Apple gives itself passing EPEAT grade for Retina MacBook Pro | Hacker News Reader

Apple gives itself passing EPEAT grade for Retina MacBook Pro

arstechnica.com

31 pointsjhack30 comments

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".

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I will say, though, that if Apple truly felt their glue allows for easy disassembly, they probably wouldn't have withdrawn from EPEAT in the first place.

> 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.

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.

I think rather it's much more straight forward, Apple's mobile devices make up the bulk of their income, it's where they're pointing their business as a whole now. A growing segment of their mobile device sales aren't covered by any EPEAT certification at all (iPhone/iPad). Future Apple devices are going to be increasingly complex to disassemble, and this is seen as a competitive issue too, in the pursuit of thinner, stronger and more attractive enclosures. I think they were just getting out of EPEAT before EPEAT caught up to mobile devices, a quiet exit (or so they hoped.)

In one of the numerous HN stories about this thing someone pointed out (and I wish I had a link to this) that if iFixit can easily disassemble the machine (and they can) then there obviously isn't a problem here. No, end users aren't supposed to be taking it apart, but the complaints about the glue have to do with the potential for impacting recyclability, which is a whole different ballgame. If iFixit can remove the battery, so can recyclers.

Can they? The best I've seen was an image of one battery cell pried half off next to a comment saying they gave up trying to get the battery out safely.

safely is the core thing I believe, in recycler context you would not care about not breaking things.

Safely refers to the well-being of the person rather than the battery. Puncturing lithium-polymer batteries can be dangerous.

> so can recyclers

Recyclers have to work fast - otherwise it's not worth it to them, and they'll just toss it.

So just because it's possible to remove the battery doesn't mean it's practical.

Given that any Apple store can replace the battery while you wait, it obviously can't be that hard to do.

Is this true even of the new Retina MacBook Pros?

Yes. It costs a bit more than other models ($200), but they also have a larger battery.

Apple tends to replace these things in 30 minutes. Maybe - and by definition this is speculation on all sides- the new machine's battery can't be replaced according to Apple's historical standards. But it seems highly unlikely.

On the other hand, it is very common for nonsensical and simply false information to be spread about Apple, constantly, to try and bash the company, because this kind of fake scandal is great for page views.

Apple was the first company to design computers for easy disassembly and repair, and their current generation of MBPs is certainly easy to disassemble. I know this because I've done it.

The idea that glue makes it impossible to recycle is kinda silly on the face of it. In fact, since lithium batteries come in tough-plastic containers, making the glue too strong would cause risk of rupture, and that would create potential liability.

Which means that this accusation is akin to saying "apple doesn't care about the liability they might incur from injuries or explosions due to damage trying to recycle their batteries.... even in their own stores!"

I don't find this credulous.

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.

> 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...

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.

> 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.

Bias showing much?

If you disagree that you are biased, then please explain how this is "grossly overestimate[d]" and why EPEAT "must [...] reduce this [...] clearly inflated rating".

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.

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."

Three words: Reality Distortion Field.

The shield is dead captain!

The culture lives on.

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.

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."

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.

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.

I'm sure Apple is well aware that everything they do gets a disproportionate amount of scrutiny.

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

Reply on news.ycombinator.com