      I understand that it means that the country itself is in a bad way and that country needs to serve its people better.
      I also get that the thought of child labor to us is repugnant. What we need to keep in mind though is that if we could immediately stop all child labor tomorrow ...
      Many people would die as a result.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    10. Re:And by Renewable Power Sources by Massacrifice · · Score: 1

      Isn't that what "LIVE FREE OR DIE" is about? We keep them as oversea slaves to fullfil our material desires, trampling our own principles of human integrity. A though choice, yes, but possibly one that would pay off in the long term.

      --
      -- Home is where you eat your heart out.
    11. Re:And by Renewable Power Sources by Jmc23 · · Score: 1

      You miss the fact that they both are supposed to have the same ideological underpinnings. Their 'concerns' are just negligible marketing expense to make you feel better about the shiny jails they sell.

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
    12. Re:And by Renewable Power Sources by BasilBrush · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You do realize that in the countries where child labor is practiced that the children NEED the work.

      It's a subtle point that Apple is aware of. Whilst of course they can't change the fortunes of a nation, on those occasions when they have found a subcontractor that has broken the rules, and employed underage workers, it's a condition of remaining a subcontractor that they continue to pay the family the wage even though the child is no longer working PLUS finance the child to go to school.

      It's a good move. It's a disincentive for a subcontractor to risk it, as well as making sure that Apple's intervention doesn't make life worse for the kid or his/her family.

    13. Re:And by Renewable Power Sources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you go to college for that vocabulary?

    14. Re:And by Renewable Power Sources by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      You miss the fact that they both are supposed to have the same ideological underpinnings.

      They most certainly are not. They are orthogonal belief sets.

    15. Re:And by Renewable Power Sources by Jmc23 · · Score: 1
      caring about the environment, caring about children, caring about a future world for everyone to enjoy, and caring about a persons freedom, and freedom of knowledge and tools for everyone are all the same thing.

      Nice try with your big words though.

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
    16. Re:And by Renewable Power Sources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So then.
      Make it illegal in that country and be ok with people starving.
      Your choice.

    17. Re:And by Renewable Power Sources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well, chinese children are clean. They are carbon-neutral. They emit very little c02 and methane(a little more in szechuan most likely). They are reusable. Looks like a win to me.

    18. Re:And by Renewable Power Sources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they are not green though

    19. Re:And by Renewable Power Sources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those are all separate things you've listed. I can care about one of those and not about another easily.

    20. Re:And by Renewable Power Sources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One is clearly not like the other. Thanks for playing.

    21. Re:And by Renewable Power Sources by bdwebb · · Score: 1

      They do need work and in these countries it is critical to their family's well-being, however the issue is more with the whole 'Children can't defend themselves and demand fair wages or workdays' part that yanks most people's chain. Something about being children and getting taken advantage of or whatever..psh.

      Seriously though, there are many companies in struggling countries that treat their labor force fairly whether they include children or not. The other side of that coin, however, is disgusting and if child labor is going to be allowed to any degree it needs to be highly regulated and, more importantly, enforced.

    22. Re:And by Renewable Power Sources by PaulSt-Yves · · Score: 1

      I believe that Apple is no worse than those lawmakers who did not have the guts to push anti-gun legislation. Because of them, children & adults will die here in USA. Did you know that since the death of John Lennon, over 1,057,000 people were killed by guns? This is by far more than the Americans who died during the WWII... linuxscn

    23. Re:And by Renewable Power Sources by bdwebb · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There are generations of people from every nation on earth that have had to lower the effective age at which people had to work to support their families, even if the work is just around the house/farm to keep food in everyone's mouth. What happens when war decimates a population's adult male population? What happens when there is a vast famine as in the case of the Dust Bowl?

      We have the advantage of sitting in our houses or apartments looking at pictures on the internet of the terrible conditions these people live in and we see children doing labor that adult men and women should do and we are rightfully sickened...the problem is that the GP is right in that sometimes this is for survival and there is no other way. Any time when there is this level of drive to simply survive, however, there are always pieces of shit willing to take advantage and those are the people really responsible for the "sweat shop" label. Those are the people who need to be stopped. I doubt mothers and fathers want their children working in factories very much but when their extra $ is what allows your family to get that extra heel of bread so that you can live, circumstances force people to mature from children to adults much quicker. Luckily none of us have ever had to experience a situation like this.

    24. Re:And by Renewable Power Sources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But it is not.
      And I do not run those countries.
      All we can do is say no or say yes.
      Yes, means there will be child labor. Some of them will be taken advantage of. Some will be mistreated. Some will work in unsafe environments and be hurt or killed.
      No means some will starve and the economic growth of that country will be suppressed.
      I am not saying I like child labor.
      BUT.
      In the countries that utilize it they do it for a reason and people will suffer what ever our choice.

    25. Re:And by Renewable Power Sources by mcneely.mike · · Score: 0

      If Apple were to say 'hire adults and pay them more with fair hours' like we expect in our own countries.

      but then would we want to pay the price of more expensive goodies....

      --
      soylentnews.org Go there to enjoy the people!
    26. Re:And by Renewable Power Sources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't be dumb, it's not people, it's puppy fuel. This is Apple we're talking about.

    27. Re:And by Renewable Power Sources by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      caring about the environment, caring about children, caring about a future world for everyone to enjoy, and caring about a persons freedom

      So far so good. We're talking freedom as in what Amnesty International fights for. Basic human rights.

      , and freedom of knowledge and tools for everyone are all the same thing.

      And that's were you reach something that is not like the others. Anarchy/socialism in software (what the OSS community believes in) is not the same as basic human rights. Property is not theft. Not even when it's software or patents.

      If someone chooses to buy a device with a single store for software, they've made a choice with complete freedom.

      Nice try with your big words though.

      It's not just big words. I'm pretty good at knowing what words like freedom really mean too.

    28. Re:And by Renewable Power Sources by wanfuse123 · · Score: 1

      Soul Powered. The apple followers put their heart and soul into following Apple. It's good to see that Apple is doing something with their money that is worth while. Google is doing a lot of the same. I am sure it's because it's good PR but I certainly like to hear about it. I just wish that Apple and Google would invest in building a network of Air Carbon Capture devices. Funding the Air Carbon Capture with the profits made from building a network of plastic recycling units. We waste 37,000,000 tons of plastic each year that can be turned into millions of gallons of fuel and sold for a huge profit.

    29. Re:And by Renewable Power Sources by fishingmachine · · Score: 1

      apple customers care about prices? what world do you live in?

    30. Re:And by Renewable Power Sources by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      News flash: Apple is pretty much the only tech company that is actually addressing that concern. Apple actually investigates their manufacturers and drop them if they use child labor. Other tech companies by and large don't.

      Samsung is of course a lot ahead. There are no cases of child labour at any place that Samsung uses. At least that is what Samsung says.

      (Now if we consider that an Apple audit usually finds one or two underage employees at a dozen or two companies, which can be attributed to the companies not being careful enough doing checks, and one company employing dozens of underage employees which promptly leads to the contract with that company being cancelled, you can decide whether Samsung is very lucky, trying hard not to see any evil, or just plain lying).

    31. Re:And by Renewable Power Sources by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Informative

      You do realize that in the countries where child labor is practiced that the children NEED the work.

      To be clear: The country is China, and the "children" were 14 year old students ordered out of their classroom and taken to a Foxconn factory for an "internship". This was done without the permission of the parents and in violation of Chinese law. A Chinese court ordered the kids to be returned to their school. Factory internships are normal in China, but not for students this young.

      There are certainly countries where children need to work to help feed their families. But China is not one of them. China is a middle income country, and school attendance is mandatory. What happened was illegal and inexcusable.

    32. Re:And by Renewable Power Sources by sessamoid · · Score: 4, Informative

      Except that an independent investigation found lots of child labor in factories making Samsung products, more than in similar factories producing Apple products. But that doesn't bring in the clicks, so almost nobody reported it.

      "Furthermore, the discovery of these child workers also provides evidence for the ineffectiveness of Samsung’s audit system."

      --
      "No, no, no. Don't tug on that. You never know what it might be attached to."
    33. Re:And by Renewable Power Sources by BranMan · · Score: 1

      A little spray paint will fix that.

    34. Re:And by Renewable Power Sources by Goaway · · Score: 1

      Uh, yes? Why don't you go look up how long they have been doing it yourself? It's not a secret.

    35. Re:And by Renewable Power Sources by mcneely.mike · · Score: 0

      Sorry...... wow, forgot myself for a minute. :)

      Slaps palm into face.

      --
      soylentnews.org Go there to enjoy the people!
    36. Re:And by Renewable Power Sources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OP of the above post here. Wow what a bunch of straw men BS rationalization fail here. You realize that there are a whole bunch of companies that could just plain shut down right now and it would not make a damn bit of difference in the world over all. You think all the little specks we humans are, running around this rock actually matter?

    37. Re:And by Renewable Power Sources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BZZZZZtttt no anarchy and no socialism. The pay and the consequences to your "preffered" system is just not something you care to deal with. HEHHEEHEH TFB.

    38. Re:And by Renewable Power Sources by erroneus · · Score: 1

      What it means is they continue their drain on larger economies. Consider that the money they spend goes more out of the countries and even their costs of being present in the lands their customers live in (because you know the people who are making their products can't afford them) is going DOWN! They OWN these power plants after all.

      So more taking and less giving than ever before. So even this green initiative is pretty selfish when you think about it.

    39. Re:And by Renewable Power Sources by erroneus · · Score: 2

      That was true, theoretically, in the US as well. But you know what happened? The cost of adult labor went up as they were more scarce. Children, meanwhile had more fun, went to school and advanced intellectually and in potential.

      That's what should happen in these other nations. It's what COULD happen if the right changes were made.

      Worse is that in these child labor countries, parents are thereby encouraged to have more children [to exploit] so they can bring more money into the family. This is the same reason why agricultural families had tended to be so large. More family, more help.

      There are ways around the tragic results of a sudden stop. But you know what happened when slavery ended in the US? A *LOT* of black suffering. It sucked for the freed black people. Many returned to the plantations as "share croppers" who rented the lands they worked and the homes they lived in for no profit and an existance that was, at times, worse than being slaves. But the long term results? Well... I have good and bad to say about it, but at the end of the day, if one person can legally be enslaved, we ALL can, so we're better off without it.

      So change could be tragic. But the long term would not be. No change is a guaranteed persistence of the problem.

    40. Re:And by Renewable Power Sources by erroneus · · Score: 1

      They could avoid the problem entirely and bring manufacturing and assembly to places where it would NEVER happen.

      And as another commenter pointed out, the "higher price" argument is moot when it comes to Apple customers. They will buy Apple at any price.

    41. Re:And by Renewable Power Sources by erroneus · · Score: 1

      Moron. Gun violence is lower in the US in places where CHLs are available and especially in places where gun ownership is encouraged.

      When you have something nice, people will try to take it from you. This is true when the people are government or criminals... or both. They often do so at the point of a gun. They do it more easily and more often when the target has no way to defend themselves.

