So, I guess this kind of disproves the theory that his letter wasn't a response to Greenpeace. He still can't shut up about them. It's not surprising that Jobs wants to design the scorecard. When you rank last compared to everyone else changing the way the game is scored can only help you. If you get to make up the scoring system yourself, you should be in first place. Sorry Steve, oversight requires someone outside of company keeping score, otherwise it's just another PR stunt by Apple.

Don't worry John, per your posting yesterday, Steve's comments all immaterial anyways.

Quote

Guest wrote:
So, I guess this kind of disproves the theory that his letter wasn't a response to Greenpeace. He still can't shut up about them. It's not surprising that Jobs wants to design the scorecard. When you rank last compared to everyone else changing the way the game is scored can only help you. If you get to make up the scoring system yourself, you should be in first place. Sorry Steve, oversight requires someone outside of company keeping score, otherwise it's just another PR stunt by Apple.

Well, Steve's not alone in his thoughts - in fact, most articles I read after Jobs' letter were somewhat favorable to Apple - except for Greenpeace, of course. Now, who's trying to design that scorecard? That would be Greenpeace, the entity with a huge agenda amidst decreasing relevance - due to their exceptionally overblown rhetoric.

I think when Apple responded that they were doing essentially (not completely) what Greenpeace wanted, Greenpeace was caught unawares. Apple was actually doing what its competitors were merely predicting, and Greenpeace had nothing substantive to say. All of a sudden, their attention-cow was gone, and instead of doing the stand-up thing and congratulating Apple, they blew it big time. They had every opportunity to turn this into an agenda for the larger producers (HP, Dell, etc.) and really make a difference; instead they hung their hat on the niche-producer, but headline-making, Apple. Idiots.

Quote

Guest wrote:
If you get to make up the scoring system yourself, you should be in first place. Sorry Steve, oversight requires someone outside of company keeping score, otherwise it's just another PR stunt by Apple.

Quote

Steve Jobs wrote:
It would be very helpful if [Greenpeace] hired a few more engineers and actually entered into dialogue with companies to find out what they are really doing and not just listen to all the flowery language when in reality most of them aren't doing anything. That's my opinion.

So, you say that challenging Greenpeace to talk with computer companies directly is not the way to hold companies accountable? That the current method of grading companies based on their PR reports is more accurate?

Please explain. That seems totally backwards.

You know, guest, you are right. It should stay just the way it is. In fact, everything else in the world should work the same way. Maybe sports could start using the same philosophy as the current scorecard uses. You know, like this: Team A claims that at the end of the game they will be 10 points ahead of Team B, so Team A automatically wins. Actual facts should not enter into the picture. That might cloud things too much.

Hey, lay off guest. He obviously feels very passionate about this issue. As we all know, computers are the single most significant environmental threat today. So those who focus their energy on this topic are doing so only out of a desire to affect the most positive impact possible on our planet. I mean, what other possible motivation could there be?

And why does anyone care?

RE: So, I guess this kind of disproves the theory that his letter wasn't a response to Greenpeace...


Boy, are YOU a dick.

Quote

jfbiii wrote:
And why does anyone care?

i agree. im just sick of hearing about the whole g/d thing.

Greenpeace in Machiavellian in their political tactics. They are first and foremost a political organization, not an environmental group. This is why they alienate most of those whom they supposedly seek to influence.

Considering their leadership can't really be so stupid as to want to alienate a target audience, it would seem that their intentions purposefully go beyond those they publicly state (environmental change)-- and that those they alienate are ultimately not their concern, but their decided cause to fight against. Greenpeace positions itself against capitalism and consumerism in general, as a happy consumer is seen as the enemy to the cause of forced egalitarianism.

... you'd know that they will rank companies based upon announced future policies, not actual performance, just like Steve stated.

Steve wants an "actions speak louder than words" scorecard. What do you want?

Apple is Machiavellian in their marketing and in their business tactics. They are the first and foremost technological company that employs "attack ads" targeting their industry superiors and their global critics. This is why they alienate most of those whome they supposedly seek to sell to.

Considering their leadership can't really bo so stupid as to think everyone will believe everything they say, it would seem that their intention purposefully go beyond the issues at hand (Apple's polluting)-- and that those that see through them are ultimately not their concern, but their already lost supporters, consumers & global watchdogs. Apple positions itself against capitalism and consumer choice in general, as an intelligent consumer not captivated by a shiny box is seen as unhip and the cause of Apple's legal issues.

