Apple’s latest unsustainable design was just greenlighted by the Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool registry (EPEAT). And it’s a clear case of greenwashing.
Apple’s Retina MacBook Pro—the least repairable, least recyclable computer I have encountered in more than a decade of disassembling electronics—was just verified “Gold”, along with four other ultrabooks. This decision demonstrates that the EPEAT standard has been watered down to an alarming degree.
EPEAT is the most popular environmental rating for green electronics. Instead of legislating that manufacturers produce environmentally friendly products, the EPA tackles the problem indirectly. As the world’s largest purchaser of electronics, the federal government requires at least 95% of the products each agency purchases comply with the EPEAT standard. Used by procurement officials in large organizations, EPEAT is designed to encourage manufacturers to create environmentally preferable products.
At best, the interpretation of the EPEAT Gold standard is laughably out of touch: it claims proprietary Pentalobe screwdrivers are ‘commonly available tools’ and a USB thumb drive is an ‘upgrade.’ At worst, it may mean that recyclers a decade from now will be faced with a mountain of electronic waste they cannot affordably recycle without custom disassembly fixtures and secret manufacturer information.
Technology undoubtedly makes our lives better. But the social and environmental price of manufacturing electronics is high. If we’re going to pay that price, it’s critical that products last as long as possible. We need strong green electronics standards that encourage long lasting products; the future of our planet depends on it.
Apple announced they were leaving the EPEAT registry soon after they released a slew of new laptops this summer, including the MacBook Pro with Retina display. We wondered why it was the first Apple laptop in recent memory not listed in the EPEAT registry: when we took it apart, we learned it was glued together and completely non-upgradeable. The RAM was soldered in, the SSD storage used a proprietary interface, the battery was secured to the case with impressively strong glue, and the case was held together using proprietary screws.
We know that Apple’s products aren’t green: iPods routinely fail after a couple years. Just about everyone I know has a dead iPod in a drawer somewhere. Apple’s design trend is toward glued-together products with batteries that may fail after 12-24 months—they make repair so difficult that people rarely replace the batteries, opting instead to buy a replacement device.
Creating products designed to require replacement every couple years has a substantial impact. Apple publicly discloses that 61% of their environmental impact comes from manufacturing—everything from mining the coltan in smartphones and the rare-earth elements in computers to factory workers cleaning display glass with toxic chemicals. The process of manufacturing electronics is incredibly damaging to the environment. The more products Apple makes, the larger its impact.
Given their penchant for throwaway product design, it seemed inevitable that Apple would leave the green computer registry. But when they announced their withdrawal, it sparked a fierce backlash. Institutional purchasers, including the City of San Francisco, announced they were banning the purchase of Apple laptops. During a recent trip to Washington, DC, I heard from reliable sources that numerous federal government agencies, including the Department of Defense, were prepared to ban procurement of Apple products.
Apple was surprised by the level of public outrage and, just two weeks after leaving the registry, relented and publicly apologized. They resubmitted their laptop line to the EPEAT registry—including the Retina MacBook Pro.
At the heart of the recent EPEAT decision are new, weak definitions for key phrases in the standard.
With the Retina MacBook Pro, EPEAT felt there were three specific concerns about the product design that merited further investigation. Here are the relevant portions of the standard:
Does the Retina MacBook meet those criteria? On the surface, it seems that a product assembled with proprietary screws, glued-in hazardous batteries, non-upgradeable memory and storage, and several large, difficult-to-remove circuit boards would fail all three tests.
But it’s not that simple. It turns out that the phrases ‘commonly available’ and ‘safely and easily’ were not defined in the standard. So EPEAT asked their Product Verification Committee (PVC), the group responsible for providing the final answer on tricky questions like this. Here’s how they responded:
The PVC had an opportunity to draw a clear line in the sand. They could have set clear guidelines and goals for manufacturers that want to design green products. Instead, they rendered the standard toothless by redefining 1680.1 to apply to virtually every laptop on the market.
There are two components to EPEAT: a technical standard and a product registry. Though the EPEAT standard was started by the EPA, it is actually organized by IEEE. The standard for computers, IEEE 1680.1, was completed in 2006. The product registry is administered by EPEAT, Inc. — a 501(c)(4) organization that is not eligible for charitable contributions and receives its funding from electronics manufacturers and EPA grants.