      Guns don't CAUSE violence. People cause it. I *wish* the wrong people didn't have weapons available to them. But wishing and legislation will NOT stop it. What wishing and legislation does is guarantees you are ripe, low-hanging fruit when the wrong people come knocking at your door.

      Go ahead, offer up the "bad neighborhood" argument. Harlem used to be a good neighborhood... in fact most of the bad neighborhoods used to be good neighborhoods. What happened? People didn't defend themselves and the neighborhoods went bad.

      I get it. You're afraid of guns. But I'm willing to bet you're just as afraid of bad people with or without guns. So give it some serious thought. Even if in your wildest dreams, only police had access to weapons, police would go bad... we've seen it recently. Worse, police would become the targets and their guns taken! We're seeing that too! So how does gun control help that? You're living in a delusional world where you feel safe because you only see it on TV... until a neighborhood makes up its own anti-gun legislation and puts up signs saying "this is a gun-free neighborhood." Guess what will happen next? :)

    42. Re:And by Renewable Power Sources by Goaway · · Score: 1

      And they have been attempting to do that, too.

    43. Re:And by Renewable Power Sources by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Well I've read that 3 times, and I still can't decipher what point you are making. Care to elucidate?

    44. Re:And by Renewable Power Sources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Is child labor considered renewable energy?"

      Yes, and if you feed their corpses to the living workers rather than burn them it is even carbon neutral.

    45. Re:And by Renewable Power Sources by nobodie · · Score: 1

      and no one has called bullshit on this FA to begin with? Where are you Apple haters? Just talking about child-labor when there is a giant pile of BS in the basic premise?

      OK, so Apple's corporate offices are 75% renewable energy, but what relationship does that have to the energy used by Foxconn and other manufacturers of the Apple products? (whose wildly inflated profits made it possible for Apple to defy the economic costs of going renewable) And then, while not the bulk of the pollution created by Apple as a company (not just the "soul-sucking" corporate entity) there is transportation around the world (what about "build locally?" if you want to justify your prices) and the cost of the waste (oh yeah, let's just move it somewhere where we don't have to deal with it).

      So Apple has gone green? The possibility of any tech company truly "going green" is so far from current reality or even possibility that to make the claim is mind-numbingly stupid. Only a company that actually believes the fantasies that their marketing coke-heads dream up could publish "data" that justified themselves.

      Did I mention I was calling BS on this?

      --
      Subversion of spatial scale luxury decoration ideas.
    46. Re:And by Renewable Power Sources by smash · · Score: 1

      Actually i thought it was the tears of GNU hippies.

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
  2. Re:What about... by raburton · · Score: 2, Funny

    #PostAround820

  3. Does that include their manufacturing plants? by SirGarlon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Does that include the Asian suppliers' and subcontractors' plants that actually manufacture all of Apple's products?

    I didn't think so.

    So perhaps Apple should not too their own horn very loudly on this.

    --
    [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
    1. Re:Does that include their manufacturing plants? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A very good point. Let us remember how far we have to go while celebrating how far we have come.

    2. Re:Does that include their manufacturing plants? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why the fuck would Apple include other companies?

    3. Re:Does that include their manufacturing plants? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most power comes from coal.
      Charcoal comes from trees (i.e. a renewable resource) and burns about the same.

    4. Re:Does that include their manufacturing plants? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So you think it's OK for Apple to say they are a green company using renewable energy as long as they don't include anything that is connected with making apple products. It's clear that apple will try and add marketing fluff about being green when promoting their products and how by buying their stuff you are helping the environment, yet they will conveniently forget to mention that this does not extend to the actual manufacturing of their stuff.

    5. Re:Does that include their manufacturing plants? by smg5266 · · Score: 1

      I know this is true in minecraft, real life too though?

    6. Re:Does that include their manufacturing plants? by coinreturn · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Leave it to the haters to spin this as a negative. Get a life.

    7. Re:Does that include their manufacturing plants? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Why the fuck would Apple include other companies?

      Because if they don't they can claim a zero carbon footprint just by hiring someone else to turn on the light switches.

      (first goyim joke goes straight to Hell).

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    8. Re:Does that include their manufacturing plants? by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No one did that. The act of moving to more renewable power is laudable. The act of lying about it is reprehensible.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    9. Re:Does that include their manufacturing plants? by TemperedAlchemist · · Score: 0

      It's not really spin, he does have a point. The manufacturing is done by outside contractors, that's where the slave labor allegations come in.

    10. Re:Does that include their manufacturing plants? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      How are they lying about it? Are they *saying* that the ENTIRE supply chain -- from the mining the materials for the capacitors to delivery into the customer's hands -- as well as the systems and Apple owns directly are at 75%. No they are not saying that. Anyone with half a brain (or at least two functioning brain cells) knows that Apple is talking about those elements Apple 100% directly controls: Apple's facilities, Apple stores, Apple networks services centers, etc.

    11. Re:Does that include their manufacturing plants? by JayWilmont · · Score: 5, Informative

      Don't blame Apple for the submitter's terrible headline. What Apple actually claims is on their website, and they have a clear breakdown of what they view their footprint to be is here:
      http://www.apple.com/environment/our-footprint/

      (Broken down b/c nobody actually RTFA)
      61% Manufacturing
      5% Transportation
      30% Product Use
      2% Recycling
      2% Facilities

    12. Re:Does that include their manufacturing plants? by BasilBrush · · Score: 5, Informative

      The slave labour allegations are bullshit. Ref: The lies of Mike Daisey.

      Of course ANY company subcontracting manufacture to China and various other Asian countries is in danger of the subcontracting companies using child labour or sweatshops. And the majority of consumer electronics are manufactured there.

      However Apple does more than any of the other companies to ensure this doesn't happen with the companies that they subcontract to.

      The continued repeating of these allegations as if Apple were choosing to use child labour is the lowest form of filthy lie, from the dregs of the slashdot membership. To use a serious issue like child labour in order to further their shilling for Android or OSS is the lowest of the low.

    13. Re:Does that include their manufacturing plants? by BasilBrush · · Score: 2

      What part of "And for all of Apple's corporate facilities worldwide, we're at 75 percent, and we expect that number to grow as the amount of renewable energy available to us increases. We won't stop working until we achieve 100 percent throughout Apple." did you not understand?

    14. Re:Does that include their manufacturing plants? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget: The companies that make Apple products also make products for its competitors. Apple doesn't own the factories.

    15. Re:Does that include their manufacturing plants? by coinreturn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No one did that. The act of moving to more renewable power is laudable. The act of lying about it is reprehensible.

      Actually just about everyone in this thread did that, and they lauded nothing. Typical of the haters who hate no matter what. There was no lie. Their power is from renewable. They are not claiming that everything in their supply chain (including the mining of rare earth metals) is from renewables.

    16. Re:Does that include their manufacturing plants? by Jmc23 · · Score: 2

      Marketers use the 'truth' to 'lie' by depending on the inability of the average person to be able parse a sentence correctly. Or have you never seen an ad in your lifetime?

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
    17. Re:Does that include their manufacturing plants? by Jmc23 · · Score: 1

      Apple's image is tarnished more by these 'allegations'. It is no surprise they are 'doing' more.

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
    18. Re:Does that include their manufacturing plants? by SirGarlon · · Score: 1, Informative

      (Broken down b/c nobody actually RTFA)

      Actually, that breakdown is not in TFA, and is not linked from the summary. So while the article you cite is certainly relevant to the discussion and sheds a lot of light, I don't think it's fair for you to bitch about people not reading TFA when the key point you make didn't come from it, either.

      --
      [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
    19. Re:Does that include their manufacturing plants? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have absultuly no idea what you're talking about. At all. Mike Daisey was capitalizing on the already known facts of the poor labor practices going on. You're just a alarmist dipshit.

    20. Re:Does that include their manufacturing plants? by NatasRevol · · Score: 0

      Until Apple extends their claims to their entire supply chain, there is no point.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    21. Re:Does that include their manufacturing plants? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Oh, c'mon, now, who doesn't want to see Apple embroiled in a greener than thou battle with the absolutists?

      Note to manufacturers: if you do anything responsible, we will publicly castigate you for not doing more (probably until you just give up on doing anything at all).

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    22. Re:Does that include their manufacturing plants? by coinreturn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There was no lie. Their power is from renewable.

      I'll believe that when they stop selling "Apple" computers and start selling OSX for "Foxconn" computers. Until then, it's all a load of bullshit, since the work they've contracted isn't being done with renewable power.

      So, like I said, you're just a hater. All their power needs for their operations is what the article is about. Not all the power used by all subcontractors in the manufacturing chain back to when the stuff was dust. Haters cannot acknowledge anything good about Apple. If Tim Cook said he wiped his ass north to south, you'd be shouting it should be south to north.

    23. Re:Does that include their manufacturing plants? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What part of "And for all of Apple's corporate facilities worldwide, we're at 75 percent, and we expect that number to grow as the amount of renewable energy available to us increases. We won't stop working until we achieve 100 percent throughout Apple." did you not understand?

      All of it. You obviously failed to understand that "Apple's corporate facilities worldwide" does not include companies that Apple contracts to build their stuff. It's all very much a case of just look at this but ignore what's happening over there, it's nothing to do with us...

    24. Re:Does that include their manufacturing plants? by TemperedAlchemist · · Score: 1

      http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/technology/foxconn-said-to-use-forced-student-labor-to-make-iphones.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

      According to the department of labor, slave labor is

      "Forced labor" under international standards means all work or service which is exacted from any person under the menace of any penalty for its nonperformance and for which the worker does not offer himself voluntarily, and includes indentured labor. "Forced labor" includes work provided or obtained by force, fraud, or coercion ...

      Threats of university punishment if the internships is not taken is a kind of coercion, therefore making this sort of behavior slave labor.

      Do note that I said allegations in my previous post, which are quite legitimate claims. These aren't just being made up to try to trash Apple.

    25. Re:Does that include their manufacturing plants? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Haters cannot acknowledge anything good about Apple.

      I can, and I do (as said previously) but I also live here in reality, where I realize that Apple is engaging in prevarication. I have a long history with Apple, I was a Mac user for many years, so I have good reason to hate Apple. No one who is not a total fanboy would spend as much effort as you are defending Apple's prevarication. I am not a fan of any corporations. Except maybe Clif. I don't even like Clif bars, but they treat their employees right.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    26. Re:Does that include their manufacturing plants? by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 2

      So you think it's OK for Apple to say they are a green company using renewable energy as long as they don't include anything that is connected with making apple products.

      At least they don't own coal power plants to produce their stuff, like Samsung.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    27. Re:Does that include their manufacturing plants? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      What's a lie in the statement:

      Logical fallacy, picking and choosing. The entire page constitutes a lie because they are deliberately implying that all their operations will be renewable. But the fact is that most of what they do is done on their behalf by someone else. It's called prevarication and it's an enhanced form of lying that you probably don't even realize you're doing right now. That's because you're doing it to yourself, which is called cognitive dissonance.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    28. Re:Does that include their manufacturing plants? by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      Most power comes from coal.
      Charcoal comes from trees (i.e. a renewable resource) and burns about the same.

