I was anti-Apple, until.....

[sir sanders zingmore]

Subjective....   although I think most peoples problems disappear when they realise that they are not restricted to running Apple operating system software.

 

If you use Windows, then buying an Apple computer + a copy of Microsoft Windows, is a very viable option.    It does not compete in the 'budget computer' market, so if you want cheap and cheerful then Apple is not right.

 

 

I feel bad now... This thread was supposed to be about the adapting clean energy.    

 

What you should apologise for Dave, is your insistence on well reasoned-comment that avoids hyperbole.

The sensible stuff you consistently write has no place here.

[davewantsmoore]

What you should apologise for Dave

 

Gettin' me elbows up  ;-)

 

I'm still suffering for my efforts on Saturday night... I would have been a right prick to work with today, if I had of even peeked outside my office... So my forum buddies copped it instead  :-D

[davewantsmoore]

the adapting clean energy

 

Yep.  Time to go home.     :-S

[TP1]

In terms of computer companies, I don't think Apple is that bad on most fronts. Has everyone forgotten the the plethora of software bugs with earlier versions of windows and the only way to overcome the problems was to pay for upgrades?

Big corporations like that are an absolute necessity to maintain high investment in innovation. They all have their problems though but it is not often you see a major investment being made - like their green initiative- that cannot point to a decent financial return in the short term

Edited March 3, 2014 by Tasso

[lusk]

Amazing that they have done this without a carbon tax to force them.  

[TP1]

+1

 

 

 

+1   (my next comment notwithstanding)

 

 

 

I have seen a number of detailed analysis' of Apple's move to renewable energy  (datacentres are my profession) which show that this is (very much) not true.

 

It does take short term investment (which many without the resources can't justify), but the payoff appears to be huge.

 

 

We are not talking about data centres which will consume a lot more power than an Apple retail outlet .  The NCPPR in the USA clashed with Apple for  NOT making those investments to improve their bottom line.

[betty boop]

apple is the benchmark of top consumer computing .

i bought 8gb ram for apple just $85 from OWC, and i changed SSD in my macbook pro15 2010 last year with Samsung 840, everything was a breeze.

as for any computers they will have some issues at some point, but coming from fujitsu laptop $1000 that only last for 1 yr, my

mac is still going strong, and its waterproof also as my wife dump about half of 600ml water bottle to my keyboard, aside from 2wks drying time, i dont need to spend anything

 

very true my 2007 white macbook am typing on now, still going since i updated it last year with new battery (yes can change battery) extra ram and a ssd hdd - all with non apple parts. it flys ! how many laptops from 2007 are still flying along like it is ? I've gone through about 6 work laptops in the same time in toshiba, dell, lenovo  and now hp.

 

ps last weekend a newer macbook pro touch pad started to play up, well out of warranty.  popped in the genius bar midday sunday, quote $113 to replace. exactly one hour later got a phone call saying all fixed and should come pick up. which other manufactuer gives this kind of service ?

 

ps re energy aware as a company I do think apple is trying its best. even with its products to try make them as energy frugal with every model. even to the point of not needing as large a battery or battery supply with subsequent models. much better approach than going the power hungry angle needing bigger and bigger batteries and power supplies with every new release...

[Addicted to music]

I wouldn’t spill water on the latest $3k macbook pro that i have, not exactly waterproof as my son found out, the cost of repair exceeds the cost of a new one.

 

I choose to buy a macbook pro because I watch my daughter and son used one. My wife’s cousins daughter pointed out to me, what product is less than 2.00cm  thin, built with an aluminium chassis, has a screen that every other manufacturer wants on there product and has all the latest technology that highlights its at the forefront in technology, the built quality and reliability is to die for! has the longest battery life of any product with the similar performance and weights $2kg!  

 

If you go to JB or HN the macbook pro stands out, pick it up and its a quality built product in your hands and ticks all the boxes.  with 500GB SS HDD it runs silent and cool,  

 

I have used Toshiba, Dell and Lenovo and all have had issues.  The Dell has good service backup but the product is unreliable and lacks the built quality of the macs.

[oldrose]

Apple has always cared about more than the bottom line, they could lower prices by lowering quality and increase market share, they've long taken steps to ensure their suppliers in China provide not only consistent quality but continuous improvements to the standards of workers etc.

 

Having worked on the Apple Campus in California (but not as a direct or indirect employee) I know they universally care about the Customer and the Customer experience and therefore the customer perception. Unlike Microsoft/Dell/other PC maker, the main customer is the end user, not some Corporation.