The standard text was crafted by a consortium heavily weighted toward industry, using a ‘consensus process’ biased toward organizations interested in watering down the standard. Making changes to the standard requires 75% approval from all participating members. On the most recent EPEAT standard development, which I participated in as a member of the balloting committee, manufacturers and other industry members—including chemical companies—held 61% of the votes. Just 23% of the votes were held by general interest groups and environmental organizations, while government groups controlled 16% of the votes.
Unfortunately, getting highly specific language into a standard like EPEAT is challenging because manufacturers claim it limits future innovation. So, when language does finally make it into the standard, it’s critical that it is rigorously enforced.
Where language is ambiguous, decisions must consider the goals of the standard, or risk negating its purpose entirely. The updated definitions systematically weaken the 1680.1 standard.
Upgrades: The standard’s authors saw an opportunity for preserving product relevance by allowing users to upgrade their computers internally. But this revised definition considers connecting an external device such as a USB thumb drive to your laptop to be an upgrade. Every single laptop on the market already meets this new, incredibly loose criteria. Defining an upgradeable product by the presence of “externally-accessible ports” is preposterous. Using this definition, even the iPad—widely considered completely non-upgradeable—would be considered upgradeable because it has an external port.
Tools: What tools are ‘commonly available’? One opinion is that because screwdrivers for Apple’s proprietary Pentalobe screw are available for purchase on places like Amazon.com, the Retina computer is in compliance. The other set of reasoning I heard is that because you can disassemble the computer with a crowbar, you don’t need any uncommon tools for the disassembly. (It’s important to note that the most of the EPEAT criteria are aimed at recycling, not repair.) The ‘available on the open market’ tool definition is an absolute disaster. Popular electronics sell millions of units, which create instant markets for repair shops and new tools for new electronics within weeks of their release. But just because the tool exists doesn’t mean that everyone has it in their toolbox.
Easy and Safe: Declining to define ‘safely and easily’ is a cop out. It’s as good as striking it from the standard. At the same time, safety is an incredibly important part of the standard, because there are tens of thousands of people recycling electronic products—real people that spend all day, every day, dismantling toxic electronics. Here’s a stab: “a procedure that can be performed by anyone without access to documentation that does not expose them to any risk of bodily harm from hazardous chemicals, flammable batteries, or sharp material.” Plastic casings requiring significant disassembly would be acceptable, but glass that breaks during disassembly or batteries that easily puncture wouldn’t fit the bill.
Standard Disassembly Instructions: EPEAT disassembled the devices under review “with full documentation of each disassembly process, including its overall duration.” The manufacturers were allowed to provide the lab with instructions to perform the procedure. This information is necessary to know how to disassemble complex electronics safely. But there are no requirements that manufacturers provide anyone else the information—not recyclers, not repair shops, and not their customers.
Apple’s MacBook Pro with Retina display is not repairable, it’s not upgradeable, and it’s not easy to disassemble for recycling. But it is EPEAT Gold. The Product Verification Committee’s decision essentially greenwashes the Retina.
Our engineers spent over an hour attempting to separate the battery from the computer, carefully prying to avoid puncturing the battery. If this same computer can earn a gold status, we should be asking ourselves, “What exactly can’t earn a green rating?” With these new definitions, pretty much every computer can be included in the registry.
We’re at an inflection point. We can allow the throwaway design to infect the rest of the computer industry, or we can stand up and tell EPEAT that this design trend is unacceptable. For EPEAT to be effective, they need to prove that they are capable of differentiating environmentally preferable products. The most recent guidance doesn’t just gut the current standard, it makes enforcement of future environmental standards much more difficult. We need to act now — or it won’t be long before every manufacturer is gluing in their batteries. Otherwise, our products will be light and thin, but unable to stand the test of time.
This article originally ran with Wired.
Could it be that the people responsible for certification at EPEAT received some sort of financial incentive to give Apple’s difficult-to-repair and recycle products a favorable environmental rating?
Did you look at the specific report for the Gold certification?
http://ww2.epeat.net/ProductDisplay.aspx?return=search&action=view&search=true&productid=8661&ProductType=3&epeatcountryid=1
The problem is NOT that they screwed up definitions of things, it’s that the bar is so darn low for gold certification in the points system.
