"According to stats from the Journal, this won't be much of a blow to Apple. Only about 500 to 700, or 1 percent to 2 percent total, of San Francisco computers are Macs."
So yeah, you'll have to pardon me if this strikes me as non-news.
> "According to stats from the Journal, this won't be much of a blow to Apple. Only about 500 to 700, or 1 percent to 2 percent total, of San Francisco computers are Macs."
To expand on this, in 2010, the City of San Francisco spent $45k on Apple computing products in 2010[1]. Or, in other words: not much.
I don't disagree, but for some reason nobody seems to be writing that article, they're just writing about the city of San Francisco and hoping it feels important.
Apple may be right in claiming EPEAT wasn't evolving - but large organizations with environmental targets & commitments to meet depend on standards rather than the non-scalable need to scrutinize & validate every individual vendor's approach.
The real damage will come from environmentally aware people. And this news has already taken center stage. Its a bad publicity for Apple specially now that the message is clear - "Go to hell with environment and recycling, we care only about our margin and our product."
"According to stats from the Journal, this won't be much of a blow to Apple. Only about 500 to 700, or 1 percent to 2 percent total, of San Francisco computers are Macs."
So yeah, you'll have to pardon me if this strikes me as non-news.
reply