Everything Apple does makes headlines.
That statement, of course, is about as unsurprising as can be. The once-scrappy underdog from Cupertino, Calif. -- now the country's most valuable company, ever -- has long made tidal-sized waves with its innovative products, its visionary founder and the strength of its reality distortion field.
Love it or hate it, Apple inspires strong feelings.
The past three months have shown in new ways how those feelings apply to Apple's sustainability efforts. In brief: In July Apple abruptly abandoned EPEAT. Uproar ensued. Apple abruptly reversed course. Sustainability-minded folks crowed.
Then, Apple released new hardware, including a MacBook Pro that included glued-in batteries, not-upgradeable RAM and disk drives, and a "completely fused" display, according to a teardown from iFixit, which earned Apple the lowest possible score for repairability.
More uproar ensued. EPEAT investigated, determining that the MacBook Pro and four other devices from Lenovo, Samsung and Toshiba met the EPEAT standard. Critics roared.
The story has made the rounds of several news cycles, generally traveling along the lines of "EPEAT caved to Apple on MacBook Pro" -- led by a Wired op-ed by iFixit's CEO in the wake of EPEAT's announcement and iFixit's damning review of the new MacBook Pro.
I will admit to being skeptical when the news came out about the MacBook Pro staying in the EPEAT registry: I'd read the iFixit teardown with concern, and wondered if any organization could withstand the full force of the reality distortion field. To get a look behind the scenes of the dustup, I spoke at length last week with EPEAT's director of communications, Sarah O'Brien.
Photo of apple with recycling symbol on top provided by Tsekhmister via Shutterstock
Next page: Not much leeway in interpreting standards, EPEAT says
The commenters below have
The commenters below have raised -- and answered -- some important issues, which I tried to make clear in the article, and which need a bit more clarification. In brief:
EPEAT is not the standard. IEEE 1680.1 (and soon 1680.2 and 1680.3) are the standards, developed through a torturously long -- and extremely well established and globally recognized -- process managed by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). This is a multi-stakeholder initiative with multiple layers of discussion, research, review, and voting prior to publication. The entire process is both mind-numbingly slow and detail-oriented as well as transparent.
The standards as developed through IEEE involve the participation of industry representatives -- by necessity, as electronics engineers are the ones who must decide what's technically feasible, as well as what's practical from a business standpoint.
EPEAT, as O'Brien explained, is not in control of the standard; the group only works to ensure that products meet the criteria as spelled out in the IEEE 1680 language. That sometimes involves interpreting vague wording, a process that seems to me to be transparent and impartial.
And although 1680.1 -- aka "EPEAT" for PCs and displays -- is extremely old for a technology certification, as I point out in the article above, the interpretation and clarification process has already begun to bring in concepts from the brand-new EPEAT standard for imaging and televisions to apply to the existing PC standard.
Finally, I agree with the commenter above about the general lousiness of selling a computer with fused-in RAM and batteries. That to me is a death-knell for upgradeability. However: EPEAT is not a standard focused on upgradeability -- the criterion in question has to do with disassembling electronics for recycling, and the clarification process has determined that these devices meet that criterion.
If you want true upgradeability, then it's probably time to start looking beyond the Apple universe for your hardware. I know I will.
Read the comments too.
Read the comments too.
EPEAT is funded almost
EPEAT is funded almost entirely by the product manufacturers who pay annual fees to list their products. Companies like Apple pay six figures each year to participate in EPEAT. It's no wonder that EPEAT caves to the manufacturers and "interprets" the standard to the manufacturers benefit, because if they didn't, they lose all their funding.
What they don't realize is that if they continue down this path, then they'll lose all their credibility and be left with nothing. EPEAT needs to change it's business model from a pay-to-play scheme to something else if they plan to be sustainable. A lot of institutional purchasers rely on EPEAT for making greener purchases and it would be a shame to see them lose their credibility in the market and the impact it would have on responsible purchasing.
Eu-Flower approach or
Eu-Flower approach or something that is a combination of the IEEE 1680.1 requirements and EU-Flower would be an option. The other problem is EPEAT (IEEE1680) is a US centric program both in funding, creation and management. It is now WW like ENERGY STAR but it has many issues when taken outside the US. The whole concept of energy consumption and environmental impact of a product needs a refresh and update to fact that this is a world-wide marketplace.
Hopefully it will not become the money sucking, minimal end benefit program that ENERGY STAR for Computers (V5.2)has become.
Actually EPEAT (Electronic
Actually EPEAT (Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool)is an abbreviation of the name used to describe the intent of the IEEE1680.X standards. Under IEEE 1680.0 there are two entities. One is referred to as a PRE which is the entity that reviews products and places them in the product registry. The standard allows for multiple PREs and there are more than one active in the marketplace. The approach and costing of the PREs is different. The other entity is the MSE (Market Surveillance entity) There is currently only one MSE which is the Green Electronics corporation, who Sarah O'Brien works for. The PVC (product verification Committee) is not part of GEC but is an arms length entity that works with GEC as their role as the MSE. The IEEE1680.1 standard, like other standards is not perfect and reflects the biases and wish for items that the original participants wanted. The policing of the standard by the verification process is also not perfect but it is a good starting point. Hopefully the next revision will put more detail in the requirements so the verification can be less subjective.
Users Won't Upgrade these
Users Won't Upgrade these Laptops
Quote 1 from article: "glued-in batteries, not-upgradeable RAM and disk drives"
Quote 2 from article: "computer owners can still upgrade devices if they're so motivated."
In my experience, the most common upgrades to laptops are replacing batteries and upgrading RAM.
I love using Apple products, but to say that owners can still upgrade these devices is truly distorting reality. Perhaps some tiny fraction of extremely motivated owners will do this, but the vast majority of users will not.
Perhaps its time to recognize that elephant in the room.
I agree. This article wasn't
I agree. This article wasn't worth reading.
I would debate if this
I would debate if this article was worth reading or not. It certainly has put out into a wider audience the issue of what happened with Apple's products within the EPEAT program and created some small level of discussion. This discussion has to start some where and while I am sure that was not the intention of the article hopefully it will raise awareness of some of the short comings of the current system and promote change.
EPEAT isn't the standard.
EPEAT isn't the standard. iEEE 1680.1 is the standard. EPEAT is a certification body just like other certification bodies capable of issuing a certification to the IEEE standard. The use of EPEAT as reference to the standard has created a 'pseudo-monopoly' as it hasn't easily allowed manufacturers to use non-EPEAT certification bodies to improve the process, transparency and cost for certification. IEEE manages and owns the standard. I'd suggest making this more clear.