      Sure. But its too expensive, that's why the only things powered by charcoal these days are grills and the occasional smelter.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    29. Re:Does that include their manufacturing plants? by JayWilmont · · Score: 1

      I was referring to how nobody *will* read TFA I linked to ;-)

      (Also the original article links to Apple's environment page, which has a link right at the top of the page for "Our Footprint", so for all of the people complaining about what 'Apple' is/isn't including in their calculation - a trivial amount of effort from the TFA would have gotten people to a page with the answer, though clearly that is much less fun than speculating and shooting down straw men.)

    30. Re:Does that include their manufacturing plants? by coinreturn · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Haters cannot acknowledge anything good about Apple.

      I can, and I do (as said previously) but I also live here in reality, where I realize that Apple is engaging in prevarication. I have a long history with Apple, I was a Mac user for many years, so I have good reason to hate Apple. No one who is not a total fanboy would spend as much effort as you are defending Apple's prevarication. I am not a fan of any corporations. Except maybe Clif. I don't even like Clif bars, but they treat their employees right.

      Bull. They are not prevaricating. And only a rabid hater would spend so much time perpetuating that lie.

    31. Re:Does that include their manufacturing plants? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, he was referring to TFA that he linked himself, not the main article of this comment.

    32. Re:Does that include their manufacturing plants? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I do hate Apple, for what they have done. I will not be happy with them until they change their colors or go away. What has Apple ever done for you?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    33. Re:Does that include their manufacturing plants? by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 1

      Not to mention the "stuff" they make - products, that by design, are destined for a landfill sooner than need be; Glued shut to prevent easy repair, and no way to economically do simple things like replace the battery of a device that is otherwise perfectly functional.

      If Apple made a car, they'd probably have a sealed engine compartment, "because it looks better" not to have that seam around the hood. Mmmph - they might not even deign put a hole in the car to allow access to the gas tank. Once it runs out of gas, buy another car...

      --
      This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
    34. Re:Does that include their manufacturing plants? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Where do you think whatever you're using came from? Funny how people do the whole Apple==Foxconn thing around here when I see just as much of it under the hoods of HPs and Lenovos.
       
      I guess a hater's gonna hate.

    35. Re:Does that include their manufacturing plants? by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Marketers use the 'truth' to 'lie' by depending on the inability of the average person to be able parse a sentence correctly.

      That would be a fault of the average person then, not of the marketers. They only have a responsibility to not lie. They don't have a responsibility to talk to people like babies.

    36. Re:Does that include their manufacturing plants? by BasilBrush · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The entire page constitutes a lie because they are deliberately implying that all their operations will be renewable.

      "implying"? If you can't understand plain English, that's your problem. It talks about Apple's corporate operations, not the operations of other companies.

      That's because you're doing it to yourself, which is called cognitive dissonance.

      That phrase doesn't mean what you think it means.

    37. Re:Does that include their manufacturing plants? by BasilBrush · · Score: 2

      Sure. That's exactly why they are doing more. They were unfairly singled out for the allegations, not because their record was bad, but because they were a juicy target.

      And as a result, they do more than any other company to ensure their third party manufacturing is squeaky clean as regards these practices.

      Name any other large company that manufactures in those Asian countries, and there is more child-labour and sweatshop conditions than there is in the case of Apple.

    38. Re:Does that include their manufacturing plants? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what has Apple done to you?

      This article is about a company making a positive change and powering their operations mostly by renewable resources, which they weren't before. Good for them, and I hope they keep improving further, into manufacturing and transport as well.

    39. Re:Does that include their manufacturing plants? by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      Sure. That's exactly why they are doing more. They were unfairly singled out for the allegations, not because their record was bad, but because they were a juicy target.

      And as a result, they do more than any other company to ensure their third party manufacturing is squeaky clean as regards these practices.

      You claim a connection that doesn't exist. You claim that unfair allegations force Apple to improve working conditions. The truth is that Apple has been working in that area many years before the first allegations by liars like Daisey appeared. Just like Apple made their products more environmently friendly before Greenpeace started their shit.

      (A side effect of that was that Greenpeace gave HP huge number of bonus points for promising to get rid of certain dangerous chemicals, while Apple got rated down for not making such promises. Not realising that the same chemicals had already been gone for two years in Apple products).

    40. Re:Does that include their manufacturing plants? by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Internship is on the job training. As the article does mention these are students doing vocational courses. So of course success in the course requires satisfactory completion of an internship.

      To call a voluntary course which requires satisfactory completion of an internship "slave labour" is as ridiculous as the rest of the allegations. And it does a disservice to the reality of true slave labour that is still a problem in this day and age.

    41. Re:Does that include their manufacturing plants? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They aren't yet perfect, so they get no credit for trying harder than anyone else and making tremendous progress. I like that attitude!

    42. Re:Does that include their manufacturing plants? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Provided me with computing devices I enjoy using.

      Also contributing to the advancing march of technology in myriad ways. And before you object, save it. Your objections are bullshit.

    43. Re:Does that include their manufacturing plants? by tipo159 · · Score: 1

      Not to mention the "stuff" they make - products, that by design, are destined for a landfill sooner than need be; Glued shut to prevent easy repair, and no way to economically do simple things like replace the battery of a device that is otherwise perfectly functional.

      They aren't glued to prevent easy repair. They are glued because it is cheaper and easier to assemble and takes less space than doing it with fasteners.

      All of this is part of the general trend (not just an Apple thing) as electronics become appliances and the packaging of smaller and smaller electronic devices. Check out the teardown of the MS Surface. At least Apple will take back your old devices.

      If Apple made a car, they'd probably have a sealed engine compartment, "because it looks better" not to have that seam around the hood. Mmmph - they might not even deign put a hole in the car to allow access to the gas tank. Once it runs out of gas, buy another car...

      Guess what? Automakers want to make a car with a sealed engine compartment that only their dealers service.

    44. Re:Does that include their manufacturing plants? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very convincing. I guess we should just ignore the violent protests and suicides at Foxconn. Nothing to see here. Move along!

      >However Apple does more than any of the other companies to ensure this doesn't happen with the companies that they subcontract to.

      Yes, just enough to preserve their profit margins, but not too much to upset the Chicoms.

    45. Re:Does that include their manufacturing plants? by coinreturn · · Score: 1

      I do hate Apple.

      Thanks for finally conceding my point. All your arguments have been rendered invalid.

    46. Re:Does that include their manufacturing plants? by TemperedAlchemist · · Score: 1

      It's not voluntary if there's negative repercussions if you don't do it.

      For the record, these internships were internships in name only. They were long hour, monotonous assembly line jobs, nothing more. Just because you call forced labor something different does change the fact it's forced labor.

    47. Re:Does that include their manufacturing plants? by bryan1945 · · Score: 2

      Don't stop there. Make sure that all the ore extractors use all renewable energy. And all transportation vehicles that move product are green, too. And the consumer who use their products must sign a contract that they can only use Apple products power with renewable energy. Also, the internet must be all renewable so the iTunes store doesn't use fossil fuels for power. Any publication that talks about Apple must be green, or they cannot write about Apple. You are not allowed to read about Apple unless you use renewable energy sources.
      Did I miss anything that Apple is responsible for?

      --
      Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
    48. Re:Does that include their manufacturing plants? by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      And you'd be the guy yelling about Apple being a heavy handed asshat of a company if they started demanding that Foxconn use renewable energy at their manufacturing operations, dictating to other companies how to do their business, blah blah blah.

      It's clearly Apple's responsibility to make sure half the planet is using renewable energy too, right? I mean, if they plug into their supply chain ANYWHERE, then clearly it counts. In your mind, does Apple have to make sure that they only use unicorn-fart powered mining equipment to extract the rare-earths necessary to manufacture devices too?

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    49. Re:Does that include their manufacturing plants? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if they did that, then you'd be giving them shit for not requiring all of the individual component manufacturers for their servers inside the datacenter from using renewable energy to manufacture each individual resistor and capacitor.

      Get a fucking grip. Are they using more renewable energy now than they were 5 years ago? Is that a good thing?

    50. Re:Does that include their manufacturing plants? by BasilBrush · · Score: 2

      It's not voluntary if there's negative repercussions if you don't do it.

      Every employee has that. Don't do it, and you'll be fired, and you'll lose your salary and benefits. That doesn't make it slave labour.

      Every intern in every country for who the internship is a mandatory part of the course also has negative repercussions if they don't do it. That's not slave labour either.

      For the record, these internships were internships in name only. They were long hour, monotonous assembly line jobs, nothing more.

      For the record we've seen distortions far bigger than this being reported before. Remember the so called Foxconn suicide epidemic. The truth was that if you crunched the numbers, the general suicide rate in both China AND the USA was higher than the rate at Foxconn. ANY company with over a million employees will have suicides.

      I see no actual evidence whatsoever here that the interns are being asked to do anything unreasonable. Just the hearsay of the usual suspects who have an axe to grind.

    51. Re:Does that include their manufacturing plants? by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Truth in advertising works huh?

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    52. Re:Does that include their manufacturing plants? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like that we can all agree there are no MS shills here. It amuses me that it doesn't even enter into the the possible sources of fanaticism.

    53. Re:Does that include their manufacturing plants? by postbigbang · · Score: 1

      Encouraging a discipline of supply-chain adherence wouldn't be a bad idea, although Apple has its own set of responsibilities. Could Foxconn become renewable? Certainly Chinese industry needs energy sustainability.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    54. Re:Does that include their manufacturing plants? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Tim Cook said he wiped his ass north to south, you'd be shouting it should be south to north.

      REAL haters wipe their asses east to west.

    55. Re:Does that include their manufacturing plants? by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      What's a lie in the statement:

      Logical fallacy, picking and choosing. The entire page constitutes a lie because they are deliberately implying that all their operations will be renewable. But the fact is that most of what they do is done on their behalf by someone else. It's called prevarication and it's an enhanced form of lying that you probably don't even realize you're doing right now. That's because you're doing it to yourself, which is called cognitive dissonance.

      That's a good one coming from someone who in this discussion also stated "I'll believe that when they stop selling "Apple" computers and start selling OSX for "Foxconn" computers". So Apple has nothing to do with the manufacture, but is fully resposible for it?

      It's an advanced form of trolling that's called "eating a cake and having it too".

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    56. Re:Does that include their manufacturing plants? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no, no, no, the hood is sealed not because it looks better (though it does), but because that is ever so slightly more aerodynamic, and we pay attention to detail.

  4. So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Green Apple then?

  5. What about manufacturing? by chazchaz101 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It seems a bit deceptive for a company selling physical goods to put out a headline like this while apparently ignoring the energy used to actually manufacture their products.

    1. Re:What about manufacturing? by gbkersey · · Score: 2

      It's just a marketing.

    2. Re:What about manufacturing? by longk · · Score: 1

      Did they indeed ignore it? I was assuming manufacturing is part of their power needs. Do you have a link showing it's excluded?

    3. Re:What about manufacturing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm assuming that counts as some other company... they're a design company. Most of their stuff is made by others. It's like how Google is an advertising company.

