Green Apple iPhone matches growing US consumer trend
As the Green wave grows, it seems the message is slowly percolating through, with fresh research this morning claiming consumers would be willing to buy a green handset. Apple’s recent moves toward environmental transparency could become another card to drive success in the smartphone war.
Results from a 2009 ABI Research survey of 1000 adult mobile phone users in North America reveal that approximately 7% would be willing to pay a premium for an environmentally-friendly handset. A further 40% would choose a green handset over a conventional one if price, features, and performance were equal.
“These survey results mean that almost half of those surveyed were at least committed in principle to use of a green handset,” comments industry analyst Michael Morgan. “However the public is largely uninformed about their availability: only 4% said they were ‘very familiar’ with green handsets.”
This could be bad news for many handset makers, as it implies growing public interest in and awareness of the need for greener consumer electricals.
“Creating a verifiably green handset can mean revamping the whole supply chain and retooling the production process,” the researchers said. Watchdog groups such as Greenpeace are on the alert for “greenwashing.” Says Morgan, “There’s an avalanche of information to be managed, just to prove that you’re green.”
We now know that Apple is already actively engaged in revamping its whole supply chain, most recently learning the company has already developed a replacement material for PVC, a material conceivably already used within the iPhone.
Quoting from Apple’s own environmental report on its iPhone 3GS, we learn it is designed with the following features to reduce environmental impact:
- PVC-free handset
- PVC-free headphones
- PVC-free USB cable
- Bromine-free printed circuit boards
- Mercury-free LCD display
- Majority of packaging made from post-consumer recycled fiberboard and biobased materials
- Power adapter outperforms strictest global energy efficiency standards.
Now, we’re not in a position to say this is the greenest mobile available on the market, Murphy’s law says it probably isn’t, but given the opacity with which many manufacturers reveal the green credentials of their products, surely Apple’s recent moves to become more open about these matters opens another front in the ongoing smartphone wars. And Apple has taken great strides recently to not just live within environmental legislation, but to exceed them.
Analyst Morgan observes, “There’s a difference between being merely compliant and being truly green. The three key factors are: using recyclable or renewable materials; ensuring that handsets are in fact recycled after use; and introducing low-power chargers. Even more crucial for the long-term: leveraging the lessons learned in this process and applying them right through entire handset portfolios.”
Clean Production Action and ChemSec recently issued a report that highlights Apple as one of seven companies that lead the pack in terms of eliminating toxic substances from electronic poducts.
They said: “Apple established an innovative program that restricts the use of nearly all bromine and chlorine compounds across all their product lines. As such, Apple now offers a wide range of PVC and BFR free consumer products including iPhones and iPods, as well as computers that are free of BFRs and most uses of PVC.”
Apple has worked with another company to develop a replacement for PVC, which is understood to become commonplace in use in Apple products during the coming year, BusinessWeek informs.
Apple’s recent move to quit the Chamber of Commerce underlines the company’s commitment to advance the green debate. It is also clear Apple is intent on genuine moves to engage with these issues, in order to avoid accusations of ‘greenwashing’.
We’re curious now what the green credentials of the host of Android and Win Mobile powered devices will be, and what the environmental impact assessments on the Palm Pre and RIM products turn out to be.
Latest Stories on 9 to 5 Mac
- Apple patents the 3D Apple Store - Alice in Avatar-land
- Surprise: Warner admits iTunes sales slow on price hikes
- Apple ships Aperture 3: 64-bit, Snow Leopard/Intel only, 200 features, $199/£169 (demo available)
- What's coming to the Apple Store this morning?
- Apple Store Down. Can we has Core i7 MacBook Pros?
- Apple podcasts Mac advice video clips
- iPhone gains, BlackBerry loses US smartphone marketshare


Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Comments (8)
I honestly think this is crap. Nobody cares how friendly or unfriendly things are for the environment. How many people would recycle if it wasn't mandated by the local trash collecting? How many people throw used batteries in the trash? How many people still buy gas guzzlers? How many people are paying a premium to install solar panels?
