
Apple gives itself passing EPEAT grade for Retina MacBook Pro - jhack
http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/07/apple-gives-itself-passing-epeat-grade-for-retina-macbook-pro
======
jack-r-abbit
OK... I am generally not the person to come to Apple's defense but I don't
think everyone should jumping to these conclusion. That Barbara Kyle lady from
the Electronics Take Back Coalition says _"We seriously doubt that these
MacBooks should qualify for EPEAT at any level because we think they flunk two
required criteria in the 'Design for End of Life' section of the standard."_
They _think_ it flunks. Has that been shown?

The article goes on to say _Those criteria are "4.3.1.3 Easy disassembly of
external enclosure," and "4.3.1.5 Identification and removal of components
containing hazardous materials." Kyle noted that the glue makes the battery
difficult to remove "safely," which is "exactly the kind of design that this
standard seeks to discourage."_

So, has it yet been shown that Kyle is right about the glue? Maybe the glue is
easier to get off than she thinks? Maybe Apple truly does believe their glue
allows for "easy disassembly".

~~~
ajross
This is journalism, though, not science. The point isn't to answer the
question, just to document the controversy. Apple says one thing. Another
party with relevant qualifications says that they are wrong. And the subject
has previously been covered in the media, so it's newsworthy. They even
contacted Apple for a response. I don't see anything weird here at all.

I will say, though, that if Apple _truly_ felt their glue allows for easy
disassembly, they probably wouldn't have withdrawn from EPEAT in the first
place.

~~~
jack-r-abbit
> _This is journalism, though, not science. The point isn't to answer the
> question, just to document the controversy._

Or in many cases, _create_ the controversy.

Edit: But anyway, the article does fine with the journalism part. I was just
thinking that people should probably wait to see if the rating really is
ridiculous or not. I've certainly never taken a MBP apart. So I have no idea
if it is easy or not. Either way, I have no more reason to trust one over the
other.

~~~
Dylan16807
Apple's the one that originally didn't want to certify, so I don't think you
can say the news organizations are creating anything here.

------
richardv
Just in case you aren't aware, all companies award themselves an EPEAT grade.
Once they award the grade, it is then reviewed and the grade can be lowered if
they don't live up to the standard.

I only bring this up because you would be mislead if you think that Apple
broke any rules on this one. They followed the book...

The problem however is that they _grossly_ overestimate their qualification
for EPEAT gold rating. EPEAT must review and reduce this self-awarded and
clearly inflated rating if they want to keep any credibility for this
standard...

Disclaimer: I love seeing things go bad for Apple... But, they haven't
strictly broken any rules.. They've just been ridiculous trying to award
themselves EPEAT gold.

~~~
ricardobeat
> this self-awarded and clearly inflated rating

You just said that _all ratings are self-awarded_. Now can you show why it's
"clearly" inflated?

For comparison, _all 95 models_ of Toshiba laptops claim EPEAT Gold rating
[1]. Is it that surprising that the most advanced laptop of them all is just
as qualified?

[1]
[http://www.toshibadirect.com/td/b2c/customlanding.to?page=EP...](http://www.toshibadirect.com/td/b2c/customlanding.to?page=EPEATgold)

~~~
praxulus
Maybe not surprising, but still having EPEAT certification is not something I
would take for granted. If Toshiba was using significantly different
manufacturing techniques than everybody else, or if they started making it
impossible to replace or upgrade the innards of their laptops, it would be a
different matter. Like desktops, most laptops are roughly the same, with just
cases, quality of workmanship, and choice of which (mostly COTS) components
they use for the internals providing variety in the marketplace.

I don't own a single Apple product, but it does seem like they're really doing
things differently in order to make laptops that stand out on hardware alone.
Given that there hasn't been an unusually large price increase, it's not that
surprising to think that they're skimping on something like EPEAT
certification. This isn't evidence that they don't deserve EPEAT gold, just
that it wouldn't be surprising if it turns out they don't qualify.

