Current Apple machines don't meet new EnergyStar guidelines

Uh-oh, Steve: Apple just got a little less green. New, more stringent requirements for EnergyStar certification went into effect last week, and while most manufacturers have a model or two that meets the updated regs, not a single shipping Mac qualifies. Apple's taken a lot of heat in the past for its environmental policies, and while Steve's blasted back with stats of his own and committed to steps like totally eliminating CCFL backlights in Apple displays, the loss of something like EnergyStar certification isn't going to sit so well with critics -- or shareholders, for that matter. Manufacturers have until January to update their machines or lose the certification, so this isn't a huge blow, but Apple's been insistent that it's more eco-conscious that other companies -- looks like it's put up or shut up time.

[Via Floppyhead]

[Steve Jobs @ Jul 27th 2007 9:09PM]

D'oh!

[Karl @ Jul 27th 2007 9:12PM]

You forget to mention an important fact:
"Only about 125 desktops *AND* laptops currently meet the new stringent requirements. " (emphasis mine)

That's not a large number. It doesn't seem many in the industry are well prepared for this move; or if they are, they're keeping the products for later. And with rampant speculation about new iMacs and possible Macbooks before the year is out, I don't think Apple is any more underprepared than any other OEMs.

[Mr. Bill @ Jul 27th 2007 9:40PM]

Good thing there will be like 2 more product revs before January.... Who cares! :)

[Elaine @ Jul 27th 2007 9:42PM]

Green Apples are sour ;P

[Aaron Zollo @ Jul 27th 2007 9:46PM]

This seems to possibly reinforce the idea of a new imac in august. We will see.

[ticked off @ Jul 27th 2007 9:50PM]

"Apple is transitioning the main logic board used in the MacBook (13-inch Mid 2007) to an Energy Star (ESTAR) compliant logic board with a modified battery transfer cable."

[Christopher Price @ Jul 27th 2007 9:52PM]

This is a bunch of utter nonsense. Energy Star makes new guidelines, says they'll be phased in over time, and Apple gets attacked for not phasing in quick enough. This is pure FUD that Energy Star never intended to propagate. If Apple didn't meet the qualifications come January, that might be noteworthy. This isn't.

And, I really wouldn't care if Apple's Pro models didn't meet the requirements come January either. I think it's nice that Apple stays near the top of the environmental scale, but Apple shouldn't cut off its feet to spite its green nose. You want Apple to stay successful? Let them exercise eco-friendliness in moderation... like everyone else should.

What next? Are we going to attack Steve Jobs for not driving a plug-in hybrd? You can mod your Prius to do so today... so should we bash Jobs for not having one already?

- Christopher Price
http://www.phonenews.com

[michael @ Jul 27th 2007 10:40PM]

Dude. I seriously think someone is paying a bit too much obsession with Apple.

Apple says their going to be more greener, then we want to see bigger results. After all, we want to make sure Apple isn't greenwashing, right?

[Fred @ Jul 27th 2007 10:55PM]

I agree this is crap. Everybody and there mother is saying GREEN GREEN GREEN. I would imagine that Apple will rush to meet the new standards pretty quick. Lest we forget that the inventor of the intarweb, Al Gore is on the board of directors.

[Karl @ Jul 28th 2007 1:13AM]

woa, easy there. I agree that this isn't much news - the article states that there are a very small number of laptops/pcs that are compliant with the new standard.

However, going green isn't something that should be taken lightly. It's a very serious problem. Don't go slipping in to the "I can't see it, therefore it doesn't exist" trap. The US in particular has been very lax on climate change, so I'm glad to see regulations like this that try to do their bit.

[BananaBoat @ Jul 27th 2007 9:53PM]

What does this certification get you? A pat on the back? The first thing I do when I buy a new laptop is make sure it's not set to Energystar conservation mode, so I don't know what the big deal is. If it's important to apple, I'm sure they'll fix it, but really, why would the shareholders not be happy? How does this hurt them financially?

[seoultrain @ Jul 28th 2007 12:44AM]

This is probably important to the environmentalists out there. I'd say that keeping Apple's image as a green company is very important. Although environmentalists are a very small percentage of people, they tend to be very loud, and could hurt Apple in the long run.