Quote

Guest wrote:
... you'd know that they will rank companies based upon announced future policies, not actual performance, just like Steve stated.

Steve wants an "actions speak louder than words" scorecard. What do you want?

If you had read the report you would know that public commitments to change are only part of the scoring, and other parts include "what they are doing now" and Apple even scored well with its recycling program. But you didn't read that part of the report apparently if you read any of it.

Steve's "actions" had already been counted. Public commitments are "actions" too, and never before now did Apple make any.

Quote

Guest wrote:
Apple is Machiavellian in their marketing and in their business tactics. They are the first and foremost technological company that employs "attack ads" targeting their industry superiors and their global critics. This is why they alienate most of those whome they supposedly seek to sell to.

Considering their leadership can't really bo so stupid as to think everyone will believe everything they say, it would seem that their intention purposefully go beyond the issues at hand (Apple's polluting)-- and that those that see through them are ultimately not their concern, but their already lost supporters, consumers & global watchdogs. Apple positions itself against capitalism and consumer choice in general, as an intelligent consumer not captivated by a shiny box is seen as unhip and the cause of Apple's legal issues.

LOL. There it is. And here I really thought it was the environment that guest was so passionate about!

Good luck to you guys who wake up in a few years to realize your "movement" is using you.

Toodles.

Quote

Guest wrote:

Quote

Guest wrote:
... you'd know that they will rank companies based upon announced future policies, not actual performance, just like Steve stated.

Steve wants an "actions speak louder than words" scorecard. What do you want?

If you had read the report you would know that public commitments to change are only part of the scoring, and other parts include "what they are doing now" and Apple even scored well with its recycling program. But you didn't read that part of the report apparently if you read any of it.

Steve's "actions" had already been counted. Public commitments are "actions" too, and never before now did Apple make any.

I have read the report... but what you fail to grasp is that "public commitments to change" should not be scored at all! The PR coming out of a company has ZERO impact on "Saving The Planet", which is what Greenpeace claims to be all about.

Just like all politicians, Greenpeace is all about getting cash and headlines to further themselves, while hiding behind a "cause".

You bring shame to the good name of "Guest"

Quote

Biff wrote:

Quote

Guest wrote:
Apple is Machiavellian in their marketing and in their business tactics. They are the first and foremost technological company that employs "attack ads" targeting their industry superiors and their global critics. This is why they alienate most of those whome they supposedly seek to sell to.

Considering their leadership can't really bo so stupid as to think everyone will believe everything they say, it would seem that their intention purposefully go beyond the issues at hand (Apple's polluting)-- and that those that see through them are ultimately not their concern, but their already lost supporters, consumers & global watchdogs. Apple positions itself against capitalism and consumer choice in general, as an intelligent consumer not captivated by a shiny box is seen as unhip and the cause of Apple's legal issues.

LOL. There it is. And here I really thought it was the environment that guest was so passionate about!

It was a parody of the post two previous, but if you see truth in it, who am I to stop you.

Quote

Guest wrote:

I have read the report... but what you fail to grasp is that "public commitments to change" should not be scored at all!

I gotta disagree with your there Bob. When a company makes public commitments to change, you know what happens? They either change or face backlash. It's a driving force.

I'll ignore all the personal attacks you sling in the previous post, but maybe you do know something about politics with that example.

Quote

Guest wrote:

Quote

Guest wrote:

I have read the report... but what you fail to grasp is that "public commitments to change" should not be scored at all!

I gotta disagree with your there Bob. When a company makes public commitments to change, you know what happens? They either change or face backlash. It's a driving force.

I'll ignore all the personal attacks you sling in the previous post, but maybe you do know something about politics with that example.

(Keep in mind that there are multiple Guests)
Company PR means nothing, it never has. No company is held accountable to their PR (just like a politician's promise)... there is always something shiny that they can wave at the unwashed masses to make them forget all about that PR statement.

Brutno,

Actually, Greenpeace applauded Apple for letting us into Jobs' plans about environmental policy. Just visit www.greenpeace.org. They have a report on Jobs' letter, where they salute him and... as usual... ask for more.

