greenstork
Jul 12, 11:33 AM
What astounds me about this thread is that most people are treating Conroe like it's some second rate, compromise chip, like it pales in comparison to the Woodcrest, which is absolutely ridiculous. The conroe is a revolutionary chip, with virtually identical architecture to the Woodcrest. It's only downside is that you can't run dual conroe's and the bus speed is slightly different.
If the entire Mac Pro line came out with Conroes, which are dual core, we would have excellent and fast machines (for the record though, I think we'll see Woodcrests). My guess is that we may see at least one lower-end Mac Pro or headless media unit with a Conroe but in all likelihood, most of the Mac Pro line will use one chip because of the engineering costs associated with different socket and motherboard designs.
As for Conroes being too hot for an iMac, that strikes me as ridiculous. From what I've read, conroes use 40% less power than Pentium D's and are very efficient in terms of power to performance. Merom is a laptop chip and I'm not sure it will ever end up in a desktop system, even if it is the same socket as the Yonah.
If the entire Mac Pro line came out with Conroes, which are dual core, we would have excellent and fast machines (for the record though, I think we'll see Woodcrests). My guess is that we may see at least one lower-end Mac Pro or headless media unit with a Conroe but in all likelihood, most of the Mac Pro line will use one chip because of the engineering costs associated with different socket and motherboard designs.
As for Conroes being too hot for an iMac, that strikes me as ridiculous. From what I've read, conroes use 40% less power than Pentium D's and are very efficient in terms of power to performance. Merom is a laptop chip and I'm not sure it will ever end up in a desktop system, even if it is the same socket as the Yonah.
bugfaceuk
Apr 9, 10:00 AM
I like this term, very good!!! Subgames. (This is not to be taken as sarcasm.) With your permission, I'm going to use this from now on.;)
Um... it's not my term... I was publishing games with sub-games in back on the Amiga.
BUT feel free to use it!
Um... it's not my term... I was publishing games with sub-games in back on the Amiga.
BUT feel free to use it!
TheRealTVGuy
Mar 18, 01:56 AM
So if you're sticking at 4.1.0 and they aren't monitoring, then they should be monitoring 3.x even less, no?
All the more reason for me to stick with 3.1.3 on my 3G.
BL.
Wow... was multi-tasking supported that early, or did we not get that until 4.0. It's early here in Florida and I can't remember.
But hey, if its working for you... go with it!
All the more reason for me to stick with 3.1.3 on my 3G.
BL.
Wow... was multi-tasking supported that early, or did we not get that until 4.0. It's early here in Florida and I can't remember.
But hey, if its working for you... go with it!
tigres
Jun 7, 06:05 PM
52 dropped calls today. Full bars of course. AT&T says no problems.
FMP
FMP
Gelfin
Apr 24, 03:03 PM
In answer to the OP's question, I have long harbored the suspicion (without any clear idea how to test it) that human beings have evolved their penchant for accepting nonsense. On the face of it, accepting that which does not correspond with reality is a very costly behavior. Animals that believe they need to sacrifice part of their food supply should be that much less likely to survive than those without that belief.
My hunch, however, is that the willingness to play along with certain kinds of nonsense games, including religion and other ritualized activities, is a social bonding mechanism in humans so deeply ingrained that it is difficult for us to step outside ourselves and recognize it for a game. One's willingness to play along with the rituals of a culture signifies that his need to be a part of the community is stronger than his need for rational justification. Consenting to accept a manufactured truth is an act of submission. It generates social cohesion and establishes shibboleths. In a way it is a constant background radiation of codependence and enablement permeating human existence.
If I go way too far out on this particular limb, I actually suspect that the ability to prioritize rational justification over social submission is a more recent development than we realize, and that this development is still competing with the old instincts for social cohesion. Perhaps this is the reason that atheists and skeptics are typically considered more objectionable than those with differing religious or supernatural beliefs. Playing the game under slightly different rules seems less dangerous than refusing to play at all.