Of note is that this box gets a 0/3 for materials selection (Apple doesn’t declare things that they should to be green). They don’t do a great job with energy conservation, either. They get a total of 21/27 points and are, thus, “Gold.” But , as noted, all that this requires is supplying the technicians instructions, and solvents, to remove the glue, tools to remove the screws, etc. There are a lot more points in areas where Apple (and others) and focus their energy. So they do and ignore the other things that might actually matter more.
As partially noted, the “standard” is flawed. EPEAT could take a stand on that and interpret it a bit differently, but the fact is that this standard is crap and it’s all marketing, really…
I would posit that EPEAT is failing in its mission (from their website):
Our mission: Operate the most successful global environmental rating system for electronic products, helping connect purchasers to environmentally preferable choices, and thereby benefiting producers who demonstrate environmental responsibility and innovation
Does their rating system actually help any of us make environmentally preferable choices? And how does this benefit Apple or any other producer? Seriously… how many of us consult the EPEAT ratings before purchasing a computer or orther electronic device? EPEAT has no real impact at all, I suspect.
Flatout it is like the BBB, Apple Bought the certification via EPEAT, just like anyone can by a BBB rating of A+ with a little bit of money. Like Bribing, or of that thing. THey paid prob what a dew million to EPEAT to greenlight their product knowing they got away with the ipods touches, and iphones and ipads. I am sorry but an upgrade does NOT require anything externally at all. It is all internally done. THis is like saying I have an upgraded house, yeh it is in Miami, yet I still live here in Arizona. it is all fully upgraded and I can do anything there. YEs you have access to it but not always to far to travel? To much money to travel? Etc.
Flat out Apple bribed and paid off EPEAT to get this rating. And it is bull. Just like any business buying their A+ rating with a bit of cash Apple did the same thing.
Kyle,
I agree with your outrage at the LACK of reparability to the MacBook Air. But let’s be frank, about 80% or more of users are NOT going to get upset as these devices are created to be used for 2 or 3 years and thrown away. Consumers tend to count on AppleCare and once that is gone they sell or throw away the products. I also happen to think this is bad. But….
What you’re doing by “protesting” is seen as the equivalent of protesting over the lack of repairability of cell phones (another boondoggle -iPhone included). Again, I agree it is terrible and a waste, but they are seen in society as “throw-away”.
Until that “disposable computers” view changes in society, I’m afraid our efforts are somewhat squashed by the mega corps that are constantly pushing out the next product and INTENTIONALLY breaking things/functionality to “encourage” (force) users to upgrade. Seriously, how many iPods and iPads do we need? Ultimately, I believe we have to leave it up to the free market to decide. I applaud your effort to educate. Keep doing that as I think THAT is the key to winning as people will just REFUSE to buy the retina MacBooks and Air models or whatever else is NOT repairable.. Only this will force Apple to listen.
I also suggest the “if you can’t beat ’em Join ’em” slogan. In other words, iFixit needs to start rating all devices on some kind of a “reparability” scale. Then keep getting onto mainstream media as well as alternative media to educate the public.
I join with you in being sad about Apple’s recent behaviour, but I think, rather, it is all about user education. It will take time to help normal users understand why it is “bad” behaviour to just buy throw-away appliances. Maybe that is actually the way you should market this new campaign??
Thanks again for an AWESOME site, and an AMAZING effort at turing the philosophy of repairing into one of “recycling” which it is. I never really thought of it like that till I started reading your site. THANK YOU and your team for being there and giving back. :-)
Best,
Tyrel
Well I think its time you guys came up with your own ratings and scores. If you gained enough reputation where your scores matter then companies could start using it for marketing Products.
If every laptop is getting this EPEAT Gold certified rating then its just going to be irrelevant. If you started giving laptops scores out of a 100. Then companies could leverage your scores to boast about how much better their laptop is then Apples.
For example: which laptop looks better?
Product A: EPEAT Gold and a 84% score on ifixit.
Product B: EPEAT Gold and a 45% score on ifixit.
Those types of numbers would make me, as a company, strive to make better laptops to gain an advantage over the Apple Giants.
Its all about making money these days not quality.Hence the garbage produced today that forces you to purchase new, other than upgrade.But I digress,apple has always been one of those company’s to produce proprietary garbage that can’t be upgraded.
