iPad has been receiving a lot of press, lately. Much of it is positive, although it has its detractors. Much of the negative press seems unwarranted and looks like a FUD campaign. Indeed, many of the hits to my “iPad? How bad?” post are from searches for the terms “iPad” and “bad” — people looking for ammunition; these people should fuddle duddle. One thing that seems to be brought up consistently is the inability for iPad to run multiple applications at once at the behest of the user.
Update: So it looks like my estimates for the carbon dioxide emissions were way off. I guess iPad’s components must be particularly carbon-unfriendly per unit mass; if I had to speculate, it’s due to a higher component weight to frame weight than on the computers considered here. Updated results at the end of this post; you can follow along using the original text, substituting in the new values for manufacturing. It looks like my estimates for power adapter efficiency and power consumption are pretty much spot on, though.
His reasoning is that it will help him pay for “content” without damaging the Earth –specifically, he’s talking about reading the newspaper, magazines, and e-books in the iPad, instead of buying them in paper version.
I suspected, and told him, that on the whole this would probably mean an *increase* in environmental damage, rather than a decrease. He’s not convinced.
Jorge then adds the question that prompted the creation of this blog: “Who is right?”
So will buying an iPad to replace print materials reduce carbon emissions or just result in more iWaste?