I can't understand why so many guys are picking on Greenpeace for their criticism of Apple. Particularly, after Jobs published his letter. Some say that Greenpeace has flunked. If you don't like Greenpeace, fine. But if you try to be impartial about the issue being discussed here, then there is really no ground for such a criticism, now of Greenpeace.

They have never concealed the fact that their report is based much on what the company is going to do in future, rather than what it has currently done. Is it wrong approach? May be. But there is no ground to say they lied or criticized Apple in vain or something alike. They asked for the policy for the next 2-3 years. And by now they've got it.

Personally, I don't get why Greenpeace didn't include in their reports what the components of electronics consist of. But, having read their press-release, I think they probably have a point.

Look, they say that currently there is no such thing as green computer. With the toxics currently present in them, they can't be called green, regardless the manufacturer. And regardless the relative amount of these toxics among the computers, among the producers. Look - if the water you drink contains 50g of arsenic per liter or 100g per liter, it doesn't really matter. You're gonna die. The same thing with computers - currently there is no green computer. There is only a hope that the green computer will be in the future. And that's why they asked Steve to give them a timeline - to get to know with the date when Apple is gonna make their green computer. Green not in relation to HP, Dell, or somewhat. But green in relation to the green concept.

I don't hate Greenpeace. I think they've done some great things in the past. (I need to check in on them and see what else they're up to now.) I happen to think their methodology on scoring computer recycling is flawed and that they are pushing more for political points here (by latching on to the PR coattails of Apple) in this case. I can't fault them too much. That's part of how they operate: doing high profile stunts to get attention for whatever their cause is at the moment. Sometimes it works. I think this one ends up as kind of half-and-half blunder and success. They alienate a lot of tech savvy folks but maybe get notice from some unknowing consumers who begin to realize they should recycle a system instead of just dumping it with the garbage.

Actually, my local trash pick up has a number to call to schedule electronic component equipment, including CRTs, computers, old routers and switches and such. Yours might, too. Along with the palces that take and refurbish systems for places that need them. Everyone should check up on that kind of thing...

Sorry. Getting a little off topic.

greenpeace--if you are not part the solution, you are part of the problem !

"Actually, Greenpeace applauded Apple for letting us into Jobs' plans about environmental policy. Just visit www.greenpeace.org. They have a report on Jobs' letter, where they salute him and... as usual... ask for more."

It appears you took their response at face value. I did not, and therefore beg to differ. The need to ask for a donation on the response page reeks of hubris and further illustrates Greenpeace's attention-mongering policies.

Greenpeace got their you-know-what handed to them by Jobs and had to backpeddle to save face. I'll say it again, instead of acting in a forthright manner and really, truly, complimenting Apple, they chose to issue a backhanded compliment. Do you think Jobs would have raked them over the coals yesterday if they had issued a response with any substance?

While I believe their goals are admirable, I also believe their modus operandi is pitiful.

I honestly can't understand your argument.

This was on a shareholder's meeting. Greenpeace representatives, who purchased one or two Apple shares to get the right to attend such a meeting, took the opportunity to challenge Apple's CEO, and they got their response. As anyone would expect, if you piss on Jobs' leg, don't expect him not to respond.

So what did he say? 1. Greenpeace is completely incompetent in environmental issues. They should hire a few engineers who actually understand their job. 2. Instead of pissing on companies with their press releases, Greenpeace should try to enter into a meaningful dialog with companies. 3. Greenpeace should create a scorecard based on science, not on press releases.

To summarize: If you piss on Steve Jobs, you should have done your homework yourself. Greenpeace hasn't. Personally, I think if Greenpeace genuinely wanted to influence Apple's actions in any way, they couldn't have gone about it in a more incompetent way. Whether they are indeed just totally incompetent, or whether this is just a cynical attempt to get attention, you can decide for yourself.

Hmm, incompetent, they got Apple to finally react. Sounds like the did exactly what they intended to do. Sure, Steve is going to explode and act like a child who was denied his lollipop because it's horrible PR for a company that is a PR machine. Sorry you had to burst and act immature at the shareholder meeting Steve, maybe cooler heads will prevail when you actually do the things you say you are going to do.

"Child denied his lollypop" ? "Horrible PR" ? "Burst and act immature at the shareholder meeting" ? I'd say you are exactly describing Greenpeace here. In psychology, that is called "projection".