@JoeMoe — don’t know how you got that impression for iFixit, they clearly have their own agenda and don’t respond well to critisism.
For instance, many products never get a rating since they “don’t feel it’s right to judge a device through the intertubes” (see samsung galaxy s3 teardown). In addition, any comment where I complained about some products not having a rating where taken down, with no notice.
As for the actual article here — please look what EPEAT *IS*, not what it should be. Pentalobes? available in most hardware stores, even on your website as part of your kits. Glue? not a problem for *recycling* (clearly a problem for repairing, but that’s not the issue here).
Not to be taken the wrong way, I respect what you do, and thank you for it. But I would much rather you treated all products equally, and not try to form other people’s opinions based on your own, as in this article.
Retina MacBook Pro will last longer than other PC and even Macs, and you will sell this again. Probably even if it is not upgradable as other computer will lat longer and be a minimal threat to environment compared to tons of bulky pcs which are obsolete in 2 years.
Also i really don’t like you obsession, repairing is good, even when i was a young boy i repaired and build elettronics things and computers alone.STarting my my Amiga500 i opened all my computers. But me or you are not the 99% of people right there. I work in a support center and you have no idea how stupid are awerage joe, they open their pc or mac and they broke up. Apple do the right things to use pentalobe or glue IF it is not supposed to be opened by the users, because they will not understand if they have the ability to do that or not.
I also fixed a home button of an iphone 4 with your “liberation kit”. Your guides and tools are awesome, but you sound every day more biased and crazy… “Liberation kit” Cmon, an users should not open and iPhone 4/S it is a nightmare! You don’t have an idea of how many idiots come to me saying they opened their iphones following your guide and broke something. Lately, and this last email is another hit, i fell bad for giving you money for my tools, “liberation kit” and suggesting you service to my experienced users who installed second HD in theirs mac minis. I will not point to your website anymore and i’, not alone thinking this.
Apple is doing the right things, retina MacBook Pro is that thin also because of less upgradability, slots and other things takes space. But Apple support your hadware for many ore years and OS versions than others, offer free recycle program even giving you money. Stop blaming Apple or others with this no sense. Go back doing your work: crating fantastic guide step by step for repairing hardware for tech users not every single idiots.
At little over the top here. iFixit makes money through ‘repair’ – so how could you like anything that isn’t repairable? I get it. But the real issue is the damage to the environment NOT whether it can be repaired easily. You know darn well that the negative environmental impact of our devices includes the materials used, manufacturing by- products, and even the actual life of the device. Does EPEAT include all this? Because if not, the standards need to change. Then if Apple fails, I will become outraged with you.
Couldn’t agree more with TeeJay2012.
And by the way, nobody repair PCs anymore because it costs more than simply buying a new one.
Couldn’t agree more with TeeJay2012. Stop whining Kyle.
And by the way, nobody repair PCs anymore because it costs more than simply buying a new one.
I agree that this is way over the top. The costs to the planet are not just measured in how recyclable something is, but how much resources and energy went into a device in the first place. My new MBP Retina is MUCH lighter than the machine it replaced. That alone should be an indication that it has a lighter footprint. Specifically with the screen, I’ve *never* broken a screen, why should I bear all the costs and weight to create a screen that can be serviced someday never?
They make something called a prybar. When the machine is ready to be recycled, use one!
Not true and your claim is absurd. The Retina Display MBP is LESS reparable and recyclable than other MBP’s. It is not the least repairable laptop in 10 years. Pentalobe screw drivers are readily available, from YOU. Have you ever taken apart a Toshiba, Asus, or Dell? Machines from those manufacturer’s made within the last two years are less reparable and recyclable.
@Hexblot
maybe I didn’t make myself too clear as I did a reread of my last comment. I think a clear rating system in general would be better at making companies strive for better, more environmentally friendly laptops. The 100 point system (or some type of point system) clearly states that although the laptop may pass standards, how well does it compare to others. There seems to be a large gap in between what is and what is not acceptable. Some type of grading system would distinguish that gap
My suggestion is that iFixit starts doing its own grading for laptops. That way we can get an idea on how well they all compare with each other. I actually like how iFixit does their tear downs and thorough reports. It would be nice to have a number slapped on it as well just to sum it all up.