[Neal @ Jul 28th 2007 2:51AM]

Let's get this straight: the "first thing" you do is turn it off? You must be a total asshat, and an incredible bore, to boot. This kind of selfish idiocy is exactly what got us into this environmental mess to begin with. Like your internet porn fix is so vital that you can't wait an extra 15-30 seconds for a machine to resume from standby???

[johnzilla @ Jul 28th 2007 9:26AM]

@Neal:

He bought it, he can do what he wants with it, it is his option. How would you like it if I told you how to use everything you owned, whether you liked it or not?

Get over yourself...for all you know the guy turns off the EnergyStar options on his new laptop but generates his own power from solar and uses a composting toilet.

[Karl @ Jul 28th 2007 11:01AM]

The report says that federal employees are only allowed to purchase energystar-compliant laptops. I'm sure many companies, trying to project a green image, will enforce something simillar.

[Stan Winstone @ Jul 27th 2007 9:58PM]

The only reason why the nuts at Greenpeace go after Apple is that they're the only corporation who actually give an f. Try peddling this crap at Microsoft, "Ballmers, RELEASE THE HOUNDS!"

[greg3d @ Jul 29th 2007 12:03AM]

Microsoft does not build computers, dumbass.

[Stan Winstone @ Jul 29th 2007 11:36AM]

Oh yeah right- sorry dumbass. They build computer table thingies and some music playing poc called Zune or something? Pardon me for not being up to date on their gear.

[morcheeba @ Jul 27th 2007 10:42PM]

Inaccurate. Check the ratings of each machine here: http://www.apple.com/environment/resources/specs.html
These meet Energystar v4.0 (this latest spec): mini, pro quad-core, macbook, macbook pro
These meet Energystar v3.0 (the previous spec): pro dual-core, imac
The criteria for monitors was not updated, and Apple's monitors meet the old spec (January 1, 2005).
The new spec does not apply to servers like the Xserve line.

[Alex @ Jul 27th 2007 10:55PM]

You Mac Fanboys are pathetic.

[Darnell @ Jul 27th 2007 11:18PM]

Thanks for taking time out and coming into an Apple-related thread to tell us that. Loser.

[Alex @ Jul 27th 2007 11:19PM]

It's just pathetic how there's always an excuse for their mistakes. Wake up and smell the dough!

[Mac Dub @ Jul 28th 2007 5:22AM]

What mistakes???

[johnzilla @ Jul 28th 2007 9:28AM]

1994 called, they want their insult back.

[Zadillo @ Jul 27th 2007 10:57PM]

It looks like a lot of companies don't really have much if anything. Just looking at this list, Asus doesn't have a single model, for example. Dell is limited to 3 Optiplex machines (meaning none of their major products, like their Inspirons or Latitudes are covwered). HP, of all the laptops and desktops they make, has a total of 1 machine, the RP5700 Business PC. Toshiba's most popular Satellite laptops aren't included. Frankly it seems like Lenovo is the only one that seems to have all their bases covered, with the R61, T61, T61p, X61, X61t and X61s all represented. Acer and Gateway seem to at least have a handful of models.

But yeah, honestly, given how bare this list is, and that some of the companies who have a much more diverse product line than Apple have only one or two items, it doesn't really surprise me that Apple's stuff isn't there yet.

I am curious though, if that list is just machines that have gotten certified or whatever yet. The reason I ask is that, looking at the list, I can't see why a lot of those Lenovo ThinkPads are there but a lot of comparable Dells are not (why isn't the Dell Latitude 630 on there, for example?).

I suspect somehow that this is an incomplete list, and whichever companies don't have anything or much there yet, it doesn't necessarily reflect which of their products actually qualify.

[2playedout @ Jul 27th 2007 11:02PM]

Apple fan boys /girls/ octopusses/ turtles, whatever are way out of control recently. Apple used to be worth rooting for but now they are just money hungery like Google and Microsoft. All this love is no longer deserved. They make "OK" Computers and IMO bad MP3 players (Just cause you sell 4 billion crappy MP3 players doesn't mean that they are still not crappy). There is no such thing as a perfect company, I understand that but let me just fling in this information. Microsoft makes software that works with just about every configuration of computers available. Meanwhile Apple can only create OSs that work with there hardware. OF COURSE its going to run better on THEIR HARDWARE! but does that make it better? No. If Microsoft made their own hardware I would be pretty damn shocked if their software didn't work as well or better than an Apple's on their computers. The whole point of this is, WTF is my muffin?

