Apple responds to Greenpeace: what part of "end of 2008" didn't you understand?

Yesterday's battle between Greenpeace and Apple had the former publicly chastising the latter for its continued use of hazardous chemicals in its iPhone. While they conceded that Apple is compliant with Europe's RoHS (Restriction of Hazardous Substances) standard, they lambasted Cupertino for its continued use of PVC and brominated flame retardants (BFRs) which, according to Greenpeace, "suggests that Apple is not making early progress towards its 2008 commitment to phase-out all uses of these materials." This morning, an Apple spokesperson told Macworld that, "Like all Apple products worldwide, iPhone complies with RoHS, the world's toughest restrictions on toxic substances in electronics. As we have said, Apple will voluntarily eliminate the use of PVC and BFRs by the end of 2008." Sure, you can fault Apple for not being as environmentally friendly as PVC-free Nokia, or Motorola and Sony Ericsson who offer some devices with BFR-free components. However, Greenpeace shouldn't feign surprise at what they found.

[(Unverified) Posted Oct 16th 2007 7:34AM]

Why is it that engadget is so pro-Apple? It's just a story about an issue someone raised with the iPhone, but its so defensive of Apple that it almost feels like a blog written on the company's official website. I love my new iPod Touch, but I don't feel the need to defend Apple's manufacturing process should anyone raise (legitimate) issues with it.

[(Unverified) Posted Oct 16th 2007 10:35AM]

Does Apple send you geeks girls every week or something? The unbelievable, on your knees, Apple-bobbing on this site is a bit much to take. I love my Mac and my iPod as much as the next guy, but WOW. Try to at least occasionally pretend to be objective.

[(Unverified) Posted Oct 16th 2007 5:25PM]

Apple clearly stated that it would be "green" by the end of 2008, and we aren't even done with 2007. So why is it extremely pro-Apple to say that Greenpeace shouldn't have been surprised to find the substances? I think the article was as objective as it could be.