Very disappointing that EPEAT has become a meaningless standard. This is precisely why I am hesitant to buy Apple products. I was able to upgrade my 3 yr old Dell laptop and am still using it. I replaced my iPhone 3g’s battery (with your awesome instructions, BTW) and got another year of life out of it.
The lightness or pretty-ness of the macbook pro do not suggest good hardware design. Good design requires form PLUS functionality, not form alone.
I don’t buy the argument that the majority of users don’t repair their equipment so Apple shouldn’t care. Maybe the majority of users *would* repair their equipment if it was designed to be repairable and repair was supported. Imagine a world where Apple makes beautiful computers that are easy to upgrade, then sells upgrade kits and instructions. Why not strive for that?
I was a Macophile for about 10 years until I switched to hardware which use MS OS/Windows. I’m happy I switched because, unlike with Apple hardware, I can still use very old hardware with the newest Windows including Windows 8 which runs even better on that old stuff than W7. Although the oldest hardware doesn’t run some application software well, especially resource intensive media software, it can still do the job for lots of useful purposes. As well, I use some of that old WINTEL hardware, desktop and laptop, to run Mac OS 10.7 as a Hackintosh/FrankenMac. I do like my iPod 2 though and still use it especially to play solitare when I wake up in the middle-of-the-night until I am bored back to sleep.
I think it’s a moot point that standards agencies are controlled by corporate interest – look at Monsanto and agriculture.
It is well to exercise your freedom of speech to rant about it, but having done that, what we need from you now is to get down and work out how to unstick those batteries!!
I love the Apple products, but I also like to repair / upgrade my stuff. I also realise that I am among a very small demographic, and must not expect to be considered in Apple’s design process.
I have replaced the battery (3 times), the HDD, and upgraded the RAM in my trusty Macbook pro unibody. I have replaced the battery and the home button in my iPhone 4, and I do not intend to stop repairing my Apple products.
The help that you and the team at iFixit have been has made a big difference to my success.
KEEP UP THE FINE WORK.
Mountain out of a mole hill.
Hell, one guy said he’s replaced batteries three times, upgraded HDD, etc, etc.
Complain about something else.
As much as this is an issue, I suppose that future iterations of the Macbook Pro Retina would be more upgradable/repairable when more thin parts become available…
600 a share doesnt mean it will stay there. Personally I dont see what the hype is about macbook,snowbirds,bobcats,or that weak a$$ iphone they have. Android is by far a better platform,an Hp and Sony make comparable laptops to the overpriced macbook anyway. So spend that money if you want to while I continue to upgrade,downgrade,flash new roms,flash new firmwares,run xp,vista,7,and ubuntu on a quad boot on a quad core and still come out cheaper,and wonder why America is 22 in riches. Aint there a riot in China over Apple lol
Correction.
‘THE BOTTOM LINE
Apple’s MacBook Pro with Retina display is not repairable, it’s not upgradeable, and it’s not easy to disassemble for recycling.’
…by iFixit
Translation:
We at iFixit lack the ability to service your Retina MacBook Pro because we do not possess the necessary tools, disassembly rigs and know-how to do the normal high quality work that can be achieved with a crowbar and hammer.
@Hexblot:
> For instance, many products never get a rating since they “don’t feel it’s right to judge a device through the intertubes” (see samsung galaxy s3 teardown).
The way you phrase this makes it sound like a ridiculous position; I don’t see what’s silly about it at all. Do you think it’s a good idea to talk about things you don’t have much knowledge of?
> In addition, any comment where I complained about some products not having a rating where taken down, with no notice.
There are appropriate channels for such requests, and it’s likely your comments were merely moved there. Meta.ifixit.com exists for you to give us feedback.
Take an environmental biology course and you will never induce high heat + flux to PCB’s without a particulate gas mask ever again. Even via inhalation these chemicals do an inordinate amount of damage to organs and chromosomal DNA. I did a quick glance at the EPEAT website and it seems everyone on the board of EPEAT has a background in Business, Engineering, or Comp Sci. and realized our concerns while legitimate will not be addressed.
I think it’s time for us, as a community, to build a new standard about obsolescence. Ifixit runs a scoring system about repairability, I think it should be complimentary to implement a system about : obsolescence and repairability.