 

I use Macs because I prefer them (i'm quite comfortable with Windows/Solaris/Linux/VMS etc) as they allow me to spend time working not fiddling with my computer. I do wish some of their software (iTunes in particular) was of the same standard as my Mac Hardware.

[Dustin]

[...] Apple was widely criticised for abandoning all their existing standards to release the iMac G3 which has only USB ports... They did this at a time when there was basically zero available USB devices (most of the problem for people), and when the standard was having quite a few problems  (the release coincided with v1.1 fixes).

 

Yes, the introduction of the first see-through blue iMac marked the return of Steve Jobs to Apple.

This was a big transition because people had existing investments in SCSI for fast devices like external HD's as well as ADB (Apple's serial version) for slower devices. None of the old devices plugged into the new iMac and to go one step further, it didn't even have an internal floppy drive!

 

External floppy drive units became available quickly, but not immediately and while lots of people bought one, it didn't take long before they abandoned floppy discs altogether . . . and good riddance to those, too.

[LogicprObe]

Yes but is it really $180 when you factor in the true environmental cost of the PC's RAM?

 

Can you really tell if that RAM was made with 

'special' electricity...................and will it refuse to run on normal juice?

[sir sanders zingmore]

Can you really tell if that RAM was made with

'special' electricity...................and will it refuse to run on normal juice?

Hang on, I thought this was the usual apple fanboy vs hater thread. What are you doing talking about the environment?

[betty boop]

Points made, though I still dispute your USB comments. I think Apple rely on ignorance when selling their products. One of my mates proudly proclaimed that he ordered 8GB of RAM with his iMac. It cost him $800.00. I could buy the same RAM for my PC for $180.00.

Sounds a bit excessive, checking the apple site an iMac only cost $1599, so to pay $800 for a ram upgrade sounds silly. It comes with 8gb as standard, another 8gb as option is listed as $240 additional, with obviously includes fitting so iMac is purchased with it.

Ofcourse there is no compulsion to buy the ram from apple, as I did myself for both our MacBooks, there's heaps of after market resellers that can buy suitable ram from and choice is yours what brand & type you buy. Apple unlike most other makers even give detailed step by step instructions for you to upgrade yourself not only on their website but amazingly when pop the cover.. Even on the inside of the case. ! They can't make any easier.

Ps so although you can buy and fit upgrades through them... They also make pretty easy and try help you to do yourself....

[kdoot]

I really like this allegedly verbatim quote from Tim Cook at the shareholders meeting:
 

because we do things for other reasons than profit motives. We do things because they are right and just and that is who we are. That’s who we are as a company. I don’t…when I think about human rights, I don’t think about an ROI. When I think about making our products accessible for the people that can’t see or to help a kid with autism, I don’t think about a bloody ROI, and by the same token, I don’t think about helping our environment from an ROI point of view. It’s not how I look at it. My simple point was if you did only look at it in that way for the Maiden data center, the same decisions would have been made and so there are cases where you can see these two spheres connecting but I’m not going to say that that’s all I’m going to do by any means. I don’t look at it that way. Just to be very straightforward with you, if that’s a hard line for you, if you only want me to make things, make decisions that have a clear ROI, then you should get out of the stock just to be plain and simple.â€

[…]

I think it’s so important to remember that the Apple brand stands for something and you can’t take each piece of it and say, “This has a 20% ROI and this has a 15, and you shouldn’t have given this $100 million to education,†and all this kind of stuff. That’s not the way we look at it. It’s not who we are as people.

 
http://www.loopinsight.com/2014/03/03/tim-cook-doing-whats-right/

[davewantsmoore]

We are not talking about data centres which will consume a lot more power than an Apple retail outlet .  The NCPPR in the USA clashed with Apple for  NOT making those investments to improve their bottom line.

 

I don't really understand why you would say this.

 

What we are talking about clearly does include data centres... and I merely mentioned them as the reason why I am very well versed in this topic  (what apple is doing for long term financial gain which other companies are not, or cannot, do)

 

 

 

 More than three-quarters of the company's facilities worldwide, including all of its data centres and its Cupertino headquarters, now run on solar, wind, geothermal or hydro power, up from about a quarter under Jobs.