[Alex @ Jul 27th 2007 11:17PM]

Agree with you 100%.

[Alex @ Jul 27th 2007 11:18PM]

Not to even mention how worthless the iPhone is compared to what Microsoft has been putting out for years.

[Destro @ Jul 27th 2007 11:34PM]

It's funny how some people have so much contempt for Apple that they can't even discuss a topic without going off on unrelated tangents.

This story is about Apple's Energy Star compliance, not Mac OS X vs. Windows, or the iPhone vs. some generic WinMo device. Please enligthen me... what does that have to do with the topic?

P.S.: It looks like you're running low on haterade.

[John @ Jul 28th 2007 12:12AM]

I suppose you're entitled to your opinion on proprietary hardware configurations, but I really don't see the point in arguing, as it's a matter of preference.

I'm pretty sure every mac owner understands that they could get a PC for hundreds if not thousands of dollars cheaper. PCs are everywhere and they're not going anywhere anytime soon. You're beating a dead horse in this respect.

I have to say, though, that it's a pleasure to work with software that has requirements of "OSX 10.x or later" instead of "2 GB RAM, 1 GB SD-RAM, Direct X 10, 4x DVD-ROM drive, various 3rd party apps, Microsoft .NET Framework...." The point you make about "of COURSE it's going to work better if they designed the software for the hardware" is exactly what Jobs is getting at in his business model. It's such an elementary concept that you proved its simplicity just by trying to use it as an argument!

You ask, "but does that make it better?" and you'd be surprised to know that, contrary to your opinion, it does make it better. In fact, it's a bit ridiculous to think that it wouldn't make it better. I ENCOURAGE microsoft to start building their own computers! Windows Vista would go from the size of a DVD disk to the size of a 3.5" floppy from not having so many friggin drivers and hardware compatibility requirements! I would actually even switch back to a PC if microsoft starting building their own computers because you're right, it would be FAST. The fact of the matter is that, at this point, it's not happening and PCs are nothing but bloatware and ticking time bombs to become obsolete.

It's amazing how some friends of mine get new PCs every two years or so because, regardless of how fast they are out of the box, they inevitably become sluggish and impossible to work with. I mean, really. Remember when you first got your computer with Windows XP, and you noted how the Start menu popped right up instantly when you clicked on it? Now do you notice how those days are gone and the Start menu takes a good 5 seconds to pop up? On the contrary, my friends with 4G Powerbooks are still running smoothly and are showing no signs of needing a new computer.

In the end, the choice is yours, but hating on Apple's business model based on false information is a bit excessive.

[joe @ Jul 28th 2007 12:41AM]

Microsoft is great because even though some for their software is the not the best out there almost anyone can set it up and use to run their business. Windows, Office, IE, Exchange, IIS, SQL make it easy for people to make money. Microsoft did start building their own computers and it is called the Xbox 360 and it Fucking awesome.

[michael @ Jul 28th 2007 12:42AM]

@John: Not to bother with the old Mac vs. PC debate, but I think you should know:

A high-end/mid-range PC, Windows Vista, anti-virus program works just as great as a Mac.

I would know because I happen to use both. I've had a Sony Vaio for months with Windows Vista, and I've had no problems. No viruses, no slowness, no bad AERO, it just works quite nice.

So if you just get a high-end/mid-range PC, it should be different to the Mac in terms of hardware, nice design, and specs. Just my .02.

[seoultrain @ Jul 28th 2007 12:46AM]

I wouldn't say the ipod is crappy. Just overpriced.

[seoultrain @ Jul 28th 2007 12:52AM]

John is definitely right on how people who don't take care of machines will find that Windows grows slower and slower. But for those of us who know how to keep our machines running well without much effort (though sadly, antivirus isn't enough these days), Windows can run just as fast and reliably as Macs. Oh, and we can overclock.

btw, I will run XP until I have no choice but to "upgrade"

[seoultrain @ Jul 28th 2007 1:02AM]

John is definitely right on how people who don't take care of machines will find that Windows grows slower and slower. But for those of us who know how to keep our machines running well without much effort (though sadly, antivirus isn't enough these days), Windows can run just as fast and reliably as Macs. Oh, and we can overclock.

btw, I will run XP until I have no choice but to "upgrade"

[GregGrunge @ Jul 28th 2007 6:46AM]

Michael,

Enjoy that Vista system running nicely for the time being... what be the case in about 6 months. Whereas my 7 year old PowerMac G4 runs BETTER and FASTER than it did the day I got it out of the box... gotta love a company that knows how to actually optimize system resources rather than bog them down.