    4. Re:What about manufacturing? by _xeno_ · · Score: 4, Informative

      Did they indeed ignore it? I was assuming manufacturing is part of their power needs. Do you have a link showing it's excluded?

      Sure: the one from the article.

      And for all of Appleâ(TM)s corporate facilities worldwide, weâ(TM)re at 75 percent

      The 75% figure doesn't include manufacturing, or Apple stores, or energy costs used shipping iDevices from China. It only refers to "corporate facilities," whatever that means.

      It's fairly clear that it doesn't include manufacturing - which is contracted out anyway, remember, so it's not like Apple owns any factories - and it doesn't include retail. And since we're only talking buildings, it clearly doesn't cover energy spent shipping from China, let alone to Apple stores.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
    5. Re:What about manufacturing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was wondering how the haters would spin this news to make Apple look bad. Well done sir, well done. Your hatred has served you well.

    6. Re:What about manufacturing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The link is in the summary. Apple is clearly referring only to "data centers" and "corporate facilities" as those are the only two terms used in the entire article.

      The only time manufacturing is mentioned is in the sentence "When you download a song from iTunes, buy a book from the iBookstore, or install an app from the Mac App Store, there’s no physical media to manufacture, package, and transport."

      If they were including the energy used in making all those iProds in their 75% figure, they would have made that point extremely obvious.

      But you already knew this.

    7. Re:What about manufacturing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Corporate facilities" means the 20 some odd buildings in Cupertino (and the surrounding areas) that makes up Apple (excluding retail), as well as the the satellite facilities in Austin, Paris, and Vancouver (and smaller ones elsewhere). It also includes the data centers.

    8. Re:What about manufacturing? by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Headline: "Powering our facilities with clean, renewable energy."

      Strapline: "Weâ(TM)ve dramatically reduced the environmental impact of our corporate facilities and the data centers that provide online services to our customers. And we continue to invest in ways to achieve 100 percent renewable energy and lessen our carbon footprint even more."

      Where's the deception? Corporate facilities and data centers. Not "factories of sub-contractors".

    9. Re:What about manufacturing? by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      The 75% figure doesn't include manufacturing, or Apple stores

      It doesn't include most manufacturing, because that is mostly third party companies. But why would you say it doesn't include Apple Stores? Of course it does.

    10. Re:What about manufacturing? by Dinghy · · Score: 2

      The 75% figure doesn't include manufacturing, or Apple stores

      It doesn't include most manufacturing, because that is mostly third party companies. But why would you say it doesn't include Apple Stores? Of course it does.

      Because "corporate space" does not include "retail space".

    11. Re:What about manufacturing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Apple "corporate facilities" in Cupertino and the surrounding area consist of more than 20 some odd buildings.

      "Besides the six buildings on Infinite Loop, the whole Apple Campus occupies an additional thirty buildings scattered throughout the city to accommodate its employees."

    12. Re:What about manufacturing? by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Ahem.

      "This report documents the environmental impact of our facilities and our efforts to reduce their impact. In particular, this report documents:
      â How we generate and use energy across our worldwide facilities including our corporate offices, data centers, and retail stores by highlighting our fiscal 2012 accomplishments"

    13. Re:What about manufacturing? by Dinghy · · Score: 0

      Ahem.

      "This report documents the environmental impact of our facilities and our efforts to reduce their impact. In particular, this report documents: â How we generate and use energy across our worldwide facilities including our corporate offices, data centers, and retail stores by highlighting our fiscal 2012 accomplishments"

      Ahem? Ahem yourself. The quote being discussed, and the 75% claim is:

      And for all of Apple’s corporate facilities worldwide, we’re at 75 percent, and we expect that number to grow as the amount of renewable energy available to us increases.

      Now see page 10 of the report linked above. Notice how retail stores is a separate category than corporate offices.

      Bottom line: No, the 75% does not include stores.

    14. Re:What about manufacturing? by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      "And for all of Appleâ(TM)s corporate facilities worldwide, weâ(TM)re at 75 percent, and we expect that number to grow as the amount of renewable energy available to us increases."

      Now see page 10 of the report linked above. Notice how retail stores is a separate category than corporate offices.

      You're still wrong.

      Notice how "facilities" is a completely different word from "offices". Notice that you are looking at the table subdivision for "offices", but the entire table, which includes Retail, has as it's title: "Worldwide Facility Electricity and GHG Scope Summary"

      Of course Retail Stores aren't included in offices, they aren't offices. Of course they are included in facilities because they are a facility.

  6. Point of fact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Oil IS renewable, but takes a long time. Solar power is not renewable. Once the sun has spent its fuel there can be no more.

    1. Re:Point of fact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      By that logic, eventually the Earth will be a dead rock, and the oil will be spent.

    2. Re:Point of fact by imikem · · Score: 5, Informative

      Hopefully you're trying to be funny, and failing. All energy in this solar system except the, relatively speaking, small amounts that derive from sources such as nuclear fission of heavy elements in planetary cores, comes from the sun. If one decides that solar energy is not "renewable" based on the stellar lifetime, then fossil fuel cannot be regarded as "renewable" either, as it is stored solar energy.

      --
      Perscriptio in manibus tabellariorum est.
    3. Re:Point of fact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How long does it take to charge those solar batteries?

    4. Re:Point of fact by gmclapp · · Score: 2

      In all fairness it is not more correct to say that oil is stored solar energy than it is to say the energy from the sun or other stars is a product of stored chemical or nuclear energy. It would be more correct to say that there is a set amount of energy and matter in this universe and that it is in constant transition in an attempt to reach a "more stable" state.

      --
      Common Sense (+1)
    5. Re:Point of fact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, it was a joke. And it was more funny, insightful and informative, than your cranky attack of a straw-man ("He must have meant it seriously.") to tell us shit every child learn is elementary school. (At least outside the US.)

      I recommend you quit eating trash (dense short carbohydrates, heated dairy proteins, saturated fats, tons of salt... in that order), and lay off the psycho-drugs (adderall, xanax, ritalin, prozac, whatever).

    6. Re:Point of fact by imikem · · Score: 1

      But I like my salted, deep-fried dairy proteins! They seem to be renewable too, going by what I see in the stores and restaurants every day.

      --
      Perscriptio in manibus tabellariorum est.
    7. Re:Point of fact by jeffmeden · · Score: 1

      While it is all pretty trivial considering the timescale, Oil (from plant sources) only ceases to be renewable AFTER the sun has died. So conceptually (as long as we don't kill off all plant life on the planet first) there will be oil longer than there will be things which are directly solar powered. Of course, one other likely scenario is that we find a way to make more efficient use of newly created bio-material and therefore use it all up at or near the same time as the sun goes cold, so it wont have a chance to become oil. But, that is pretty optimistic considering the pace that humans are on for self-extinction.

    8. Re:Point of fact by imikem · · Score: 1

      This is only true if one is assuming that stellar output remains at a level conducive to fossil fuel production. Most projections suggest that the sun's increasing heat over time will render the earth barren and uninhabitable long before hydrogen fusion ceases, and such heating would likely also release the stored energy in hydrocarbons. So the sun gets the last figurative laugh.

      --
      Perscriptio in manibus tabellariorum est.
    9. Re:Point of fact by schlachter · · Score: 1

      If we're going to talk at that level, can we not just say that all energy is renewable then? I mean it's never lost. It just changes states.

      --
      My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
    10. Re:Point of fact by steelfood · · Score: 1

      Tidal is not in any way linked to the sun. Not that tidal works particularly well...

      Nor is geothermal. But again, that's not a major source of renewable energy.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    11. Re:Point of fact by GuB-42 · · Score: 1

      In fact he's right somehow. Renewable and unlimited are not the same thing.

      Given enough time and as long as the sun is shining, new oil is created. If we could change suns like we change batteries and no catastrophic event occurs, oil would never wear out. OTOH, nothing "renews" in the sun.
      As for unlimited energy, the laws of physics don't like it.

    12. Re:Point of fact by femtobyte · · Score: 1

      "Free energy" --- the "useful" part, that monotonically decreases with the increase of entropy, of the overall conserved quantity of energy in the universe --- is indeed "lost." Energy can "change states" irreversibly, hence non-renewably.

    13. Re:Point of fact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Somebody here is a Mitt Romney fan :)

    14. Re:Point of fact by jafac · · Score: 1

      Vice President Cheney?

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
  7. crappy summary is crappy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    ftfa:
    "Our goal is to power every facility at Apple entirely with energy from renewable sources"

    considering the truly humongous amount of energy going into the building of laptops (the ones built in coal-powered China) that's not really the difficult or most rewarding bit though, is it

    * grumbles about misleading headline *

  8. Re:What about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    That's what they mean by "renewable energy source".

  9. Poorly worded title by damn_registrars · · Score: 1, Insightful
    The title could be read to say that Apple is claiming 75% of all power comes from renewable sources. Why not use the shorter title of

    75% of Apple's Power Comes From Renewable Sources

    Instead? Or even

    Apple Says 75% Of Their Power Comes From Renewable Sources

    which would also be more clear.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:Poorly worded title by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 2

      It also says "needs." But the needs don't come from energy sources - the needs come from all the servers, etc, they're running. -1 Pedantic.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    2. Re:Poorly worded title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh contraire! By hook or by crook it is worded perfectly. If it was clear it would not be as effective in garnering support from low information individuals.

      All you need is title that sounds green and people will fall for it.

      Rah rah green agenda and... sigh

  10. Now it all makes sense... by BillCable · · Score: 4, Funny

    That's why Apple products are so expensive!

    PS: I wonder how renewable the energy burned to drive the truck that deliver products to their retail stores is.

    1. Re:Now it all makes sense... by UnknowingFool · · Score: 2

      The same amount it took to deliver Dell's products to retail stores, I suppose. But we are only going to criticize Apple for things that are out of their control. Unless Dell is using some sort of green energy shipper that I am not aware.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    2. Re:Now it all makes sense... by BillCable · · Score: 0

      Well, I was commenting on how ridiculous it is for Apple to claim 75% of their power needs are met with renewable sources, not holding them to a different standard then Dell or any other corporation.

      I do, however, take issue with your suggestion that these costs are outside Apple's control. Apple chooses the companies who transport their products to their retail stores. I presume they choose to pay for gas-guzzling tractor trailers. They could opt instead to use plug-in electric vehicles. And they could choose only to deal with transportation companies who power up their vehicles at charge stations that get their electricity from renewables. It would certainly be outrageously more expensive and far less efficient, but it is fully within their control. So in fact I was criticizing something over which Apple is 100% responsible.

    3. Re:Now it all makes sense... by UnknowingFool · · Score: 2

      I do, however, take issue with your suggestion that these costs are outside Apple's control. Apple chooses the companies who transport their products to their retail stores. I presume they choose to pay for gas-guzzling tractor trailers.