Yeah...people just don't care at the end of the day. Being green and paying for it is a super small segment of the population. Nobody bought more macs because all of a sudden the screens were now "toxic free" or whatever. They bought macs because they got cheaper and better looking and more powerful and better...
People do not want to pay a premium for a greener product unless it's cheaper or there is something in it for them. Banking on a product's greenness to attract customers and then charge a premium for it is a losing business model. This is why Apple did not raise prices of its new greener products. It would be business suicide for them to have raised the price of a new MacBook and claim it was because it is greener that such a hike in prices was instituted.
First of all, let's deal with your generalisations there - the notion that nobody cares. That's blatantly not true. Many people don't, that could be true, but that doesn't mean everybody doesn't. These are different things.
All this report does is highlight an increasing awareness among US consumers that these things do matter, which runs contrary to your argument, completely in the face of it, in fact.
Now, left to organic change, there would still be many who feel as you do, and given the extreme problems we face - the melting ice caps - the way you think will soon become the minority opinion - it's 60:40 now, and soon it will be 50:50, and so on. Because awareness in the US is growing.
Consumers do think with their wallets at times, It is not by any means unknown. Again, they are a minority, but people who act on their beliefs do exist, again in the face of part of the thrust of your argument.
You also note that some things - recycling, for example, only happen because they are made to happen. This may be true. It's precisely because of folk who refuse to engage with the real problem that laws are passed to make them engage.
I don't believe we have time for an organic evolution of thought here, so the very salient projection I'd like to add as a rider to the reporter who wrote this original story is that next year will see worldwide grants for use and installation of solar energy panels by consumers, and is likely to see very tough laws passed requiring CE products be green. So those products which are not just won't be sold any more.
The reason this is required is the stubborn refusal of the 60 per cent who you say is everybody to engage and act upon the situation we face as a race as we glide on this world which belongs to our children, one of whom must, sadly, figure out how to solve the environmental problems our generation seems set to leave behind.
60% would _not_ choose a green handset over a conventional one if price, features, and performance were equal.
Well, obviously the person that wrote the post "bah" doesn't care about the environment but many, many of the rest of us do.The key statistic in the above article is that 40 percent of us would opt for the greener product given a choice.
I applaud Apple for making greener products and reducing the amount of packaging that enters the trash stream. I agree that charging a premium for a green product is not a winner, but minimizing the impact on the environment is smart business.
People will chose the greener product if there is no price premium for it. Otherwise you get in the world of niche organic food. Only very few would gladly pay a hefty premium for something that is called "greener." I am not disputing that people would buy greener stuff compared to non-green, but that depends entirely on price. If Apple sold 2 equally looking and powerful MacBooks but the greener one was $200 more expensive, and the other one wasn't, if you told me that the greener MacBook would sell well, there's a bridge in Brooklyn up for sale, check it out.
Apple is not charging a premium for its greener computers, in fact there is no option to buy a non green computer between the same model. And the prices have gone down. If the choice is between a green product and a non green product at the same price then of course most people will go green. It's the premium most people will not pay for except for the tiny minority of people who's lives revolve around the environment.
"except for the tiny minority of people who's lives revolve around the environment."
Erm - hello - hate to burst your bubble, but surely every person on this planet's life actually depends on the environment? YOu know, where your food, shelter and water come from?
What's worries me is that 60% of people wouldn't pick the handset that had less of an impact on the environment, even it was the exact same price and feature-set. Why is consuming less resources a bad thing to some people?
I am glad that Apple is making its phones greener, but they really have to come to grips with the level of radiation emissions from the iPhone.
At present, it's one of the worst in the industry in terms of radiation, even amongst the other smart phones.
Wake up Apple. Jobs, of all people, should be aware of these issues and taking action. It's more important than what Greenpeace has to say.