Think of the undertones of the intuitive stereotype many people have of skeptics: many people automatically imagine a sort of bristly, unfriendly loner who isn't really happy and is always trying to make other people unhappy too. There is really no factual basis for this caricature, and yet it is almost universal. On this account, when we become adults we do not stop playing games of make-believe. Instead we just start taking our games of make-believe very seriously, and our intuitive sense is that someone who rejects our games is rejecting us. Such a person feels untrustworthy in a way we would find hard to justify.
Religions are hardly the only source of this sort of game. I suspect they are everywhere, often too subtle to notice, but religions are by far the largest, oldest, most obtrusive example.
My hunch, however, is that the willingness to play along with certain kinds of nonsense games, including religion and other ritualized activities, is a social bonding mechanism in humans so deeply ingrained that it is difficult for us to step outside ourselves and recognize it for a game. One's willingness to play along with the rituals of a culture signifies that his need to be a part of the community is stronger than his need for rational justification. Consenting to accept a manufactured truth is an act of submission. It generates social cohesion and establishes shibboleths. In a way it is a constant background radiation of codependence and enablement permeating human existence.
If I go way too far out on this particular limb, I actually suspect that the ability to prioritize rational justification over social submission is a more recent development than we realize, and that this development is still competing with the old instincts for social cohesion. Perhaps this is the reason that atheists and skeptics are typically considered more objectionable than those with differing religious or supernatural beliefs. Playing the game under slightly different rules seems less dangerous than refusing to play at all.
Think of the undertones of the intuitive stereotype many people have of skeptics: many people automatically imagine a sort of bristly, unfriendly loner who isn't really happy and is always trying to make other people unhappy too. There is really no factual basis for this caricature, and yet it is almost universal. On this account, when we become adults we do not stop playing games of make-believe. Instead we just start taking our games of make-believe very seriously, and our intuitive sense is that someone who rejects our games is rejecting us. Such a person feels untrustworthy in a way we would find hard to justify.
Religions are hardly the only source of this sort of game. I suspect they are everywhere, often too subtle to notice, but religions are by far the largest, oldest, most obtrusive example.
iindigo
May 2, 01:47 PM
So outdated software or poor programming = Design flaw in Windows?
Don't get me wrong, I have some legacy applications that won't run without elevated permissions, but they're just that, legacy applications. I suppose Microsoft could just take Apples approach and forcibly antiquate software.
That's the thing, though. It's not only old software that behaves this way. There are all kinds of modern software that require administrator access to run. One of the biggest ones I can think are games... typically those with some sort of anti-hack system.
MS has done nothing to discourage developers from writing their software to work this way and it's unfortunate.
Don't get me wrong, I have some legacy applications that won't run without elevated permissions, but they're just that, legacy applications. I suppose Microsoft could just take Apples approach and forcibly antiquate software.
That's the thing, though. It's not only old software that behaves this way. There are all kinds of modern software that require administrator access to run. One of the biggest ones I can think are games... typically those with some sort of anti-hack system.
MS has done nothing to discourage developers from writing their software to work this way and it's unfortunate.
Mac'nCheese
Apr 23, 09:40 PM
How many people became theistic because of atheism? Or have their religious views strengthened as a result of atheism?
How many people became atheist because of religion? Or have their atheistic views strengthened as a result of religion?
This was my point in that statement.
And of course atheists will be less trusted. Atheism rejects non-societal Morals (unless you want to pull the "absolute morals exist and god(s) do not" version of atheism). Morality is completely defined by society at that point or at a more direct sense, by us.
Someone who is a practicing theist has a "standard" of Morals to abide by. Granted, a lot - if not most - of politicians are the "I'm a once a month Christian so people will vote for me" type but some (like GWB for better or worse) appear to take their faith with them to the office. This is a far more reliable set of beliefs, whether or not you agree with them, than someone who has arbitrary or personally decided morals.