      Show me one method of shipping worldwide that uses 100% green energy. Just one. They are none. If you are shipping via ocean freighter, they use diesel. If you are shipping via air they use jet fuel. If you are shipping via ground, most likely it will be some sort of tractor trailer which uses diesel. Small shipments like UPS, FedEx, DHL uses gasoline/diesel/jet fuel along different points. In other words, no one has a choice but to use fossil fuels when shipping.

      They could opt instead to use plug-in electric vehicles.

      Which exist only in limited markets and limited range and limited shipping capacity. At best Apple could make/buy a fleet of these vehicles and spend years building the infrastructure. Of course, Apple's business isn't shipping but let's not let that small detail get in the way of reality. But the last time I checked, they don't do so well in the ocean or in the air so Apple will have to invent electric ocean freighters and electric airplanes.

      So in fact I was criticizing something over which Apple is 100% responsible.

      There is no practical way for Apple to ship green 100% without changing the entire infrastructure of shipping. Are you willing to criticize Dell and HP for not doing the same? Saying they are 100% responsible is like saying you are 100% responsible for not being green because your workplace/pharmacy/favorite restaurant/car is not 100% green.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    4. Re:Now it all makes sense... by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      My point is we can control only what we can control. For the facilities that Apple controls they are 75% green. Criticizing them for things outside of their control is complaining just to complain. I can be as green as I want but I have to accept that in this society there is no such thing as 100% green unless I live completely off the grid which means I could never use the Internet. Your point would lead to people say "why bother?" and not to do anything at all. And my point about Dell is that no competitor to Apple appears to be trying anything. But you'll complain when Apple tries anything.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    5. Re:Now it all makes sense... by BillCable · · Score: 1

      I don't know that I've ever complained about Apple before in my life. Probably not since the monitor died on my Apple IIe.

      If Apple wants to do green energy thing and their customers want to pay more to subsidize those efforts, then three cheers for all involved. If Dell wants to utilize more conventional power and as a result can offer cheaper prices, making their products available to a broader customer base including to the less affluent, bully for them as well. And if you think Apple would be doing this if they didn't think there'd be a sizable PR benefit, you're hopelessly naive.

    6. Re:Now it all makes sense... by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Apple is as altruistic as it needs to be and they can boast all they want about things they want. Some people in this world want companies to be greener. Apple is doing that. And do you really think that Apple would use green energy if there wasn't a financial benefit as well, you only think in one dimension. Using biogas from a landfill to power their North Carolina data center saves Apple money.

      Apple like Dell are corporations and will try to maximize their profits all they can. For Dell, their model has always been make as cheap as they can and sell as cheap as they can and make their money in volume. That has never been Apple's model. They sell fewer units at a higher price for more profit. It has worked for them seeing as they make more money on the iPhone alone that all of Dell.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  11. Manufacturing and shipping costs by maroberts · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    One wonders what percentage would result if these were factored into their equations?

    I notice it also doesn't appear to cover Apple shops....

    --

    Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
    Karma: Chameleon

    1. Re:Manufacturing and shipping costs by UnknowingFool · · Score: 2

      These places are not under Apple's control unless they buy the facilities outright then convert them. Dell and HP have the same problem too if they were to convert to green energy. Dell and HP don't own Foxconn that manufacturers their goods. They don't own stores like BestBuy that sell their wares.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    2. Re:Manufacturing and shipping costs by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      One wonders what percentage would result if these were factored into their equations?

      I notice it also doesn't appear to cover Apple shops....

      Much lower - but still higher than any other computer / phone / consumer electronics company on the world.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
  12. Re:What about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What about the power used to run their stores? Those malls certainly don't use renewable energy. And what about the brain cells in their 'geniuses'? Surely they are consumed by the customers? Brains are not renewable. I am living proof.

  13. Let's hear from the Republican side: by fredrated · · Score: 1

    "When did Apple become Communist?"

    1. Re:Let's hear from the Republican side: by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      I hear they've yet to deny that they've stopped beating their wife, too.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    2. Re:Let's hear from the Republican side: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. You don't know anything about Republicans or what it means to be one. So you're disqualified from this topic right there.
      2. Apple is anything but communist.

    3. Re: Let's hear from the Republican side: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After the moron Romneybot found its binders full of women. (Carefully sealed and kept fresh by using lucite)

  14. I don't really consider... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't really consider forced female child labor a Renewable Power Sources<sic>.
    I have a soul which is why I don't own any of Apple's iThingies; just sayin'

    1. Re: I don't really consider... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Right, that's why you would buy Samsung. Now with even more child labour and more denied cancer deaths, right ? You are a moron of epic proportions if you think child labour is an Apple specific problem and/or all other manufacturers are holy. Quite the opposite. Foxconn conditions within the Apple section are bad, but still among the best in china. The wages in Shanghai(china) are far above those in Taiwan.

  15. Generating or just using? by drdrgivemethenews · · Score: 2

    Renewable power bought from a utility company is a zero-sum game--only one party gets to use it, and everyone else gets stuck with whatever's left. So until they are actually generating all that power themselves, the claim is just chest thumping. No real benefit to the environment.

    1. Re:Generating or just using? by rmdingler · · Score: 2

      Is it your argument, that regardless of the number of electricity users who demand renewable sources, there is a finite amount to be delivered? Does consumer demand not factor into this equation at all?

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    2. Re:Generating or just using? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      It's not like the electricity company hooks you directly up to your own wind turbine anyway. I mean, presumably they can account it for it all and show that yes, 25% of our watts are paid for by customers who've been sold their power as "green" and yes, we've generated 25% of our watts in that way, but that's probably about it, isn't it?

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    3. Re:Generating or just using? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also apple is using natural gas (another utility, for their 'bloom' generators) to cover peak usage.

      The load usage is solar. Now I am by far no expert in the use of solar. But what happens at night? Do they have a huge bank of batteries? They are probably doing something like net metering. As with that amount of wattage they are probably not keeping it laying around. With that much power I am sure they are getting some sort of break from the power company. They probably generate enough to put a good dent in their bill... I'm sure the power company likes this arrangement. Your own customer is buying their own hardware and selling it back into the grid (you do not have to build more plants). You can slurp up the extra and resell it to your local customers.

      'Green' I guess you could call it that. But only in the sense they clear cut a bunch of trees to put in a forest of solar panels.

      A good business arrangement is what I would call it. Green not so much. Green would be the *power* company builds the solar array and everyone uses it. This is company finds local power source lacking and builds their own. Companies have been doing this since they figured out how to turn motors (be it water, air, or electricity).

    4. Re:Generating or just using? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you'd do just a minute of research you'd find out that Apple *does* have its own power generating facilities for its major data center sites. Apple's goal for a few years has been to get those facilities off the grid and onto their own power generation systems as fast as possible with a goal of making those power generation systems as close to 100% renewable (wind, solar, etc.) as possible.

      At Apple's main campus in California (and certain other Apple facilities around the world) it is just not possible for Apple to have its own power generating facilities and make them 100% renewable. The city and county commissions in Cupertino will not stand for Apple buying up then tearing down other businesses and homes in order to use the land for renewable power generation facilities. It just will not happen! Therefore Apple just works with the utilities to get them to use renewables as much as they can get the utilities to do it with regard to energy that Apple buys from those utilities.

      -- Some of this is 100% out of both Apple's and the local utilities control. The U.S. has a huge power sharing grid that even includes part of Canada and Mexico. When peak loads happen (and tax the system above regional generation ability) power is shunted to that region from other regions that have a surplus. Thus if you're in a region that has 99% renewables and need additional power from a region that is 10% renewable you're temporary power supply goes down to well under that 99%. This is just a fact of the reality of the world -- until the vast majority of North America goes to renewable energy, something that is decades away.

    5. Re:Generating or just using? by welshie · · Score: 1

      That depends on who your electricity provider is. If they are a not-for-profit company who uses all profits to invest in new renewable generation, which they operate themselves, and feed to the grid, then it's pretty good. It certainly saves you from having to run your own generation.

    6. Re:Generating or just using? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple generates.

      They own both the largest solar power and largest biogas power plants of any non-utility in the country at its North Carolina data center. I believe when they go fully operational they will be generating about 50 MW there.

      The Reno data center currently being built has plans for solar and geothermal power. I don't know anything about planned output there.

      The rest, I believe, comes from directed energy from the utilities. But the point is, they are not just writing a check to be able to claim they are green, they are, in fact, generating green power.

    7. Re:Generating or just using? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      They are probably doing something like net metering.

      I certainly hope so. That is the sensible thing to do.

      'Green' I guess you could call it that. But only in the sense they clear cut a bunch of trees to put in a forest of solar panels.

      Solar panels are usually put on rooftops or over parking lots. Large arrays are built in the desert. Forests have trees, which need water, which comes from rain clouds. Clouds are not good for solar energy. So solar arrays are not built in forests.

      Green would be the *power* company builds the solar array and everyone uses it.

      No, because you would incur transmission losses. It is better to generate the power where it is needed.

    8. Re:Generating or just using? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except by generating demand for renewables, they are driving a market for it, thus, the utility companies buy more capacity, which causes generators to build more facility. Also, it's entirely likely that Apple has added some of their own energy production capability with solar panels on their facilities.

      Haters gotta hate, I guess.

  16. Re:What about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    he was only off by five minutes, cut him a break!

  17. missing ending by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... "and all you suckers are paying for it!"

  18. Re:What about... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    Brains are not renewable. I am living proof.

    They are if you spend a little more time exposed to the sun.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  19. Marketting by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

    And for all of Apple's corporate facilities worldwide, we're at 75 percent

    So their office buildings? What about the factories where all their products are made? You know... where probobly 99.9% of the power they use is consumed?

    My fireplace is now powered by 100% renewable resources! I challenge the rest of the world to meet my same goals!

    1. Re:Marketting by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      I suppose Dell has the same problem except Dell's offices are not powered by green energy. But it's not Dell's fault that they haven't bothered to change something within their control. Instead, let's criticize Apple for doing what they can.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    2. Re:Marketting by Jmc23 · · Score: 1

      Maybe Dell's marketing budget isn't as large?

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
    3. Re:Marketting by Grizzley9 · · Score: 2

      And for all of Apple's corporate facilities worldwide, we're at 75 percent

      So their office buildings? What about the factories where all their products are made? You know... where probobly 99.9% of the power they use is consumed?

      My fireplace is now powered by 100% renewable resources! I challenge the rest of the world to meet my same goals!

      If you care to actually read up http://www.apple.com/environment/our-footprint/

    4. Re:Marketting by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      No I can assure you that Dell is nowhere near being green for their corporate HQ. Dell uses the city grid like everyone else. They could be if they wanted; they simply haven't done so. They could use Bloom boxes like Google did with their HQ. But let's fault Apple for taking steps Dell hasn't done.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    5. Re:Marketting by Jmc23 · · Score: 1
      Aptly nicked you are.

      Dell isn't concerned with selling shinies to unknowing fools.