[fone munky @ Jul 27th 2007 11:03PM]

Maybe engadget could do some fact-checking of its own before posting a story attributed to someone else...

All of Apples laptops are compliant with the new Energy Star spec, as well as the mac mini and the 8-core mac pro.

[Alan Erickson @ Jul 27th 2007 11:26PM]

Considering that you cannot service the battery in either the ipod or the iphone and that they want you to discard your device and buy a new one when the battery dies, I would never consider Apple green company.

[Destro @ Jul 27th 2007 11:34PM]

Apple offers to replace the battery in all of those devices. If you choose to throw it away when the battery dies, it only reveals how much of a clod *you* are.

[stens @ Jul 29th 2007 5:22PM]

Actually, given the content of any of the electronic devices out there, from computers to MP3 players, etc. I wouldn't consider ANY of the electronic manufacturers to be green.

Of course, I don't care. I still have a houseful of gadgets.

[Dolomite @ Jul 28th 2007 12:03AM]

all of Apple's MacBooks, MacBook Pros and the Mac minis meet the new EnergyStar 4.0 guideline. If you don't believe me take a look at the certifications here: http://www.apple.com/environment/resources/specs.html

The EnergyStar website is out of date.

[JT_X @ Jul 28th 2007 12:05AM]

Actually, Apple has been incredibly profitable for most of its existence.

[fraklinc @ Jul 28th 2007 1:07AM]

alan, sorry to inform you that your wrong dude, because thats where apple is proving how green they are, just think about it, what happens when people replace there battery, it end up in the regular garbage bags and it ends up on fields contaminating things that can be recycle, but if you let apple replace it for you, you might end up spending the same money as your local dealer and you bet its goin to get dispose correctly, not to mention a pro will be working on your baby

[Christopher Price @ Jul 28th 2007 1:56AM]

Unfortunately, a lot of people misunderstand "moderation" for "ignoring the problem". I personally think that America should not tie its hands behind its back while China becomes the worlds largest polluter under "developing nation" status. America should force other nations to take some of the most basic economic reforms... otherwise our scientists won't be able to tell us how to "go green" in the future.

[Jason Brown @ Jul 28th 2007 1:41AM]

ok apple aside(couldn't care less!" this may explain the delays in releasing all of the previous months announced santa rosas. a few asus's and the hp hdx have launched but the other thousand have not. it seems keeping to mid year announcements pays off allowing plenty of time to fix an entire years worth of notebook. guess some will be caught with their pants down, painted in a corner so to say!

[Aaron @ Jul 28th 2007 2:25AM]

Dang, I guess Kermit was right. It ain't easy bein' green.

[Joshua Ochs @ Jul 28th 2007 2:34AM]

This sounds good to me. I'm always glad to see environmental standards and certifications move forward, because industry in general isn't going to do it on their own. If Apple is behind, then agreed that this should be a good kick in the pants.

[jason @ Jul 28th 2007 8:16AM]

mac vs pc aside, this is just lazy reporting. the new energy star requirements effect EVERY computer manufacturer that wants to sell in the US, and they are ALL going to have to make updates before January to meet the new standards. Throwing that all on apple is just a lazy way of fueling the fanboy/hater debate. Thats about as logical as saying that IEEE ratifying a new version of 802.11 would leave apples equipment a generation behind, what the point of singling them out?

I love engadget as a whole, but come one, sometimes you have to think before you type.

[Dave @ Jul 28th 2007 8:52AM]

I agree with the above guy when he says "I love engadget as a whole, but come one, sometimes you have to think before you type."

Seriously, since EVERYONE has to do it and according to Apple's website they already are, why single them out in this post??
Most computers sold are not even from Apple.
Are we now going to have five engadget articles saying 'Current dell/Apex/Microbits machines don't meet new EnergyStar requirements'??
Sheesh, give me some real news engadget, this, is not news. Finish high school, come back and have another go...

[hdub @ Jul 28th 2007 9:01AM]

They single Apple out because nothing generates page hits like a juicy Apple story. I enjoy reading engadget as well, but a little more journalistic rigor and integrity would be welcomed.