I agree, they need to go green.

As an investor I want them to be smart, but I don't want them lose money just to appease Greenpeace! One thing Apple does better than any other company is make their products last so they don't end up in a landfill in 3 years like many PC's do.

Couldnt have said it better myself!

Theres a point worth mentioning.

Every Apple product I have purchased, still has a home within mine (including the original packaging). The same can not be said for my PC components from years of building computers.

If Apples product continue to be built and designed with quality first, I say they have already won in the "green" department. 1 "less green" Apple > 5 "green" Dells in the landfill (in my opinion).

I agree, guest...

Green can mean a lot of things. Harmful chemicals, no doubt important to address, my question is this: With Apple's low, low tiny 0.00002 one-trillionth of a percent marketshare, are they *proportionately* out-polluting other companies?

In fact, my take, like guest's: hundreds of millions of PCs, produced as throwaways (planned obselescence), is WASTEFUL. How much extra fuel (CO2 emissions) to ship 2 boxes -- monitor + cpu .... the iMac and other all-in-one designs have also eliminated excess factory production of cables, brought down power consumption ...

To be human is to be wasteful; I hardly think Apple is the worst ... others have pointed out one fantastic point: people tend to use their Macs 2-3 times longer ...

While up to individual users: I also think the energy-settings for Macs have always been way better than a PCs, and I manage a small PC lab at work. It's just great that a Mac is so much more intuitive to use (like I need to convince anyone here on this 'board.)

Many folks have balked at Greenpeace ... while I respect their aims, I really, really, really wonder how good the comparisons of "greener" companies are? There's so much to consider. I am glad the discussion is going on, but (ehem, MacNN) the FUD seems fud-dy duddy to me....

I agree, guest...

Green can mean a lot of things. Harmful chemicals, no doubt important to address, my question is this: With Apple's low, low tiny 0.00002 one-trillionth of a percent marketshare, are they *proportionately* out-polluting other companies?

In fact, my take, like guest's: hundreds of millions of PCs, produced as throwaways (planned obselescence), is WASTEFUL. How much extra fuel (CO2 emissions) to ship 2 boxes -- monitor + cpu .... the iMac and other all-in-one designs have also eliminated excess factory production of cables, brought down power consumption ...

To be human is to be wasteful; I hardly think Apple is the worst ... others have pointed out one fantastic point: people tend to use their Macs 2-3 times longer ...

While up to individual users: I also think the energy-settings for Macs have always been way better than a PCs, and I manage a small PC lab at work. It's just great that a Mac is so much more intuitive to use (like I need to convince anyone here on this 'board.)

Many folks have balked at Greenpeace ... while I respect their aims, I really, really, really wonder how good the comparisons of "greener" companies are? There's so much to consider. I am glad the discussion is going on, but (ehem, MacNN) the FUD seems fud-dy duddy to me....

is a time table?!?! WTH. The #1 goal is the removal of toxic materials used in production, not a time table for when they will be removed. Time tables can and do change, even if they are public commitments.

The #1 goal of being more eco-conservative is to actually *do* something, not to announce that you will do something in the future.

How can this even be a debate? This is why no one takes Greenpeace seriously anymore...

...of "playing" with computers, I have NEVER "thrown out" a Mac, but I've tossed a bunch of old PCs. Who's greener?

Z

We have had several laptops from a different vendor with the new RoHS (Green) compliant motherboards. These boards are brittle and eventually crack when placed on docking stations. This has resulted in some of the machines having their system boards replaced, not once, but twice. One has to wonder if generating 3 RoHS compliant motherboards per machine ends up polluting the earth more than one regular motherboard would have done in the first place. Hopefully, this is just a fluke and not a sign of things to come.

Do not be a fool. Greenpeace is greatly respected around the world. If you don't understand that, then you need to catch up, not them.

Apple is in the same position as China...not the largest in many categories, but expanding rapidly. Now is the time to make changes for the better, to make a commitment to get rid of the BFRs and PVC plastic. Say it and do it.

I have gone through dozens and maybe hundreds of Macs over the years with different companies. Regardless of whether they are used an extra few years longer than whatever strawman you want to compare them to, all but a few portables stacked up in yonder corner are in some landfill somewhere.

Think of all the post houses that will be changing this year because of the change to FCP and Adobe's new intel offerings. Think of the expanding corporate market and the thousands that are going to schools. Sure, the original iBooks can still crank a page or two, but most have been replacede. It is a lot of landfill and a lot of plastic, and gasous poisons being created...and there is a lot more to come.

I own and have held my stock in Apple because they are leaders. I will write these people and give them my stock's proxy to vote with.