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
    6. Re:Marketting by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Dell proudly shows off these solar panels at their HQ. There are only a handful of them and they are very small compared the size of the HQ. Dell could never boast they are green. Of course it's easier to insult someone else than have facts.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    7. Re:Marketting by Jmc23 · · Score: 1
      Dell sells to governments and big business which are interested in the bottom line, not how green the companies head quarters are. Apple sells shiny illusions to people who like to think they're doing good. They are businesses and they are running them exactly the way a 'smart' business in a cut throat capitalistic society needs to be run to rake in the dough. Don't kid yourself that they're doing it out of the goodness of their heart. If they took some of that huge capital and design savvy into actually developing renewable energy instead of token marketing strategies it might be a different case.

      As for Dell 'showing off' their solar panels, well, you do know they don't work very well if you keep them locked up inside right?

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
    8. Re:Marketting by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      Dell isn't concerned with selling shinies to unknowing fools.

      They tried hard at some point, but failed miserably. Can't even remember the name of their supposed "Airbook" competitor which was heaver, had less power, and more expensive until the last 100 were sold at half price.

    9. Re:Marketting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So here's what I wonder - either you honestly believe that only fools buy from Apple, which is demonstrably wrong and means you're stupid, or you don't believe it and you just say it to get a reaction, which means you're an asshole.

      It's also possible you're a stupid asshole.

      Which is it?

    10. Re:Marketting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Best analogy here, and it wasn't even a car analogy!

    11. Re:Marketting by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Some people are up in arms that Apple uses Chinese workers to manufacture goods. But when pointed out that everyone uses the same manufacturers, Apple is the only bad guy. Some people are up in arms that Apple may use conflict minerals in their supply chain. When pointed out that some conflict minerals may make it into everyone's supply chain despite all the protocols, Apple is still the bad guy. People here have long complained about the energy that corporations use. Google boasts about how green their data center is. Everyone lauds them for it. Apple says that they are up to 75% green energy on their facilities (including data centers). Not only is it not good enough for you, you ding them for even trying to answer some of the criticisms. I think Apple is as altruistic as they need to be. But I give credit for doing something whereas other companies are not doing much.

      They are businesses and they are running them exactly the way a 'smart' business in a cut throat capitalistic society needs to be run to rake in the dough.

      You do know that Apple makes more than twice the revenue of all of Dell on their iPhone sales alone right? And that Apple makes as much profit as Dell makes in revenue, right?

      As for Dell 'showing off' their solar panels, well, you do know they don't work very well if you keep them locked up inside right?

      I have common sense. Their solar panel array is tiny. There is no way they are powering a significant fraction of their power needs based on the solar panels they are using. Unless the efficiency of their array is more than 10000%, they are just for show. Go to Google maps and see for your self. You can find the array eventually after looking. Tell me that array can do anything significant.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    12. Re:Marketting by Jmc23 · · Score: 1

      It's a given that dell isn't as smart as apple. Apple produes over 120 mw with their solar arrays while dell buys 120 from renewable sources. Apple is saving money by doing so, but they need capital to do so. I said as much so what's your problem? They're still evil. Doesn't mean an evilperson's actions that benefit themselves greatly can't benefit other people. In fact, society has advanced greatly by the actions of evilness.

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
    13. Re:Marketting by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      So what you're saying is that Dell doesn't use much green energy and that Apple makes a lot more money than Dell. Of course all your arguments meant nothing and just insult people because you have no point.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    14. Re:Marketting by Jmc23 · · Score: 1

      Calling evil evil isn't an insult, it's just the truth. Unfortunately, most people raised in modern 'capitalistic' societies no longer know the difference between good and evil.

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
    15. Re:Marketting by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1
      Your quote:

      Aptly nicked you are.

      Dell isn't concerned with selling shinies to unknowing fools.

      I don't have your narrow thinking. A corporation will do what it can to maximize profits. Sometimes they might do things that are altruistic in nature. It may be for the benefit like good PR. It may be for other reasons. I don't blindly categorize into one bucket or another. Apple is moving to more green energy something that many in this society want.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  20. Re:What about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps the stores are part of the 25% that doesn't use renewable energy. Just a wild guess

  21. Human power is a renewable resource by Cyfun · · Score: 1

    They forgot to mention that their Foxconn plants are powered by thousands of Chinese children in giant hamster wheels.

    --
    In Soviet Russia, dot slashes YOU!
  22. So much hatred by jmhobrien · · Score: 2

    Why so much Apple hate here? Yes, they have shitloads of cash. Yes, they make the most of a capitalist system. I couldn't care less if Apple went bankrupt tomorrow. I'm just asking, WHY SO MUCH HATRED? This company actually invests in renewable energy - how many other fortune 200 companies are doing this? It seems like this is just more of the same old attitude - "It's a money making entity! Kill it!"

    --
    Where is moderation: -1 False?
    1. Re:So much hatred by Jmc23 · · Score: 1
      I'm guessing it's a question of whether the side effects justify the cause. WHY is apple investing in green energy? Is it just so they can put out marketing spin like this to make themselves look good? Someone who does something for the right reasons doesn't need to go around tooting their own horn, nor would they spin it.

      Also consider whether this supposedly 'good' behaviour is consistent with their other behaviours of stripping freedom, price gouging, stealing, patent trolling, etc...

      You know sometimes, the truly psychopathic do 'good' things to cover up who they really are. Switching to renewable for 1.5% of their overall environmental impact costs nothing in terms of the 'feel goodies' they get from the 'greenies' who can't read between the lines.

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
    2. Re:So much hatred by BasilBrush · · Score: 2

      Apple not only sees themselves as guardians of morality

      Ironic, given that this post shows you yourself to have that self image.

    3. Re:So much hatred by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Slashdotters have been infected for about 6 years now with some weird vocal Google lifestyle. As soon as the iPhone came out, Apple was put up on high like the underdog had finally won. Slashdotters rejoiced that Apple was finally ahead of Microsoft in a big way. David had beat Goliath.
      A year later when the first Android phone came out, it caused a great schism.
      I think it's really sad that people from both sides of the issue couldn't be more objective.
      But ultimately, I think that this has been a clash of culture that until now has been reasonably aligned...

      Open source is Freedom of software, not necessarily free software. This has been beat into the first generation of Slashdotters. However, Google has come in and consistently pushed their own solutions to be "Free with an asterix" Google dependency. Many people find google's commitment to free software noble, but they are slowly tying themselves to Google's interests. There is a great distinction between GNU and Google for instance on the way software is produced.
      People who find themselves immersed in google's technologies start to have their own self protection response when Google's interests are challenged.
      "How can Google be bad? They give me so much. I can't imagine doing my daily work without Google."

      This is NOT the same as the traditional Open source culture. Open source culture teaches you to be self reliant, independent and if you don't like the way code behaves change it. Giveback to society, but don't wait for society to fix your problems. Does google give you the ability to do this for ANY of their products and services?

      Enter Apple. Apple is a for profit commercial company. You pay up front for what you want. You vote with your dollars. There's no sleaze, no slime. The restrictions are clear, the capabilities are clear. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Yet they are also an open source contributor and have long been one of the center points for FreeBSD development. ( Consider the irony that Apple's Webkit is now the basis for almost all web browsers )
      They are NOT the doting father... they are not the place to go to for freeloading. They are quite clear of what they do and don't do. If you want something, look around a vendor may have a solution that fits what you want, or write your own software and give back to the community.
      Not the same model as open source, but I argue, a compatible one that is in the best interest of consumer freedom.

      The Google crowd doesn't like this. They'd rather wait for what "entitled" freebie they should get, and they get annoyed that Apple never gives it to them.
      So when Android came out, and Apple "disagreed" with how it was designed ( I say this simply to try and avoid a rant of who is right and wrong here... go with me on this) , suddenly Apple is the ultimate bad guy. To the Google crowd, Apple is threatening to take away your lifestyle. Only it's not your lifestyle. It's not what Slashdot was founded on. It's GOOGLE's Life style.

    4. Re:So much hatred by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Apple not only sees themselves as guardians of morality

      Ironic, given that this post shows you yourself to have that self image.

      Understanding English, you fail it. If you knew what the word "morality" meant, it would save you a lot of looking stupid and me a little bit of trouble.

      I am shocked, shocked I tell you, that iFanbois showed up to bury my above comment! That never happens! The truth is that Apple cannot withstand the truth, because they sell fashion.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:So much hatred by SuperKendall · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Someone who does something for the right reasons doesn't need to go around tooting their own horn, nor would they spin it.

      Why wouldn't you if you thought you could also get other companies to follow suit? Then it has a real benefit beyond horn-tooting.

      Also consider whether this supposedly 'good' behavior

      Only an Apple Hater could label the desire to have cleaner sources of energy as "supposedly" good.

      The simple truth is that for people like you it is not possible for Apple to do anything good at all, you will argue that anything they are doing is bad no matter how painfully obvious it is that you are wrong.

      I'll let you have the last response as I don't care to see what kind of shovel you use to dig your hole deeper, nor what brand of shoe you choose to stuff in your mouth next.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    6. Re:So much hatred by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Understanding English, you fail it. If you knew what the word "morality" meant

      I know exactly what the meaning of morality is. And it doesn't change the irony of your post.

    7. Re:So much hatred by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Largely because they're jealous of Apple's success and they can't freeload off of Apple as much as they'd like. It must really hurt them to know that the majority of Google developers use OS X on the desktop.

    8. Re:So much hatred by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since Steve Jobs was fighting cancer, were the haters rooting for cancer?

    9. Re:So much hatred by sessamoid · · Score: 1

      That's the most articulate and insightful AC post I've read in a while.

      --
      "No, no, no. Don't tug on that. You never know what it might be attached to."
    10. Re:So much hatred by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      I wonder how these comments would read if the whole article and summary was shoved through a s/Apple/Google/g regex.

      I have a feeling there would be 300 posts of praise about how Google is leading the tech industry once again, and how everyone else is falling behind and risks becoming an obscure note in tech history if they don't climb on board that train...

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    11. Re:So much hatred by partyguerrilla · · Score: 1

      Criticism and pointing out mistakes or hyperbole in an article don't amount to 'hate'. You really need to get out of the RDF, it's affecting your thought process.

  23. Re:Fuck Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How is the hating life, is it as glamorous as it seems? The misery and anger, does it fuel you?

  24. New tags by arielCo · · Score: 1, Interesting

    It's already clear that they conveniently left out all manufacturing/storage facilities, as if subcontracting made them not responsible. And of course, they don't use conflict minerals, their workers work 8-hour shifts in comfy offices ... you get the idea.

    Now I need a new tag for this PR BS.
    "bs"?
    "prspin"?
    "corporatebull"?

    --
    This post contains no rudeness or derision of any kind. All arguments are friendly. Terms and exclusions may apply.
    1. Re:New tags by UnknowingFool · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's already clear that they conveniently left out all manufacturing/storage facilities, as if subcontracting made them not responsible. And of course, they don't use conflict minerals, their workers work 8-hour shifts in comfy offices ... you get the idea.

      They left it out because those places are beyond their control. I suppose Apple could go to another contract manufacturer, maybe one that Dell or HP uses. Oh wait, it's the same one. There are not a lot of choices when it comes to this kind of manufacturing. Finding one that is green is not likely.