 

The point I am making is that the NCPPR are upset that Apple have "done things which do not improve their bottom line"  (thus leading to pressure on standards to rise, or other companies to "blow money" on the environment) ... but the reality is that (at least on balance, ignoring outliers) that the changes Apple have made are extremely beneficial to their bottom line beyond the short term.

 

 

 

 

NCPPR urged Cook and the board to pledge that Apple wouldn't pursue any more environmental initiatives that didn't improve its bottom line.

 

All Apples environmental initiatives improve their bottom line AFAIUI.   There is no problem except that the NCPPR are morons.

[davewantsmoore]

I think it mostly comes from what they read on the net, or what their friends tell them.

 

It comes with 8gb as standard, another 8gb as option is listed as $240 additional, with obviously includes fitting so iMac is purchased with it.

 

[TP1]

All Apples environmental initiatives improve their bottom line AFAIUI. There is no problem except that the NCPPR are morons.

You may be right about the NCPPR but the term "improving bottom line" is simplistic and does not recognise how difficult such a decision would be for a company to do this on a global basis. Sure, Apple would bank on this move to eventuality help lift profitability , but such investments are still not easily tolerated or accepted by the broader business community including market analysts and institutional investors.

Public companies are driven by their obligation to maximise shareholders wealth. How this creed manifests itself in practice is determined by a number of variables. One key driver is the reward systems in place for executives. For example, if a Managing Director was to get a bonus based upon profit increases over a 12 month period, it is not uncommon to see staff layoffs and other cost cutting measures. It would be highly unlikely that many public companies have an incentive system in place to make major investments without a corresponding improvement in profitability measured by maximising the return on investment ( achieving highest possible return for the money)

In Australia, Superannuation funds hold vast stocks of shares in Australian companies and they demand high levels of dividends and steady capital appreciation . Therefore investment decisions take this into account. In the USA similar demands are placed on companies with a greater emphasis on stock price. With public companies it is the best use of funds to maximise shareholder wealth that is examined by the market analysts, so even if an investment may eventually show a return, that can be perceived negatively by the market.

So saving in electricity costs might show a say a 15 % return on investment but if the expected return on capital is 25%, the investment can be perceived as below standard. ( both numbers are for illustrative purposes only). Data centres don't have the same competing demands for capital as does the worlds biggest (by market cap) tech company. To them a good use of funds would be to reduce operating costs and examine each site on an individual basis unless they had more pressing need for funds at that point in time. Apple is committed to 100% coverage which will include sites with high costs of installation that will prove to be uneconomic at the site.

Time will tell how Apple's strategy will pan out in the market place and it seems to be tied into their new generation of solar powered computers. Whatever the outcome, the investment decision is bold and should be applauded. If it was as simple as "chuck in panels at every site and we will improve our bottom line" every major company would have done it already.

Edited March 4, 2014 by Tasso

[davewantsmoore]

Datacentres use a colossal amount of electricity, and ideally need to be located close to customers.    It is less about operational costs, and more about flexibility and security.

 

Apple have major datacentres in the lowest costs power locations, and one of the highest cost locations, in the western world  (North Carolina and Germany).   Having the flexibility (availability and cost of electricity) in the future to locate data centres where required, or expand current ones, depends on having electricity security.

 

Apple (or the other big players) don't want to go into BRIC without being able to control access to their key raw material (electricity).

 

 

the investment decision is bold

 

Not particularly (like I said before - there's clear analysis from multiple angles which shows it to be a mozaire).

 

The major players are all doing it full tilt.    The fear (from people like the NCPPR) is that forcing standards up, and making smaller guys play this game (who cannot afford the investment) may be harmful.   The scale of planned data centre construction in the next decade by the big players is absolutely mind blowing.

 

Apple already run (one of?) the largest non-utility power generation in the US... and that is only the smallest baby step.

 

 

Data centres don't have the same competing demands for capital as does the worlds biggest (by market cap) tech company.

 

Datacentre investment (which we know about) is expected to be over 150 billion $ US world wide within the next couple of years.   It is the key focus of Apples strategy.

[TP1]

Datacentres use a colossal amount of electricity, and ideally need to be located close to customers. It is less about operational costs, and more about flexibility and security.

Apple have major datacentres in the lowest costs power locations, and one of the highest cost locations, in the western world (North Carolina and Germany). Having the flexibility (availability and cost of electricity) in the future to locate data centres where required, or expand current ones, depends on having electricity security.

Apple (or the other big players) don't want to go into BRIC without being able to control access to their key raw material (electricity).

