Comment by Spooky23 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Spooky23 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I am a member of a group that makes PC standards selections for an organization that buys 30,000-40,000 computers per year. We take stewardship of our IT asset lifecycle seriously -- over 60,000 devices were properly recycled last year. (Includes non-computer equipment and counts monitors separately) Apple was a small growing category for us since 2009.

EPEAT is about more than recycling -- it's about reducing the total environmental impact of the PC. Everything from avoiding hazardous materials to energy efficiency to packaging options to end-of-life. It gives folks who give a hoot the ability to quickly do an "apples to apples" comparison of the environmental impact of various products.

It also externalizes decisions. Should we not buy that amazing device that everyone lusts over because the bezel contains brominated materials? It's just a bezel! EPEAT makes that decision easier -- it's certified, or not.

This is just one more example of the level of contempt that Apple routinely displays for anyone whose needs go beyond buying their products for MSRP at retail, I'm done with them. I'm not sacrificing our standards so that Apple can glue components to their computers.

I don't think it's contempt. It may appear to be contempt in the eyes of large customers, but from Apple's perspective they want to make the best products they can. If that is counter to the way the EPEAT guidelines operate, but they can offer equal or superior environmental impact and produce the products they want, isn't that ok?

Honest question: Are you not able to compare the EPEAT guidelines with what Apple currently does? They provide details on all of the things you mentioned - hazardous materials, energy efficiency, etc. It seems like they should still stand up to EPEAT, despite the recycling bit, considering that they offer recycling of their products. http://www.apple.com/environment/

That webpage is part-information, part-marketing. It conveys the message that the company wants to tell. EPEAT's criteria come from published IEEE standards, last updated in 2009.

Other vendors with similar form-factors seem to be able to meet the EPEAT criteria. The new "Ultrabooks", which are similar form-factor wise to Apple products, seem to be capable of meeting EPEAT Silver criteria.

What is Apple's commitment? Right now they may meet EPEAT Gold standards. Will they next month?

I suppose that I could hire people to figure this out, but why should I? There are plenty of competitors with quality products.

Why couldn't Apple have proposed updates to EPEAT, if it's so hopelessly out of date? A: They hold the institutional/corporate customer in contempt.

It is perfectly ok if they can offer equal or superior recycling.

I don't think this is a claim you can really make right now though. When you send a device back to Apple for recycling, there's no way to find out what their recycling standards are.

Subscribing to EPEAT objectifies this, and makes it easier to know what happens when an EPEAT device is recycled.

The crucial point from the perspective of corporate procurement is that it externalizes the decision. While the parent could probably do the research and make a solid comparison to EPEAT, his employer would not believe him. Large organizations want to be able to set a policy that even dumb procurement staff can follow, and certifications like EPEAT give them that.

If you want your Apple products to be "properly recycled" then take them to Apple when you EOL them. Relying upon a shiny EPEAT logo/cert to make your decision easier is ignoring that there are other ways to be environmentally friendly.

I am unknowlegble on this topic; what do we know about how they recycle their equipment? Recycle is not a binary option, there are different amounts that something can be, which is also different from how much it is.

Exactly. Recycling could be marketing speak for "sending to a landfill in China".

And this could be true of lots of "recyclers" in the US and EU.

Why should I change my business process to make Apple more money? I'm not hauling thousands of devices to Apple -- particularly if I can save money by using any of a half dozen competitors.

I have contracts with a half dozen recycling vendors who take my junk and dispose of them in a manner deemed acceptable by us. Some of them even pay us to take certain products.

A "shiny EPEAT certification" means that I can call any of the thousands of recycling vendors in the United States and get my gear hauled off and disposed of in a sustainable and ethical manner, and at a reasonable price. No African children are smelting wires from equipment originating from my company. Memory from my Dell devices is recovered and resold. Batteries from my Thinkpads are dissembled and recycled.

So you perform audits of the recycling firms that you use?

I get the impression from the tone of your reply that even if Apple were to continue achieving EPEAT that you still wouldn't buy them.

Oh, and following up on this because of Apple's change of heart in paying EPEAT for approval. Are you going to change your purchasing policy now?

So we should rely on a glowing Apple logo to make our decisions instead?

No, but relying upon outdated recycling standards instead of evaluating devices and doing your own research is sloppy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com