      Suppose you want to go green. You can do all you can use renewable energy at your home. What about your work place? Is your company green? What about the facilities they rent? What about they supermarket you use, the dry cleaners, etc? Do you have kids and is their school green? Is your car/bus/subway green? Unless you own 100% of every aspect of your life that uses energy, you have to accept that some places will use fossil fuels as energy.

      Apple is converting the facilities that they control as much as they can. You can criticize them for things out of their control or you can applaud them for doing what they can.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    2. Re:New tags by arielCo · · Score: 2

      I have little or no influence on my employer's, my local supermarket's or their landlords' decisions on energy consumption. But Apple has enough clout on their suppliers to have them build dedicated plants. Apple can surely push Foxconn for (realistic) green energy policies, and hopefully did so.

      Of course office buildings are easier to make green/carbon-neutral than manufacturing plants (in an industrial park you use whatever source of power is available), and that's the gist of the half-truth: When they say "our power" it's not just what they own, but what they control and benefit from.

      --
      This post contains no rudeness or derision of any kind. All arguments are friendly. Terms and exclusions may apply.
    3. Re:New tags by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have little or no influence on my employer's, my local supermarket's or their landlords' decisions on energy consumption. But Apple has enough clout on their suppliers to have them build dedicated plants. Apple can surely push Foxconn for (realistic) green energy policies, and hopefully did so.

      Clout is not infinite - if Apple pushes Foxconn to be greener, Foxconn will charge more money.

      In that context why don't you find a greener job, or bike to a farmer's market? It's much easier to underestimate the cost of a sacrifice that you ask someone else to make than than a sacrifice you make yourself. The reason for this is that you're aware of the details involved for yourself, but view Apple from far away where everything is rounded and shiny.

    4. Re:New tags by arielCo · · Score: 2

      What I'm pointing out is that Apple puts forward a green image that is at best inaccurate and at worst misleading, but anyway:

      Clout is not infinite - if Apple pushes Foxconn to be greener, Foxconn will charge more money.

      Yup, it's about the bottom line - beyond a certain point (e.g. efficient usage of materials), green cuts into margins. It's not unreasonable to think that Apple subcontracts what it can to China for more reasons than cheap labor.

      In that context why don't you find a greener job, or bike to a farmer's market? It's much easier to underestimate the cost of a sacrifice that you ask someone else to make than than a sacrifice you make yourself. The reason for this is that you're aware of the details involved for yourself, but view Apple from far away where everything is rounded and shiny.

      Greener markets: check (farmers drive all the way from other states). Greener jobs: none in my line of work. There are not even many recycling containers in this country since things went downhill. Plus some products are certainly out of our control (green electronics?). I sacrifice what I can - not throwing away what I can mend or repurpose, print only what I must, CCFL, etc.

      --
      This post contains no rudeness or derision of any kind. All arguments are friendly. Terms and exclusions may apply.
    5. Re:New tags by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you even understand how power distribution works? Do you think that there is a separate grid with separate dedicated conductors for green power? Do you think that a supermarket doesn't have a choice because of the physical connection to the grid? I can switch my house to renewable by telling my utility that I want to do that. They'll adjust their power purchases accordingly and adjust my bill appropriately. If I want, I can buy carbon offsets and pay for the build out of renewable generation plants to account for the carbon produced by my car, or the trucks that deliver my food.

      What is the mix at Samsung, HTC, Sony, Dell, HP?

    6. Re:New tags by arielCo · · Score: 1

      Do you even understand how power distribution works? Do you think that there is a separate grid with separate dedicated conductors for green power? Do you think that a supermarket doesn't have a choice because of the physical connection to the grid? I can switch my house to renewable by telling my utility that I want to do that. They'll adjust their power purchases accordingly and adjust my bill appropriately. If I want, I can buy carbon offsets and pay for the build out of renewable generation plants to account for the carbon produced by my car, or the trucks that deliver my food.

      What is the mix at Samsung, HTC, Sony, Dell, HP?

      EE here, so I do understand a bit but I also understand Third World practices and we're talking about China. I seriously doubt that they can choose what kind of source they're supplied from (feel free to correct me). Still they could buy carbon credits as you mention (possibly through Foxconn) and brag about it but they just leave China out of their press release. A quick search failed to find anything about Apple involving itself in the chinese carbon market (again, please tell me if you know better than I).

      I also suspect that other vendors have a similar environmental impact, but if they actually make their stuff their green statements should be closer to the truth.
      http://www.samsung.com/us/aboutsamsung/citizenship/oursustainabilityreports.html
      http://www.htc.com/www/about/corporate-responsibility/

      --
      This post contains no rudeness or derision of any kind. All arguments are friendly. Terms and exclusions may apply.
  25. You're all missing the big picture... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apple will soon claim to have invented renewable iEnergy, obtain patents, and then sue others who power anything with solar, wind power, geothermal, hydroelectric, etc! The world will soon end up going entirely back to fossil fuels, all thanks to Apple!

    I will savor the delicious irony when this happens. Mmmm... carbony.

  26. Re:What about... by OakDragon · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Twenty percent comes from the energy generated by the white-hot hatred of Slashdot users!"

  27. Re:What about... by Goaway · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You mean the child slave labour that Apple actually works hard to not use, unlike every other tech company?

  28. Re: Fuck Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stupid troll.

    Sorry that was an insult for the nice trolls. You are just a brain dead idiot. Immune to zombies. (No brain there to eat)

  29. Re:What about... by jeffmeden · · Score: 1

    The other thing is that "using" renewable energy is possible on the normal grid by purchasing renewable energy through the utility. As long as you know the store's consumption, you pay the utility that delivers it for the rate they have to purchase/generate it at. This is the same way "competitive" energy markets in the US work, the electricity enters the grid from a mix of where the customers want it. Just because you didn't get the electrons that were pushed by a windmill doesn't mean you aren't using a renewable resource.

  30. Remember EPEAT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is obviously nothing but marketing BS. Apple is trying to do the least it can. It tried to quit EPEAT but had to rejoin as large customers were slipping away... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-18837492

    That shows their true colors, and it's not green.

  31. *Outsourced manufacturing not included by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sure one of the biggest parts of the Apple energy footprint is manufacturing, which is all outsourced to 3rd parties.

  32. Renewable does not mean clean by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Much like the term 'All-Natural', Renewable doesn't mean much.

    The term causes the mind to think of things like 'Solar, Wind, Water, Geothermal', but the reality is that Renewable also means: "BioDiesel, Wood, Ethanol, Methane"

    My point is, that there are many polluting, but renewable sources. I don't mean to imply that making sure our energy supply is sustainable is a bad thing, not at all, but just a reminder to keep an eye out for the marketing angle companies use when they use the term 'Renewable'.

    People hear 'clean, green, healthy, responsible' when a company says they are renewable, but the honest truth is that a company could be powered by 100% Renewable Sources by burning pine trees in a 100 year old 30% efficiency furnace.

    A previous company of mine recently converted their entire energy supply to renewable sources, generation was performed on site. The source was sawdust from the local saw mills. (However, it was actually a good move, because their system was actually a new high efficiency process they wanted to showcase, and by purchasing from the local sawmills, they helped support the community in a very direct fashion)

    --
    Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    1. Re:Renewable does not mean clean by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, human power in the form of Chinese wage-slaves. There's always more of those.

    2. Re:Renewable does not mean clean by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      THIS.

      The best comment in here.

    3. Re:Renewable does not mean clean by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Burning wood only adds CO2 back that was extracted by photosynthesis, forming the wood in the first place. Burning sawdust releases the same amount of carbon dioxide as letting the sawdust rot. The only difference is whether you capture the energy or the bacteria, fungi, etc. rotting the wood capture the energy. In a way BioDiesel, Wood, Ethanol are all an intermediate storage form of Solar.

    4. Re:Renewable does not mean clean by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple said they define renewable as "Solar, Wind, Water, Geothermal," ironically exactly what you wrote. RTFA next time.

  33. Re:And by Renewable Power Sources- But really.. by pablo_max · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Really though, what do they mean? I did not see where they define what they consider renewable.
    After all, coal and oil are also renewable, given enough time.

  34. Waste Energy by Massacrifice · · Score: 4, Insightful

    One should also take into account the useful life of the products they manufacture, with sealed-in batteries and throw-away design, along with their own marketing effort to out-fashion their own devices after only two years.

    Using terajoules of the cleanest energy to produce stuff that will end up in the trash faster than you can say "planned obsolescence" is still waste.

    I'll applaud when they reverse the flow and encourage people to keep their computers longer through cheap support plans and openness.

    --
    -- Home is where you eat your heart out.
    1. Re:Waste Energy by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      One should also take into account the useful life of the products they manufacture, with sealed-in batteries and throw-away design, along with their own marketing effort to out-fashion their own devices after only two years.

      My MacBook is still running fine. Bought in 2006. My first iPod was an iPod mini with one of your "sealed-in" batteries. A new battery was £3.95 on eBay, and it is still working fine. The sealed-in batteries on a Retina MBP last for 1,000 charges and the fact that they are sealed in means at least 20 percent more capacity with the same space and weight. And your last sentence is just bullshit.

    2. Re:Waste Energy by JBMcB · · Score: 2

      My second-to-last Apple product was a 3rd gen iPod that ran non-stop for 8 years.

      I replaced it with a Sansa Fuse that lasted a year and a half before the entire front panel stopped working.

      My current Apple product is a used iPhone 3GS built in 2011 that's showing no signs of quitting.

      I have two Macs at home, a G4 and one a beige G3 that are both running fine after replacing a couple of cooling fans.

      I have a friend who set up an iMac G3 for his dad to browse the web. He just replaced it last fall because it couldn't run a modern enough browser for the new HTML 5 sites. So that's, what, 11 years? The thing still works fine, there's just no modern software for it. He "upgraded" to an iMac G5 that's six years old and it does everything he wants it to.

      Apple products last, relatively, a *long* time.

      --
      My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
    3. Re:Waste Energy by shableep · · Score: 1

      I've seen people use Apple computers far beyond 2 years. A lot of families I've known seem to use Apple computers until they just don't work anymore. Granted there is a passionate minority of Apple fans that upgrade every 2 years, but I think a majority keep their computers for far longer. Before the iPhone ever came out, cellphone companies were already being publicly chastised for almost deliberately engineering cellphones to last less than 2 years. Now Apple is participating in the same industry and is following suit to a degree. But if you look at their support cycle, they're doing far better than any company in the mobile industry. My iPhone 3GS just recently updated to iOS 6 more than 3 years after I bought my phone. You couldn't say that about any Android phone out there. My point here is to not defend Apple, but to attempt to point the crosshairs in the right direction: towards the mobile phone industry as a whole. To single out Apple is to ignore the multitude of other offenders out there.

    4. Re:Waste Energy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple products are well-designed, well-engineered, well-manufactured information systems. They generally look better, perform better, last longer and are supported better than the products of their competitors. Their processes are headed toward low/no carbon production and that's a good thing.

