For people who cannot they see the wood for the trees
Cut trees, plant trees. Its a working forest.
I say TIMBER to that stupid argument. That is how most forests work.
Apple has purchased more than 36,000 acres of forestland to supply timber for its paper and pulp mills, and is describing the venture as part of a “conservationist scheme”. "Apple is focused on using only the resources it needs," said Lisa Jackson, veep of environmental initiatives at Apple, and Larry Selzer, CEO of the …
That all depends on the kind of forests you are cutting down
If it's 5 year old pine trees, I really don't think that it would matte to much.
If it is 200 year old Oak trees than that's not quite the same cup of tea.
If it's the Amazon rainforest in it's original condition then ........<insert castration method here>
"If it's the Amazon rainforest in it's original condition then..."
There's a lot of evidence to show that large areas of the Amazon that were thought to be "in it's original condition" are infact regrowth and less than 500 years old.
That all depends on the kind of forests you are cutting down
From the press release:
"In the Reed Forest of Aroostook County, Maine, wetlands, rivers, and upland forest provide refuge for Atlantic salmon, bald eagle, and Canada lynx. And in Brunswick Forest located in southern North Carolina, the high-quality pine savannas and unique plants and flowers have long made this land a conservation priority."
It's not that the trees are simply cut down, they are replanted and harvested, just like any other crop. Granted, there have been instances of irresponsible business owners not replanting, but I would hardly think that to be the case in this instance. That these are working forests would indicate that this has been the case for these tracts for some time. The forest in Maine is most likely different from its native makeup, though, so I am a little confused as to how this represents some sort of environmental statement more than a vertical business integration.
If they could put some fecking finger-holes in their packaging, that would be great too.
I've unpacked many iPad Minis for work and there are no fingerholes to grip the internal box when you want to separate the top from bottom. As such you either a) tear said upper box or b) end up dropping the bottom box on the floor/desk as you shake it free.
Because of the wonderful "design" of these boxes, the iPad is also loose on top, glass upwards, without protection so the first thing to break if the box does open is the iPad itself. Then underneath that (again, no fingerholes so you have to "tip" the iPad into your other hand), there's a USB cable and plug which are sitting on the bottom of a big empty gap that would be perfect for, say, protecting the top of the iPad instead.
Everyone keeps telling me that Apple is all about the design and usability. I've yet to witness it in anything from the OS to the machines to the packaging.
> "blame the Japanese for Apple's obsession with tight fitting boxes and the 'opening experience'."
Then perhaps the aforementioned "breathless fanboise" should stop watching all that hentai.
I'll get my coat. It's the one with the manga comics in the pocket with the pages stuck together.
Protecting 56 miles of the tribes land at gun point is for the tribes well being, not because the filthy rich want to strip the lands resources!! You people always blame the rich for untouched land secretly hiding oil!! The rich didn't hide the oil there, so leave then alone!! Besides, if it was about profit, then if blood......wait, wrong article. Sooooooo sorry.
The idea that cutting trees in this way is anti-conservation is plain stupid.
They aren't cutting primal broadleaf woodland or tropical rain forest. The softwood trees that are used for paper and packaging are grown for the purpose. Less timber-based packaging means fewer trees, not more. It's a crop, and it's only grown because there is a market for it. You might as well try to conserve wheat by eating less bread.
This post has been deleted by its author
From the article
The fruity folk's partnership with the Conservation Fund is described as mutually beneficial. In chopping down thousands of trees to make paper packaging, we're told, "Apple is [displaying its commitment] to zeroing out that impact by using paper more efficiently, increasing recycled paper content, sourcing paper sustainably, and conserving acreage of working forests around the world equivalent to its virgin paper footprint."
Yep, it must be a teacher training day.
Apple (boo hiss) are merely safeguarding the supply of timber for their use. So that when next their Environment Audit is done they can tick a few more boxes and appease the tree huggers for their otherwise flagrant use of the Earth's recources.
woe betide the wailing that would go on here is they decided to fell virgin rainforrest for their packaging.
Go do a little research first before shooting yourself in the foot. Paper products come from trees raised for that purpose and are replanted. Then go research recycling and see what's generated by the process because to recycle, the paper has to be bleached and re-processed. Once done, get back to us. Recycling really isn't "green" no matter what you learned from Sesame Street. The enegy input and the waste products are worse cutting and turning fresh trees into paper.
What if all US sold items were freighted from China in custom designed, re-useable stackers, designed to pack the maximum number of items per shipping container. Space costs money in freight. This may not apply to small items like iPhones, watches etc. But on iMacs it could make a big difference.
