Google sends Cr-48 to "Will it Blend?" • Hacker News Board

Re: Google sends Cr-48 to "Will it Blend?"

#41

Post by riobard » Wed, Dec 22, 2010, 2:19 AM UTC

gloob wrote: post #31

riobard wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had the same weird feeling watching that video. There is something fundamentally wrong there. I'm especially worried about the last part when the little girl destroying the last CR-48: she was so calm to do that without a blink. I was shocked. This is not the way we teach our children. [edit]: there's a tagline said by the demo guy in the video: “good thing I get a new one every time”. This kinda thinking bothers m…

What about it bothers you, exactly?

My take is that the lower powered devices tend to be retired much faster. I would expect on average a CR-48 would last (in the sense of people actually using it) much shorter than a, say, MacBook Pro. Also a used MacBook Pro (or a comparable high end machine) tends to sell better as a second hand. You probably won't want a second hand CR-48 after two years usage I guess?

On the other hand, the raw materials used to build a CR-48 or a MacBook Pro are almost equivalent. They also contain comparable amount of toxic heavy metals. At the end of the life eventually they'll be shipped to some villages in China to be disassembled to get the expensive metal like gold and silver, but the rest will be burned and buried, causing long term pollution and damage.

I know this is too much environmentalist talk and not making business sense, but I just cannot ignore the sad facts after watching a video about the life of people who live those villages…

Re: Google sends Cr-48 to "Will it Blend?"

#42

Post by hugh3 » Wed, Dec 22, 2010, 2:40 AM UTC

JonnieCache wrote: post #38

hugh3 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's just a bunch of atoms. It was a bunch of atoms before the manufacturers got to it -- mostly goo, some rocks, a bit of sand. They rearranged the atoms into a different order. Then Blend-Tec guy put it into a blender and rearranged the atoms again, now it's dust instead of goo. What has been lost, apart from a bit of irreplacable time out of the lives of everyone involved (including me writing this comment and you…

>What has been lost, apart from a bit of irreplacable time out of the lives of everyone involved (including me writing this comment and you reading it)? Short answer, we've gained entropy. Over time, entropy will be the end of us, and therefore it is our responsibility as lifeforms to hold it back wherever we can. Otherwise what's the point? May as well just give up on the whole spontaneously emergent complexity deal…

If we live long enough to be eventually killed by entropy, then I'd say we have officially Won.

It's like when you get to the final level of Pac Man and it crashes.

Re: Google sends Cr-48 to "Will it Blend?"

#43

Post by alphaoverlord » Wed, Dec 22, 2010, 2:41 AM UTC

barrkel wrote: post #14

phlux wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>...economic impact of this advertising is worth more than the cost for Google to send a CR-48 to be blended. I know what it is called - but it is still clearly waste. I was not referring to the economic impact but rather the environmental. Sure, we can all say "who cares" -- I do, which is why I ask. Have you seen the garbage problems we have? The toxic waste dumps that are china and other places. I am not trying to…

You do not have nearly enough information to make this determination. If tablets like this reduce the demand for bigger laptops and desktops, making them more popular through various forms of marketing may in fact reduce overall environmental impact.

I dont know. Every time I stream grooveshark, I wonder how much less energy I would be using if I just had the same 10 songs locally.

Re: Google sends Cr-48 to "Will it Blend?"

#44

Post by gvsyn » Wed, Dec 22, 2010, 2:54 AM UTC

Only question with the blending, have they ever tried blending another blender (same model etc)?

Re: Google sends Cr-48 to "Will it Blend?"

#45

Post by phlux » Wed, Dec 22, 2010, 2:56 AM UTC

robryan wrote: post #19

phlux wrote: post #2

While funny etc. We have so much waste in the world as it is - the last thing we need is the toxic waste of a perfectly good machine being blended and thrown out. I have never had respect for the 'will it blend' concept, regardless of how funny one may find it. It is simply wasteful.

While we sit here thinking about this though much worse waste is going on it the world unseen. My uni gets big dumpsters and throws out 100's of computers each year. Granted they are usually getting old though.

So here we have:

New-laptop->blender

For your comment we have:

New-machine-->user------------------------->trash/other-user/some-other-market

WTF don't people understand about how wasteful this is?

Also, this machines toxic+precious components are being munger to the point where any hope of recycle is lost. If you aren't already paying attention, countries like China are securing the next 50-100 years worth of natural resources, required for the information age lifestyle, in Africa in such a way that the US will be relatively 3rd world in the next 25 years (with respect to our ability to produce that which we need).

So even though we are focused on the micro - the problem and question are macro.

Please tell me I am misguided, and prove it.

Re: Google sends Cr-48 to "Will it Blend?"

#46

Post by phlux » Wed, Dec 22, 2010, 3:00 AM UTC

barrkel wrote: post #14

phlux wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>...economic impact of this advertising is worth more than the cost for Google to send a CR-48 to be blended. I know what it is called - but it is still clearly waste. I was not referring to the economic impact but rather the environmental. Sure, we can all say "who cares" -- I do, which is why I ask. Have you seen the garbage problems we have? The toxic waste dumps that are china and other places. I am not trying to…

You do not have nearly enough information to make this determination. If tablets like this reduce the demand for bigger laptops and desktops, making them more popular through various forms of marketing may in fact reduce overall environmental impact.

I don't?