~~~
danudey
> Given that there hasn't been an unusually large price increase, it's not
> that surprising to think that they're skimping on something like EPEAT
> certification.

A big part of that is economies of scale and clever business dealings. Things
like pre-purchasing billions of dollars of LCD panels and flash memory made a
big difference in Apple's success in the last ten years, and their massive
cash reserves mean that they're willing to spend a billion dollars on new
machinery if it will pay off in the long run.

Most laptop companies aren't willing to do that because they'll have a dozen
disparate models, with different cases, hardware, chipsets, sizes, etc. Apple
right now has five: 11" and 13" MBA, 13" MBP, 15" Retina and non-Retina MBP.
They're all manufactured similarly, with similar sizes and shapes, and
identical materials used. There's a lot of economy of scale there as well.

------
fjorder
At the end of the article it mentions that Apple recently stated that in the
near future they will be "working with EPEAT as their rating system and the
underlying IEEE 1680.1 standard evolve."

Translation: Whatever exists in the EPEAT guidelines that would prevent the
retina MBP's from receiving GOLD certification is about to be tossed in the
rubbish bin.

------
grassclip
What a joke. If EPEAT doesn't overturn this rating, all credibility should be
out the window. It seems like Apple is trying to strong-arm them into changing
the requirements so the laptop complies.

> Apple declined to comment specifically on how it believes the Retina MacBook
> Pro meets the EPEAT criteria, but referred us to SVP Mansfield's letter from
> Friday, which noted that the company in looking forward to "working with
> EPEAT as their rating system and the underlying IEEE 1680.1 standard
> evolve."

------
spinchange
Three words: Reality Distortion Field.

~~~
illumen
The shield is dead captain!

~~~
spinchange
The culture lives on.

------
mtgx
From PR disaster to PR disaster. Good job, Apple. Did you really think that no
one will dispute this and make a big deal about it online? In today's highly-
connected and online world, honesty pays. Because if there's anything wrong or
dishonest, _someone_ , _somewhere_ , will find out about it, and then let the
whole world know.

~~~
deveac
_But the rating is less surprising if you consider how EPEAT ratings are
awarded. Manufacturers voluntarily register their products with EPEAT, listing
which of the required and optional criteria the devices meet. EPEAT then
reviews the registration, and can have the rating reduced or removed at its
discretion. According to Kyle, EPEAT hasn't yet reviewed Apple's registration
for the Retina MacBook Pro...EPEAT CEO Robert Frisbee said last week that
"flexibility within specified parameters" is one way the group could "reward
innovations that are not yet envisioned with standards."_

~~~
freehunter
Yes, but there's a difference between innovations in the technical field and
innovations in the recyclable field. If Apple has some major innovation that
makes industrial glue easier to recycle than screws, EPEAT should force them
to prove it before allowing their grade.

It really sounds like EPEAT is looking to bow to Apple in every way possible.

~~~
deveac
I'm not sure that it comes down to whether or not Apple has innovated to make
glue easier to recycle than screws, but rather if the use of the glue violates
any _required_ criteria of the ratings standard:

 _> How products qualify for EPEAT

>Products are measured against both required and optional criteria. A product
must meet all of the required criteria in its category to be added to the
registry. It is then rated Bronze, Silver or Gold depending on how many of the
optional criteria it meets._ <http://www.epeat.net/resources/criteria-
discussion/>

I think you would have to have access to the list of required, non-optional
criteria and assess those in order to make a determination. I personally have
no idea as I don't know what the specifics of the criteria are (there are
optional ones as well), but it is pretty clear what Apple's strategy is, and
it certainly seems like EPEAT's CEO was signaling flexibility. Especially when
you consider that fact that the EPEAT ratings have not been updated for a
while, and that Apple helped create some of the criteria the ratings are based
on in 2006, I have to imagine that Apple is either not actually in violation
by some reading of the standards, or will end up being the recipient of the
signaled 'flexibility' the CEO signaled, perhaps in advance of a draft rewrite
of the standards.

------
rsanchez1
They could just give us removable batteries and keep the EPEAT grade.