I'm not sure I understand the point in the first part of your post so I'll have to skip that for now. Maybe you can phrase it a different way to help me out. Anyway, the whole "moral" issue has been raised and argued before. In my mind, there are many reasons why, logically, atheists are, by far, more moral then religious people. I'll just throw one out at you: your statement of someone who is a practicing theist has a "standard" of morals to abide by isn't something I can agree with for many reasons. One, why does one have to have a religious book to have a standard of morals. Atheists can know right and wrong and make laws based on common sense morals. We don't need some made up god to tell us what is right and wrong. Secondly, have you read some of the "morals" in the holy books. If so, and you still follow these rules, you have very low standards for what good morals should be. One needs to look no further then the section on how to treat your slaves in the bible to see this fact!
How many people became atheist because of religion? Or have their atheistic views strengthened as a result of religion?
This was my point in that statement.
And of course atheists will be less trusted. Atheism rejects non-societal Morals (unless you want to pull the "absolute morals exist and god(s) do not" version of atheism). Morality is completely defined by society at that point or at a more direct sense, by us.
Someone who is a practicing theist has a "standard" of Morals to abide by. Granted, a lot - if not most - of politicians are the "I'm a once a month Christian so people will vote for me" type but some (like GWB for better or worse) appear to take their faith with them to the office. This is a far more reliable set of beliefs, whether or not you agree with them, than someone who has arbitrary or personally decided morals.
I'm not sure I understand the point in the first part of your post so I'll have to skip that for now. Maybe you can phrase it a different way to help me out. Anyway, the whole "moral" issue has been raised and argued before. In my mind, there are many reasons why, logically, atheists are, by far, more moral then religious people. I'll just throw one out at you: your statement of someone who is a practicing theist has a "standard" of morals to abide by isn't something I can agree with for many reasons. One, why does one have to have a religious book to have a standard of morals. Atheists can know right and wrong and make laws based on common sense morals. We don't need some made up god to tell us what is right and wrong. Secondly, have you read some of the "morals" in the holy books. If so, and you still follow these rules, you have very low standards for what good morals should be. One needs to look no further then the section on how to treat your slaves in the bible to see this fact!
javajedi
Oct 13, 05:56 PM
yeah, that's certianly possible. I'm not sure if that is or is not the case, but wouldn't be suprised if it is. I'll find out.
greenstork
Sep 12, 07:18 PM
I am a video editor. All the content I shoot these days is High Def. My client's video is high def. The personal movies I take of my kids are high def. I edit them in either Final Cut Pro HD or iMovie HD. I use a dLink 550 now to stream high def to my 27 LCD monitor.
BlueRay disks are soon to be high def. The iTV will handle High Def via ethernet at least.
High Def Broadcasts exist right now in SLC.
Not sure where you are at with all this but I view a lot of high def content.
I know there is plenty of HD out there but all I'm saying is that the only thing currenlty supported by Apple are your own home movies. There's no Apple solution for playing recorded HD television through their iTV. What's possible and waht's already integrated into iTunes are two different things, with completely different levels of geek involved.
BlueRay disks are soon to be high def. The iTV will handle High Def via ethernet at least.
High Def Broadcasts exist right now in SLC.
Not sure where you are at with all this but I view a lot of high def content.
I know there is plenty of HD out there but all I'm saying is that the only thing currenlty supported by Apple are your own home movies. There's no Apple solution for playing recorded HD television through their iTV. What's possible and waht's already integrated into iTunes are two different things, with completely different levels of geek involved.
Mac.World
Apr 24, 02:29 AM
Religion and politics. Two things never to be discussed on forums. Well that and iOS vs Android. :D
the vj
Apr 15, 10:03 AM
A few months ago I deleted and started to reject all the people I knew from high school in my Facebook, well, the ones that after almost 20 years came to me to add me as a friend but they were the ones that make my life a living hell and used me and took advantaged and then they turned their back on me.