Here we see a device go straight from production to destruction intentionally and to a state where recycle/rebuild/re-use is impractical.

Sorry but all these arguments for advertising supporting the complete destruction of useful resources are misguided retarded and stupid.

Downvote all you want - but I'd prefer it were you that drank the water into which these toxic particles shall leach.

Fuck advertising.

Re: Google sends Cr-48 to "Will it Blend?"

#47

Post by jonhendry » Wed, Dec 22, 2010, 3:04 AM UTC

riobard wrote: post #41

gloob wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about it bothers you, exactly?

My take is that the lower powered devices tend to be retired much faster. I would expect on average a CR-48 would last (in the sense of people actually using it) much shorter than a, say, MacBook Pro. Also a used MacBook Pro (or a comparable high end machine) tends to sell better as a second hand. You probably won't want a second hand CR-48 after two years usage I guess? On the other hand, the raw materials used to b…

And don't forget the issues of mining/refining the rare earths and other minerals used to make the components in the first place. Beside the environmental issues, there's the way they are implicated in crimes in places like Congo.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/27/opinion/27kristof.html?src...

Re: Google sends Cr-48 to "Will it Blend?"

#48

Post by jonhendry » Wed, Dec 22, 2010, 3:18 AM UTC

hugh3 wrote: post #34

thingie wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It might still be cheaper than some kind of elaborate ad with a lot of actors, scenes and stuff, and even have lesser environmental impact (one laptop is much less waste than, say, flight to some distant place to take the shots for an ad). So, yes, it can actually make sense. But still, I just don't like the culture which shows that it's perfectly ok to smash and destroy stuff just for pleasure and marketing. Imagine…

It's just a bunch of atoms. It was a bunch of atoms before the manufacturers got to it -- mostly goo, some rocks, a bit of sand. They rearranged the atoms into a different order. Then Blend-Tec guy put it into a blender and rearranged the atoms again, now it's dust instead of goo. What has been lost, apart from a bit of irreplacable time out of the lives of everyone involved (including me writing this comment and you…

Toxic chemicals were used during production of the components, probably leaving waste to be dealt with, toxic gases vented, etc. The components of the computer were made using minerals possibly sourced from conflict-ridden, corrupt places like Congo. Some of the minerals involved may become significantly more scarce in the foreseeable future.

If you're going to incur these (ethically, if not strictly economically) non-trivial externalities of manufacturing an electronic device, the ethical thing to do, it seems to me, is to at least make an effort to use the device as it was intended for a reasonable service life, rather than destroying it in a cheap stunt in a way that renders it unlikely to be recycled in any meaningful way and impossible to cannibalize for working parts.

This is especially so if your company pretends its motto is "Don't be evil".

As for the marketing value for the blender firm: They could always fake it. Put a "No Cr-48 Laptops Were Harmed During Production Of This Advertisement" disclaimer up at the end. Sure, that would probably reduce interest in later ads, but frankly the whole thing is just played out now. "Wanker posts video of a gadget being destroyed as cheap stunt to draw pageviews. Yawn." They'd probably get some PR for the switch to faking it, then they could bow out of the whole tired thing.

Re: Google sends Cr-48 to "Will it Blend?"

#49

Post by jonhendry » Wed, Dec 22, 2010, 3:23 AM UTC

JonnieCache wrote: post #12

phlux wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd love to have a laptop whose sum parts are made out of reusable/biodegradable materials as much as possible. Corn/potato based cases, even if they need to be replaced often - or solid aluminum ones that are a set form factor and I simply replace the guts every time I upgrade. I wish that apple would require/request/desire that any old apple product gets returned to them for disposal/credit when it reaches true EOL…

>I'd love to have a laptop whose sum parts are made out of reusable/biodegradable materials as much as possible. I present the cardboard computer (case): http://recomputepc.com Unfortunately it's prohibitively expensive compared to conventional options, as you would expect. And you obviously can't fab the boards from card and the chips from potato, as it were. >It has been said too many times by others greater than m…

"I present the cardboard computer (case): "

The case is probably the most recyclable part of a computer, unless there's something funky about the plastics used. An aluminum MacBook Pro case could be melted down, or, hell, probably used as-is as raw material to machine new small parts.

Re: Google sends Cr-48 to "Will it Blend?"

#50

Post by jonhendry » Wed, Dec 22, 2010, 3:28 AM UTC

barrkel wrote: post #14

phlux wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>...economic impact of this advertising is worth more than the cost for Google to send a CR-48 to be blended. I know what it is called - but it is still clearly waste. I was not referring to the economic impact but rather the environmental. Sure, we can all say "who cares" -- I do, which is why I ask. Have you seen the garbage problems we have? The toxic waste dumps that are china and other places. I am not trying to…

You do not have nearly enough information to make this determination. If tablets like this reduce the demand for bigger laptops and desktops, making them more popular through various forms of marketing may in fact reduce overall environmental impact.

"Various forms of marketing" - of the nearly infinite range of marketing approaches, "wasteful destruction" is only one, and oddly enough, most successful marketing campaigns never stooped to that level.

And even when damaging the product is the approach taken, it's not usually a pointless stunt. When Timex abused their watches in commercials, the point was to show that the watches would keep working.

The blending thing is just stupid web-meme fan service, that is unlikely to make a notable contribution to selling Cr48s. Or blenders, for that matter.