I still have a set of beautifully created cardboard folders complete with embossed logos and bright orange internal elastic bands to hold in place the single sheet of carbon copy line printer paper on which the DEC ULTRIX licence was printed (which I think we never had to use anyway).
We got one of these folders for each DECstation we bought. Although only cardboard they have lasted 25 years longer than the DECstations did and still in regular use by me.
But HP definitely biggest offender in the over-packaging stakes ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uyNFNvFAlWs
Well, each of Apple's products we receive comes in at least 2 boxes. A brown shipping cardboard box is easy to recycle (if somewhat redundant). It goes right on (tight fit) the fancy, white/colored and laminated (= next to impossible to recycle) product box (the one that "fanboys" keep on their shelves). In this box is bunch of other junk responsible for "product experience" and the actual toy. None of this seems easily recyclable (and repairable). By comparison other brands' packaging looks more mundane but is much easier on environment, though more and more copycats try to follow Apple in over-packaging. At the end we - consumers - pay for both the over-engineered boxes and their disposal.
And responsible forestry (or whatever PR name they use) is only the 1st step in turning the wood into packaging. None of these steps is particularly environmentally friendly. The only true 'conservation scheme' is to actually conserve resources at every stage. I can't see Apple (or any other "concerned" corporation) doing this. I bet that another of their environmentally friendly achievements - the spaceship HQ - will be is just as great for forests. Price of progress?
"Undoubtedly HP. I have seen stuff like 4 boxes one in another to ship a _PAPER_ confirming your license."
Yup. Don't know about the 4 boxes but HP does ship sturdy double-wall corrugated boxes containing bubble-wrapped power cords. With foam-wrapped connectors.
I guess Apple has money to spend, but it's interesting seeing moves like this and I wonder if it's a trend. When oil prices were getting crazy, Delta Airlines bought an oil refinery so they could control the cost of refining jet fuel. I think this is the same kind of thing -- Apple wants to lock in the price it pays for paper packaging products. Who knows how much it actually costs them to make fancy boxes, but I guess a bunch of MBAs did the math.
The Delta thing apparently didn't work out as they had planned since oil prices dropped, but long term it seems like a good strategy. Airlines live and die by fuel prices; it's a monster percentage of the inputs to their service, the next biggest one being labor (they just lease the planes.)
Moves like this actually sound good on paper -- by owning the means of production, you aren't subject to price fluctuations. However, I know the hip business triend is to outsource everything except for the executives and build a business on a massive tower of interlocked contracts with suppliers.
It is fascinating to watch Apple go through its lifecycle. "Managing your supply chain" is great right up to the point where you truly believe that you can out-innovate entire industries outside of your core competency.
This is a different kind of "innovator's dilemma".
The one where innovators start thinking that they are smarter than everyone else about all things.
""Managing your supply chain" is great right up to the point where you truly believe that you can out-innovate entire industries outside of your core competency."
It seems to me like owning everything involved in production would be the ideal to work towards. You wouldn't have suppliers raising prices on you and you could therefore maximize profitability. Imagine if a car manufacturer owned an iron mine, ore producer, steel production, etc. Iron ore goes in one end, out comes cars on the other end, all under your control. As far as competencies go, you buy that along with the components in the process that you acquire. It's probably not practical for GM to be in the mining business, but certainly being involved in the raw materials in some way or another lets you dictate material prices.
Ford did this (ran a steel smelter plant next door to a car factory). Seemed to work for a while.
IBM did it as well, right down to groundskeepers and toilet cleaners being IBM employees. Trouble was, those benefits cost too much, especially the toilet cleaners who'd been with the company for 40 years. Ended up laying 'em all off and contracting with maintenance firms to get the job done, cheaper.
Its not like me to defend Apple but i'm going to.
Apple very likely bought into forestry investment years ago. In the UK and probably many other places, its a tax efficient investment and sustainable.
Every manufacturer knows the value of quality packaging so they are managing that in a tax efficient manner.
Since we all like a nice new box to open when we buy a new product, i think its unfair to criticise them.
If we didn't get the shiny new box with a product, we probably wouldn't buy it. Therefore we are all culpable.
I'm quite sure though, that its not apple trees they're cutting down.
As we all know,co2 is great for plant growth,and Apple is doing their part. They must use massive amounts of every kind of Energy to feed that Corporate Giant. Including the energy to produce those boxes. Don't forget transport, that includes all the driving their employees do. Boy,I could go on and on,but you get the idea. I wonder if Timboy has a private jet too! Someone really should figure Apples carbon foootprint,and then calculate just how many tree's Apple saves every year.
And now,a really big,big thank you to the author for the witty phrase "FRUITY FOLKS" because I am going to have Soooooo much FUN with that! I can't wait to hit the forums and comments sections.LOL