You know what... get lost!
You know what... get lost!
Aduntu
Apr 22, 10:37 PM
I would first like to know by what standard you could call those doctrines wrong while verifying your own.
I'm not referring to my beliefs, nor am I interested in discussing them. I'm simply curious if there are specifically identifiable elements of religion as we know it that is uniquely off-putting to so many people. I'm trying to understand what makes it so detestable to some.
If those elements weren't there, would it change your opinion? Or is it the idea of God alone that does it?
I'm not referring to my beliefs, nor am I interested in discussing them. I'm simply curious if there are specifically identifiable elements of religion as we know it that is uniquely off-putting to so many people. I'm trying to understand what makes it so detestable to some.
If those elements weren't there, would it change your opinion? Or is it the idea of God alone that does it?
AndroidfoLife
Apr 9, 02:50 PM
Nintendo and Sony beg to differ....
Here is an easy way to explain it. You can heat a slice of bread in a toaster and a microwave oven. Are you going to say microwaves compeat with toasters now. When they do not heat bread the same way.
Here is an easy way to explain it. You can heat a slice of bread in a toaster and a microwave oven. Are you going to say microwaves compeat with toasters now. When they do not heat bread the same way.
pkson
Apr 21, 08:44 PM
....yeah the anti-virus software that I don't use.
It's a clever marketing ploy.
OH MY GOD MY TEH PC COULD GET HAXORED?!?!!@2/22?
I CAN HAZ NORTON ANTI-VIRUS!?34@
OMNONNOMNNONOMNONOM
I didn't know you were still here.
So all those people telling you that stealing is bad and everything just flew over your head, eh?
And you post rubbish like... well like your post?
I don't know much about you, but whatever you do in the future (or maybe now) when people steal stuff from you, I'm sure you would be OK... or is that considered bad because you're not as rich as Kanye?
It's a clever marketing ploy.
OH MY GOD MY TEH PC COULD GET HAXORED?!?!!@2/22?
I CAN HAZ NORTON ANTI-VIRUS!?34@
OMNONNOMNNONOMNONOM
I didn't know you were still here.
So all those people telling you that stealing is bad and everything just flew over your head, eh?
And you post rubbish like... well like your post?
I don't know much about you, but whatever you do in the future (or maybe now) when people steal stuff from you, I'm sure you would be OK... or is that considered bad because you're not as rich as Kanye?
AJsAWiz
Aug 25, 06:23 PM
Ridiculous number of dropped calls. What a terrible excuse for customer service this was. Whenever I have called them about any other issues, they have been really helpful. When this guy found out I had Iphone4, he acted like he couldn't get me off the phone fast enough. Told me "the phone has problems, get the bumper, have I resolved your issues?"
My device is quirky. The proximity sensor has a mind of its own, it gets hung up on tasks daily, the reception is terrible. For ME, Iphone4 SUCKS and when people ask me if I recommend it, I'm with CR. Miss my 3gs which my husband is enjoying. Crap.
I can relate to your frustrations, I've been going through the wringer with AT&T for about a year now . . . Mass dropped calls, poor reception in most areas or no service at all. I made multiple calls to AT&T and a few to Apple. I've been through all of the trouble shooting steps many times, including 2 sim card replacements and 3 iPhone replacements. All this on an iPhone 3 GS! As a last resort I've filed a complaint with the BBB. When my contract runs out in a few months I'll have to jump ship and ditch AT&T, and regretfully abandon the iPhone. If :apple: opens iPhone to other carriers by then I might reconsider. Guess I'll give the Android a look :(
:d
LOL
Why do you stay with ATT?
Probably, because like me and many others they are locked into a two year contract. Mine can't end fast enough :(
My device is quirky. The proximity sensor has a mind of its own, it gets hung up on tasks daily, the reception is terrible. For ME, Iphone4 SUCKS and when people ask me if I recommend it, I'm with CR. Miss my 3gs which my husband is enjoying. Crap.