Not particularly (like I said before - there's clear analysis from multiple angles which shows it to be a mozaire).

The major players are all doing it full tilt. The fear (from people like the NCPPR) is that forcing standards up, and making smaller guys play this game (who cannot afford the investment) may be harmful. The scale of planned data centre construction in the next decade by the big players is absolutely mind blowing.

Apple already run (one of?) the largest non-utility power generation in the US... and that is only the smallest baby step.

Datacentre investment (which we know about) is expected to be over 150 billion $ US world wide within the next couple of years. It is the key focus of Apples strategy.

Apple's Data centres are already 100% powered by renewable energy. The leadership Apple is showing is to have every other site powered by renewable energy too - sites which many would deem uneconomic to do so. In fact Apple is resisting attempts by investors wanting to analyze the forecasts on the new renewable energy strategy to avoid having to explain the process against the background of typical market expectations of investment returns and dividends paid.

[davewantsmoore]

In fact Apple is resisting attempts by investors wanting to analyze the forecasts on the new renewable energy strategy to avoid having to explain the process against the background of typical market expectations of investment returns and dividends paid.

 

Indeed.  That's my point.   It is difficult to quantify measurements of "security" against an uncertain future of power price/availability  (especially in places where Apple's influence is low - ie. future markets)... and not everyone agrees that this is smart.

 

From the (rudimentary) analysis that others have performed, it is beyond clear that those people are wrong.

 

The key is not renewable energy, it is secure energy.

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

We are not talking about data centres which will consume a lot more power than an Apple retail outlet .  The NCPPR in the USA clashed with Apple for  NOT making those investments to improve their bottom line.

No. The NCPPR clashed with Apple because Apple sets a dangerous precedent for deniers. The NCPPR is a denialist (of anthropogenic global warming) organisation.

[TP1]

No. The NCPPR clashed with Apple because Apple sets a dangerous precedent for deniers. The NCPPR is a denialist (of anthropogenic global warming) organisation.

 

That  could well be the motivation for the NCPPR action but they  have absolutely no voice or legal standing other than as shareholders.  It is running the risk of  violating  a fundamental objective  of companies " to maximise shareholders wealth" that  has put Apple in a unique position.  There is case law in the USA where shareholders have successfully taken lawsuits against a company for  alleged poor investment decisions.   The concept of "maximising shareholders wealth" is actually enshrined in law in various guises throughout the world, including Australia.

 

I have heard  comments from a CEO of a public company in Australia along the lines of  " we have an obligation to the environment as well as to our shareholders". This would be typical of many and usually means "we tick the green boxes where we have to, or where it won't have a negative impact on profitability". They usually don't dare violate the code to maximise the return to the shareholders and  it is deeply embedded into every aspect of corporate commercial operations. That is why we see so many seemingly heartless decisions being made. Not doing more for the environment is just one of those.

 

The  NCPPR is using its legal rights as shareholders to fight Apple, which is what makes Apple's commitment  admirable.  It is incredibly rare to see a CEO of a public company to  publicly tell  people not to invest in the company if they don't like how its run, rather than showing any financial justification for the decision. A very bold move that should get widespread support, but you never can tell in the USA.

 

Now, what is Microsoft, Dell etc doing on that front?

[davewantsmoore]

It is running the risk of  violating  a fundamental objective  of companies " to maximise shareholders wealth" that  has put Apple in a unique position.  There is case law in the USA where shareholders have successfully taken lawsuits against a company for  alleged poor investment decisions.   The concept of "maximising shareholders wealth" is actually enshrined in law in various guises throughout the world, including Australia.

 

Yes, but obviously Apple don't agree (that it will not maximise shareholder wealth).   I'm only familiar with Australia where the interpretation of the corporations act for this is quite broad.

[TP1]

Yes, but obviously Apple don't agree (that it will not maximise shareholder wealth). I'm only familiar with Australia where the interpretation of the corporations act for this is quite broad.

Of course they will never say the investment is not good for the company, but they did refuse access to requests for cost benefit analyses

[davewantsmoore]

Of course they will never say the investment is not good for the company, but they did refuse access to requests for cost benefit analyses

 

Because the cost benefit analysis of potentially intangible things like 'security' and 'strategy' are complex, and could easily be made to look 'bad' by someone determined to do so....   This was the thrust of the (admittedly rudimentary, but accurate enough once you see the magnitude of the numbers) analysis' ... which basically discussed the idea of  "what do these people think they're going to find".