      Apple products are not do-it-yourself products, which means people who just want to use their computers can buy Apple products and use them without having to know how they work.That offends many of us - Open Source has its routes in hot rodding and model railroading - both profoundly American hobbies and the source of much economic good in the world. But not for everyone.

      Non-replaceable Apple-sealed batteries have an interesting quality -- they will always be properly disposed of. When the battery runs out of capability, it will be replaced by a large company, and it will be disposed of by a large, heavily regulated company, and the replacement will be once every two or three years, not every couple of days or weeks. If the average teenage music consumer disposes of the battery, it will go straight into the trash and end up leaching its guts into the landfill and the water table.

      The reason Apple systems have such short product cycles is not that they are poorly designed or poorly manufactured -- it's that they are well-designed and frequently improved. Apple keeps building better performing products. We don't throw them away because they drop dead, wear out, or fall asleep on the job -- we replace them because Apple keeps making better products available.

      And Apple supports its products better than anyone else (according to large scale user surveys by Consumer Reports and ZD). That means Apple products are warranteed at a reasonable price (Apple Care)--the products are treated right, kept in good health by their owners, sold to friends when the time comes to replace them. You think those half-price PC knockoffs are repaired and kept in good condition? They are scrapped and junked and forgotten.

      I don't know if Apple will continue on the path the two Steve's set for it, but it's a company well worth praising for its efforts.

  35. Re:What about... by mk1004 · · Score: 1

    I'm sure they include their subcontractor's facilities, which tend to be energy intensive, in their count.~

    --
    I can mend the break of day, heal a broken heart, and provide temporary relief to nymphomaniacs.
  36. How Long did it Take them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/Blogs/Cool-IT/the-dirty-data-triangle-of-north-carolina/blog/34493/

    People were complaining about it for years before they changed, and the only reason they changed is because the spotlight was shined on them, and because they sell their products based on emotion.

    what other shit do they do they haven't, or won't change because the public hasn't made a stink. They are just bowing to consumer pressure nothing more.

    You'd expect them to do the most for the enviroment, the most for child labor, the most for xzy cause because they make far more money than they know what to do with, sitting on more cash than the federal government.

  37. As Expected by needsomemoola · · Score: 2

    I knew when I saw the title of this, Apple was going to get flamed here by slashdotters no matter what. I was not let down. It's hard for me to understand why good news is turned into bad news on this site so often based solely on a brand name. Is it not respectable that a company with a huge global presence would be striving to be more efficient with the energy they use, and succeeding? Would there be this much flaming going on if it were Google, or IBM, or Samsung?

    I do work for many IBM data-centers across the country. Apple use's IBM's products for their datacenters, and I know these servers and storage racks are not power sippers. I find it astounding that they could run one of them (much less all of them) on purely renewable energy. An entire large datacenter of IBM equipment running off solar power and fuel cells is truly a feat I'd love to see in person.

    --
    "That'll never compile."
    1. Re:As Expected by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      You can read up about it on Apple's sit. Apple has the largest solar panel installation in the USA that wasn't built by a power company.

  38. What about Apple Stores by hey · · Score: 1

    Many are in malls, connected to the regular grid.

  39. Appley getting gheyer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh right Tim is.

  40. Re:And by Renewable Power Sources- But really.. by Jeremi · · Score: 4, Informative

    Really though, what do they mean? I did not see where they define what they consider renewable.

    Apple's definition of renewable is Solar, wind, hydro, and geothermal

    --


    I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
  41. Oil and coal are here to stay by AlejoHausner · · Score: 2

    Sadly, there are lots of reasons why renewable sources won't solve our energy needs. Tom Murphy, a physics prof at UCSD, has a great blog http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2012/02/the-alternative-energy-matrix/ where he works out the details. This was covered a while ago here: http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/11/08/02/2315207/limits-on-growth-of-energy-use-and-economies

  42. How many BTUs are there in a baby girl? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Huge supply in China, unwanted, renewable resource. Just sayin'.

  43. Intermittent solar and wind by klic · · Score: 1

    Apple doesn't shut down their data centers when the wind stops or when it is cloudy, and their biogas generators works only as fast as the microbes make methane, a process that is difficult to quickly throttle up and down. Perhaps they have vast underground tank farms storing methane for winter. Or perhaps this is all a fashion show to impress gullible green-wannabee customers.

    So Apple is drawing the bulk of their power, most of the time, from the same grid the rest of us draw power from. They are building a new data center here in the Pacific Northwest, making the same claims about wind power. Wind power availability is random, on average less than 15% of nameplate capacity, and often entirely stopped for weeks at a time. On the rare occasions when wind farms produce much more than their tiny average, the Bonneville Power Administration is forced to buy it, regardless of the state of the power grid. BPA is being forced to spill water over the dams on the Columbia, which super-nitrogenates the water and kills salmon, thus violating their former "prime directive" - preserve fish runs. While maintaining navigation, controlling floods, providing irrigation, and about a dozen other important goals written into their charter. No wonder their director recently quit.

    Solar - similar deal. The worst case solar insolation in winter is tiny, even in "sunny" New Mexico. No sunlight at night, of course, thin sunlight under week-long cloudy skies. Look at a December or January solar insolation map from NREL, and do the math yourself.

    Where does the makeup energy come from? Given the short-term intermittency and quick-start requirements, mostly from natural gas turbines, increasingly fed through the national pipeline network from frack gas fields in the east and midwest. Gas magnate T. Boone Pickens /loves/ windmills.

    Many of us here are technologists, capable of finding the numbers and doing the math. We do not have to rely on the pronouncements of corporate PR departments, government agencies, or conspiracist crackpot websites to figure out what is going on. We can go to primary sources, we can build our own spreadsheets, and we can replace magic thinking with nuts-and-bolts analysis to learn what works and what doesn't. The risk to the global climate is real (key phrases: IR column opacity versus altitude, adiabatic lapse rate), but the popular notions of how to deal with it are often worse than doing nothing.

    And that is scary as hell.

    Buy Apple products if you think the unregulated pollution from the power plants feeding Apple Chinese factories is better than the unregulated pollution due to their competitor's Chinese factories. If you don't, consider using free software on recycled/rebuilt/hot-rodded computers, like I am doing right now.

    --
    Keith Lofstrom server-sky.com
  44. THE FUTURE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The first quarter of the year is about to end. I tried to predict the future. So, after 6 months:
    1. htc still struggling to compete with SAMSUNG ( thinking of making one+ despite of having best built quality, display and specs ).
    2. Samsung celebrating 40 million sales of THE galaxy s4 (two korean models holding s4 and smiling)!
    3. Apple launcing iPhone 5s -> http://www.beingdexter.com/iphone-5s-release-date-news-and-rumours/ and a cheaper 4.8 inch iPhone math http://www.beingdexter.com/4-8-inch-iphone-math-to-arrive-alongside-iphone-5s/ ( if rumours are to be believed ). iPhone 5s specs http://www.beingdexter.com/iphone-6-release-date-news-and-rumours/ by the end of the year
    4. Nokia launcing LUMIA X20 with the best camera, awesome display and maps but still WINDOWS 8.K!
    And don’t forget Google Glass -> http://www.beingdexter.com/google-glass-what-you-need-to-know/
    My TECH BLOG -> Being Dexter ->http://www.beingdexter.com/
    FaceBook Page -> Being Dexter -> http://www.facebook.com/beingdexter - DO LIKE IT!

  45. Translation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So what if they are one of the leaders at this stuff, I hate them anyway. Let me poke a hole just because I can. See, they are only doing this for the PR. The companies that I love do it because they are noble.

  46. Translation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you can't be perfect, don't improve. Never mind that no one else is perfect.

  47. Wrong! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not throwaway - recycle at Apple and get a gift card. Sealed-in batteries are designed for at least 80% performance after 3 years of heavy use Battery is replaced for a reasonable fee. Also, better support for OS upgrades on more phones than any other phone company. That's the real obsolescence of other phone manufacturers.

    I sold my iPhone 3GS last week for $100. It supports the iOS, although not all the features. The supported features just work. The battery lasts *longer* than when I first bought it (got better with later versions of iOS). No battery replacement was needed. I expect the phone to work for at least another 3 years - very robust. And then it can be recycled by Apple for free (or they'll give you money).

    So yeah, you're an idiot.

  48. Re:What about... by beelsebob · · Score: 2

    Simple... They're not talking about the exact electrons used being shoved down a wire in a renewable energy based generator. They're saying "we use xW of energy in total, we personally generate 0.75xW of renewable energy".

  49. Loophole of ownership by Waccoon · · Score: 1

    Does Apple own the factories that manufacture their products?

    It's easy to say that the operations you own are largely using renewable energy sources, if you're outsourcing your factory work.

  50. Batteries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The press release then went on to state:

    "We fully expect that within the next planned hardware obsolescence cycle we will reclaim enough perfectly functional batteries from machines
      with non-replacable parts to store capacity sufficient to make up the remaining 25%"

  51. Renewable? by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

    How are any of the sources other than hydro renewable?

    You interrupt wind flow, capture solar radiation, reduce water and heat released into the atmosphere with geothermal........ All of those have an impact on the environment; butterfly effect increases it over time. More use in more places exponentially increases the butterfly effect.

    Now water falling/flowing, that's something you can interrupt and have it pick back up again because of the magic thing called gravity. Do believe that was the first power conversion (generation) method Humans came up with that involved machinery, too. You know, mills over waterways. Windmills came after that, but since only a few small places use them, we aren't able to see the negative repercussions of interfering with and reducing boundary layer winds globally.

    1. Re:Renewable? by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      Hydro power usually requires man made lakes/dams. Destroys huge amounts of vegetation that ends up being covered in water.

    2. Re:Renewable? by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      Hydro power usually requires man made lakes/dams. Destroys huge amounts of vegetation that ends up being covered in water.

      Good point. Pretty much leaves nothing harmlessly "renewable".

  52. And now instead those people will be Americans by guevera · · Score: 1

    The adults need the work in Elk Grove, California. They used to build iMacs there. Now they do it in China. Apple, like most other multinationals, is scum.

  53. Apple don't make things. by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

    So apparently all Apple do is run data centres, offices and retail shops.

    What powers the ships full of iDevices from China? What powers the factories that produce them?

  54. Hey, that's great Apple... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...now let try to get 75% of your products manufactured outside of sweatshops.

  55. A stroke of brilliance! Apple will save us! by TheRealHocusLocus · · Score: 1

    The soon to be announced iPhone 6 will only charge and operate from wind, solar, geothermal and hydro power sources.

    All other power sources will be incompatible.

    Time to change the world.

    --
    <blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
  56. seriously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apple if you're going to be a crack pot dictator of your own little reality, at least put some effort into your propaganda.

  57. Re:What about... by SGDarkKnight · · Score: 1

    Acutally it's a law in china that they are allowed to pull students from school and put them to work in the factory until production levels are met for their launch date. They get away with it by stating it's some sort of work co-op program, even though the hours are brutal just as the work conditions. That's also why their suicide levels are higher. Google the conditions on apple factories in China and you will find ample articles on it

    --

    ...A no smoking section in a restaurant is like having a no peeing section in a swimming pool...