I can relate to your frustrations, I've been going through the wringer with AT&T for about a year now . . . Mass dropped calls, poor reception in most areas or no service at all. I made multiple calls to AT&T and a few to Apple. I've been through all of the trouble shooting steps many times, including 2 sim card replacements and 3 iPhone replacements. All this on an iPhone 3 GS! As a last resort I've filed a complaint with the BBB. When my contract runs out in a few months I'll have to jump ship and ditch AT&T, and regretfully abandon the iPhone. If :apple: opens iPhone to other carriers by then I might reconsider. Guess I'll give the Android a look :(
:d
LOL
Why do you stay with ATT?
Probably, because like me and many others they are locked into a two year contract. Mine can't end fast enough :(
Multimedia
Oct 7, 03:08 AM
Yeah for now... But I'm sure we'll see 3GHz and faster as they increase production. All depends on when I finally decide to make my purchase. But the 2.66GHz is probably it... I may go with the 2.33GHz if the price on the 2.66 is to far out of line, but we'll see. Right now, the current 3GHz Mac Pro is $800 more, but to me that would be worth it for that extra edge on my renderings.As I've explained in detail above AV, the 2.33GHz Clovertowns are the most likely candidate as they cost Apple the same $851 as the 3GHz Woodies. So Apple can give customers a clear choice of fast 4 or slower 8 for the same +$800 total $3,300.
If Apple offers the 2.66GHz Clovertowns, they will have to charge an additional $700 just to cover their additional cost - or very little more than. While the first 8 processors will cost a little over $400 each, that additional $700 will only buy you another 2.64GHz of power or one more processor at a $300 premium. But perhaps it will be worth it to some. I just hope we get the option. I'd rather not spend that last $700 on a little faster and buy RAM instead.
If Apple offers the 2.66GHz Clovertowns, they will have to charge an additional $700 just to cover their additional cost - or very little more than. While the first 8 processors will cost a little over $400 each, that additional $700 will only buy you another 2.64GHz of power or one more processor at a $300 premium. But perhaps it will be worth it to some. I just hope we get the option. I'd rather not spend that last $700 on a little faster and buy RAM instead.
*LTD*
Apr 21, 08:21 AM
If they really cared that much about user experience, then iOS wouldn't be the Walled Garden
That's exactly the reason for the Walled Garden: superior User Experience. The "walled garden" is the reason Apple is so successful today. A controlled, tight, cohesive ecosystem based on a vertical business model - if done right - will *always* be superior to anything else out there. The proof is all laid out before you every day in the tech news feeds.
If Apple had done anything else, it would just be more undifferentiated crap, barely distinguishable from the rest of the flotsam and jetsam out there.
A few people out there just can't stand it that a closed, controlled platform is so damned successful and actually represents the ideal.
That's exactly the reason for the Walled Garden: superior User Experience. The "walled garden" is the reason Apple is so successful today. A controlled, tight, cohesive ecosystem based on a vertical business model - if done right - will *always* be superior to anything else out there. The proof is all laid out before you every day in the tech news feeds.
If Apple had done anything else, it would just be more undifferentiated crap, barely distinguishable from the rest of the flotsam and jetsam out there.
A few people out there just can't stand it that a closed, controlled platform is so damned successful and actually represents the ideal.
jvegas
Sep 12, 03:55 PM
Will it support third party codecs?
Does it have an internal flash drive?
Will I be able to order Music, TV shows and Movies using it?
Do I need a separate computer to use it?
So far, I'm not impressed. How's it different than a media extender?
I would rather have seen a mac mini with core 2 duo, better graphics support, an internal 3.5" hard drive, and HDMI.
Does it have an internal flash drive?
Will I be able to order Music, TV shows and Movies using it?