I have worked quite a lot on the subject on different firms to be able to prevent obsolescence on servers, the approach would be the same. If you get the starting date and the end of product date, you are able to know the time period on which a furnisher will support the system. If the furnisher is oriented to make systems last, the time period will be long, if it is not, it will be short. Based on the observations on previous products, we could calculate the support approach of a constructor and uses the durability as a criteria to buy, therefore acting on the market to buy things that are durable, repairable.
The problem ? planned obsolescence is a market where the information from the furnishers is not easily available. There is no site to offer the capacity to store the introduction date and the end of support date of products. Ifixit would be great to implement that sort of things as there is already a large number of devices present. If durability becomes part of the reflexion in order to buy, we can make things change. I would be really happy to share the approach and help implement that in ifixit…
Imagine a world where systems would be repairable, and everytime one person is able to fix a device, it improves the global score of the producer, which producer will you follow ? The one that offers you a long last product that you’ll be able to use, give, resell in the long run or the one that enslaves you ?
I could care less about the environment. The rMBP is one hella fast machine.
Another fantastic post that I largely agree with. For a while now, Apple has relied on a narrative of being able to deal with MacBooks (and other products) internally at their end-of-life or during repair/maintenance, however, I can’t imagine they can do much with a heavily glued and non-upgradable design.
I am appalled at EPEAT’s definition of “Products being considered upgradable with an externally-accessible port.” An externally accessible port is a standard of all modern laptops and serves primarily as a method of extension (external storage and peripherals) rather than upgrading, which I attribute more to the internals of a machines that directly influence its performance.
I agree with growing discussion that iFixit should start pushing for their own standard to assess and compare the environmental impact of electronics. This would benefit from being created by an independent and transparent group and could incorporate years worth of valuable expertise that has been generated through this website.
If you do move forward with this, we would love an opportunity to help out/collaborate. We design toothbrushes and a number of other household products that are all subject to comprehensive environmental analysis conducted throughout our design process.
Thanks Kyle for sharing this,
-Ollie
Steve Jobs always said that he wanted Apple products to be like a toaster. Toasters now made are irrepairable so the latest Apple hardware is fulfilling Steve Jobs’ vision.
Why not enforce a new law which states that all computers whether Apple or otherwise must state whether or not their computer is repairable/upgradeable or not.
Let the customer decide what he/she wants to buy?
IFixit I love your marketing campaign!!
Liberation Kit!! You hit the nail on the HEAD!!!
You give people options other then Care Pack, Apple Care, Ect…. What happens when these devices fall out of warranty. Or better yet… I just saved money bye repairing my son’s Iphone 4 broken front glass. Phones covered for Accidental Damage Ins. But it was almost half the price to repair it myself vrs deductible. I wish I found your site sooner think it would of been a little bit smoother…lol It was a little more involved then I first thought. But its going on 4mo and not an issue with the repair. Plus it give me some Dad Points. LOL
I thank you in every way possible for promoting your free services. If I ever come across a part that you sell, I will be sure to buy from you.
I’m writing this comment from the IMac A1225 your site helped me repair. Swap out HD & 2 Capacitors.. list goes on…. But Apple left us F@O$ED. The HD on it hadn’t fully stopped working yet, I begged them to save Apple works because its the heart of my mothers company. (Her computer) Apple took the computer in for Diagnostics, came out apolgizing that there’s nothing they can do. They can replace the HD but I’ll lose any info.. Not an option, So I ask if purchase a New IMac can they transfer the info from the starting to fail HD. SURE WE CAN DO THAT…. So I purchase the 27″ 1TB I7. Thinking in my head it might make them work a little harder…. YEA RIght ….. After I purchase the new Imac, They say they dont have the time to do it ….. If that wasn’t bad enough when I got home to attempt it myself LION is not compatible with Apple WOrks……….SOB!!!
So apple put the screw to me hard.
Low and behold fixed the old imac and the info has been recovered. I was even able to Jump the old HD and Transfer everything back onto the new HD… THANK YOU!!
Kyle Whines, stop your whining over not being able to hack into a product you never had anything to do with designing or producing.
Where’s your outrage over not being able to CRACK into say a Tivo to upgrade the hard drive and extract the data?
Crackability has NOTHING to do with being GREEN.
Apple has had a free recycling program for products longer than probably any CE company.
Sour Grapes guy…