Do I need a separate computer to use it?
So far, I'm not impressed. How's it different than a media extender?
I would rather have seen a mac mini with core 2 duo, better graphics support, an internal 3.5" hard drive, and HDMI.
LQYoshi
Apr 11, 11:01 AM
Unlikely, but you can install Lion on an external drive and boot from that when you want to.
B
Would it be considered switching if I bought the mini? I"ll still have a few laptops which I'll be using with XP, but then again; I can just VNC to the OSX mac mini
B
Would it be considered switching if I bought the mini? I"ll still have a few laptops which I'll be using with XP, but then again; I can just VNC to the OSX mac mini
teasphere
Apr 13, 12:24 PM
I've just gone and read through the tweets from @fcpsupermeet, which describe the event. From comments like this (I pick this one as an example, loads of people are expressing the sentiment) I was expecting something really consumer-focussed, rather than:
Now, I'm not a video pro. I'll admit I'm a hobbyist: I was part of my university's film making society, and I've done various projects myself, but it's not my professional gig. But I can't see anything here that shows Apple moving away from the pro market. As far as I can tell they've done a really ambitious ground-up Cocoa rewrite of FCP, streamlining the workflow to make it quicker to use (no more render dialogs!), and at the same time building in loads of new tech like colour matching throughout.
Is the only thing people are bothered about the fact that they changed the UI? Because other than that, I just can't see what the complaints are about. We haven't heard any actual confirmed statements of features being removed, so why assume that any crucial ones have been? They'd have been nuts to switch away from a timeline-based system like iMovie did, and so of course they didn't do that. They rewrote everything from scratch to remove a bunch of legacy baggage (like the lack of multithreading, and the Carbon UI that prevented it going 64 bit), which is awesome, but I completely can't see any evidence of a change of focus.
Amorya
Just to clarify, I was speaking more to true high-end pro scalability... and I tried to be clear that while the product is still "pro" software alone is not the whole story. Many products in the truly pro arena are highly scalable and it just seems that Apple is moving away from this and back to single computer apps. No servers, no farms, no virtualization, etc. and as I said I am an IT professional and have and do support many systems like I mentioned and Apple is becoming essentially impossible to utilize in an environment like that.
We're talking about two different things. You are talking from an end-user/single user "pro" side and I am talking about multi-user, large-scale, modern datacenter, "pro" side. And also, I'm saying that I'd LOVE to see Apple more in that space, not less as it is going.
Now, I'm not a video pro. I'll admit I'm a hobbyist: I was part of my university's film making society, and I've done various projects myself, but it's not my professional gig. But I can't see anything here that shows Apple moving away from the pro market. As far as I can tell they've done a really ambitious ground-up Cocoa rewrite of FCP, streamlining the workflow to make it quicker to use (no more render dialogs!), and at the same time building in loads of new tech like colour matching throughout.
Is the only thing people are bothered about the fact that they changed the UI? Because other than that, I just can't see what the complaints are about. We haven't heard any actual confirmed statements of features being removed, so why assume that any crucial ones have been? They'd have been nuts to switch away from a timeline-based system like iMovie did, and so of course they didn't do that. They rewrote everything from scratch to remove a bunch of legacy baggage (like the lack of multithreading, and the Carbon UI that prevented it going 64 bit), which is awesome, but I completely can't see any evidence of a change of focus.
Amorya
Just to clarify, I was speaking more to true high-end pro scalability... and I tried to be clear that while the product is still "pro" software alone is not the whole story. Many products in the truly pro arena are highly scalable and it just seems that Apple is moving away from this and back to single computer apps. No servers, no farms, no virtualization, etc. and as I said I am an IT professional and have and do support many systems like I mentioned and Apple is becoming essentially impossible to utilize in an environment like that.
We're talking about two different things. You are talking from an end-user/single user "pro" side and I am talking about multi-user, large-scale, modern datacenter, "pro" side. And also, I'm saying that I'd LOVE to see Apple more in that space, not less as it is going.
Macky-Mac
Apr 24, 11:15 AM
..... If he does exist one must assume that he intends the Bible to be read literally. If he didn't then why did he go through the whole bother of having it written by the disciples in the first place if people were just going to change and reinterpret it willy nilly based on whatever the current political or social ideals of the time are?
not at all......God is perfectly aware that people make mistakes. Indeed, they can't be trusted to get anything perfectly right, so if God wanted the Bible to have been taken literally, he have written it out himself and wouldn't have involved people in the project in the first place
not at all......God is perfectly aware that people make mistakes. Indeed, they can't be trusted to get anything perfectly right, so if God wanted the Bible to have been taken literally, he have written it out himself and wouldn't have involved people in the project in the first place
archipellago
May 2, 04:32 PM
Such a load of crap that is.
'we've interviewed hackers after conviction'
:rolleyes:
I work for one of the biggest bank in the world and specialise in bank fraud, we liaise with the major law enforcement group all over the world.
Cutting a deal with a hacker, if we can get one who's up high enough can save millions....with the right info.
mac users tend to be socially engineered via simpler methods anyway, wonder why that is...? :rolleyes:
'we've interviewed hackers after conviction'
:rolleyes:
I work for one of the biggest bank in the world and specialise in bank fraud, we liaise with the major law enforcement group all over the world.
Cutting a deal with a hacker, if we can get one who's up high enough can save millions....with the right info.
mac users tend to be socially engineered via simpler methods anyway, wonder why that is...? :rolleyes:
samdweck
Oct 7, 04:42 PM
well then just get the heck out of here, leave, please, it may happen soon! godspeed!
Phil A.
Aug 29, 04:00 PM
Well that's more to do with Blair being uninformed and making decisions because he likes to sound better than he is. If Blair hadn't been a pillock and stuck to the realistic, achievable timeline that everyone else stuck to, then it would have been achievable. Why he said we'd double those targets is beyond most people except the monkey labour spin doctor that suggested it.
What the Greenpeace report is saying, is that Apple don't even have a strategy (timeline) for restricting material use (bar legal restrictions) and that is a black mark for the company when compared to a company that does. it's doing what it has to do, not what it should be doing if it wants to be considered the best. Dell is similar to this but is further along.
This is also related to Apple's almost nazi-like paranoia about secrecy which is harming its reputation on several fronts.
As has already been asked on this thread, why couldn't Apple release details of all the materials is uses or equivalent detail to other manufacturers? Why couldn't it be pro-active and understand the impact it could have (like putting it up at the top of this report)? perhaps because it's not actually as all conquering/superior and clever as it likes people to think?
I completely agree that a company that has a timeline for implementing change should be marked higher than one that says "we'll do it" but gives no dates. I still maintain, however, that companies should not be given full marks until they've actually delivered on their promises - at the present moment neither company is actually doing anything to protect the environment in those areas
What the Greenpeace report is saying, is that Apple don't even have a strategy (timeline) for restricting material use (bar legal restrictions) and that is a black mark for the company when compared to a company that does. it's doing what it has to do, not what it should be doing if it wants to be considered the best. Dell is similar to this but is further along.
This is also related to Apple's almost nazi-like paranoia about secrecy which is harming its reputation on several fronts.
As has already been asked on this thread, why couldn't Apple release details of all the materials is uses or equivalent detail to other manufacturers? Why couldn't it be pro-active and understand the impact it could have (like putting it up at the top of this report)? perhaps because it's not actually as all conquering/superior and clever as it likes people to think?
I completely agree that a company that has a timeline for implementing change should be marked higher than one that says "we'll do it" but gives no dates. I still maintain, however, that companies should not be given full marks until they've actually delivered on their promises - at the present moment neither company is actually doing anything to protect the environment in those areas
