back to article Sitting on one's ARSE is the new CANCER, says Tim Cook - and an Apple watch will save you

Apple CEO Tim Cook has shared a range of different thoughts and announcements in his keynote address to a Goldman Sachs conference today. During this event he was interviewed by the firm's president, Gary Cohn, who almost drooled as he listed Apple's last financial results. He notified Cook that during his speech, Apple had …

  1. SuccessCase

    Seeing as last quarter, Apple made more in profit simply due to the fluctuations in the price of the dollar, than the entirety of Google's profit over the same quarter, and had an operating profit about eight times that of Samsung over the same quarter, and raked in greater revenues over a quarter than any company in history, it is pretty clear this is a company that can ride along with the view green renewables are cost effective, whether they believe the science or not. Whatever, it's a nice line for PR and politicians.

    1. Tom Samplonius

      "...it is pretty clear this is a company that can ride along with the view green renewables are cost effective, whether they believe the science or not..."

      And given the fact that the $848M gets them 130MW over 25 years, if the power is never delivered, they probably don't have to pay. Plus, given the Sapphire Glass contact, it will have a ton of performance guarantees. Who cares what the science says or not, if you've got a signed contract guaranteeing ti will work? You are going to have some disappointment, if it doesn't work, but like the Sapphire Glass debacle, they probably has a Plan B in the wings already.

  2. beast666

    Where will Apple get it's power in the night-time?

    1. peter_dtm
      Unhappy

      you beat me to it

      title says it all

    2. DNTP

      Why is this even a comment that people make about solar power? Every single generating plant connected to the grid fluctuates its output in response to factors that may be far less predictable than a simple day-night cycle, such as consumer demand, fuel price, unexpected failure/efficiency elsewhere in the grid… no giant solar plant is going to operate in isolation from that system, so the day/night cycle is simply another logistical fluctuation. In fact, demand for electricity at night drops off considerably, so Apple might just opt to run on grid overnight. Or they could generate excess power during the day to feed into the grid for power credit to use at night, or do esoterica such as pump water uphill, spin up flywheels, pump air into tanks, charge batteries- but massive local storage in any form is probably less cost effective/power effective than simply using the give-take of the grid.

      Remember, the power grid itself is just as important to our use of electricity as a society as any generating source. Yet it is also largely outdated, haphazard, insecure, and non-redundant, an issue that has largely been ignored in energy politics. Spending money at the Federal level on modernization, upgrades, and maintenance is a surefire way to increase energy efficiency and create jobs- a solution should not be overlooked in the controversies about building different generation sources.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Apple is just doing what Apple does best. It's California so would be trading tax credits for subsidies. This is after all the company that did a bond issue to pay investors rather than repatriate funds and pay taxes on that. But regardless of the financial engineering, the 2,900 acres utilised and Apple's $848m stake won't get it 130 megawatts at night. An equivalent investment in an LFTR reactor would be more progressive, wouldn't need anywhere near 2,900 acres and would generate more than 130MW 24x7. Apple presumably thinks covering 3,000 acres of California in solar panels is somehow more 'environmentally friendly'.

        It's pretty tragic that companies like Apple and Google have been investing in legacy technology like solar and wind rather than forward looking, high density, high efficiency technology like fission and fusion. It's what happens when they're lead by marketing and finance rather than engineering I guess.

        1. Charlie Clark Silver badge

          Your point about tax incentives as the reason for the deal is perfectly valid. Your swipe at solar as a legacy technology is nonsense. Ideological issues aside, long-term, guaranteed capacity deals like this do make a lot of sense for companies and they are risk-free.

          The reason why private nuclear power has never really taken off is also financial: no one will insure the potential risks, which in a country as litigious as America include court cases.

        2. Tom Samplonius

          "...covering 3,000 acres..."

          Desert tends to not be very useful land. And California has deserts that are so hot, that dying of exposure is not uncommon. Four German tourists in 1996, decided to drive around in Death Valley, and disappeared. Only some of their remains have been found.

          http://www.nbcnews.com/id/33919797/ns/us_news-life/t/death-valley-bones-linked-german-tourists/#.VNsXmnb1FP4

      2. RudeUnion

        thanks for the intelligent response making a great point. The obvious tends to escape most people.

    3. Ivan Headache

      Night time

      There's a plant in Spain that works at night.

      See here

      http://www.torresolenergy.com/TORRESOL/gemasolar-plant/en

      It's quite spectacular to drive past - even after the sun has gone down.

      1. Oninoshiko
        Boffin

        Re: Night time

        "There's a plant in Spain that works at night.

        See here

        http://www.torresolenergy.com/TORRESOL/gemasolar-plant/en

        It's quite spectacular to drive past - even after the sun has gone down."

        That's a Solar-thermal plant. I did a little looking to see of that's what Apple was building. Of course Apple isn't that sensible, Apple is covering a field with PV cells.

        http://www.firstsolar.com/en/about-us/projects/california-flats

        This plant will do fuck-all at night.

  3. Dr Scrum Master
    Terminator

    Thinking Not Required

    "Some doctors now think that sitting down for long periods is the new cancer, so ten minutes before the hour the Watch software taps you to make you have a walk around," he recounted. "It's quite funny to be in a meeting at Apple and ten minutes before the hour people get up and start moving around, but people like it."

    Oh my God, not only are the customers brainwashed but the company is staffed with robots!

    1. Dave 126 Silver badge

      Re: Thinking Not Required

      There are quite a few studies that suggest that spending long periods sat down is damaging to your health, irrespective of how much exercise you take.

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19910888 refers to a meta-study.

      In some Scandinavian countries, dual-height desks (use seated, then it rises to allow you to work standing up) have been common for a decade or so.The desks seems quite expensive though - it might be cheaper to just mirror your display onto a second, raised monitor and plug in an extra mouse and keyboard.

      1. VinceH

        Re: Thinking Not Required

        "There are quite a few studies that suggest that spending long periods sat down is damaging to your health, irrespective of how much exercise you take."

        Quite so - but rigidly obeying a rule that you must get up and walk around ten minutes before the hour even when in a meeting?

        The idea of stepping away your desk and walking around for ten minutes out of every hour is fine - but to apply the rule quite so rigidly, seemingly because an Apple Watch decrees that it is time, is what makes it so 'robotic'. (Personally, I think Dr Scrum Master was being kind by saying Apple are staffed with robots. I'd have gone for muppets.)

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Thinking Not Required

          Come on Vince, you just hate that it's an Apple product reminding you to move. Just admit it. People set their reminders, so it isn't the Apple product deciding for you. It's a petty argument

          1. VinceH

            Re: Thinking Not Required

            "Come on Vince, you just hate that it's an Apple product reminding you to move.

            And why would that be? I hate Apple's crud, yes, but other devices exist and can also be used to remind me (or anyone) to move.

            "Just admit it. People set their reminders,"

            They do indeed, and I have no objection to people setting reminders to do something like this. I could do with setting a few more reminders for myself, TBH. But that isn't the point.

            "so it isn't the Apple product deciding for you. It's a petty argument"

            No, it's the people using the device deciding to obey the reminder to the letter instead of being sensible about it. Sensible use of reminders would involve dismissing or delaying the reminder when appropriate - such as in a meeting - and making up for it after.

            But what Cook is quoted as saying is that people in meetings at Apple get reminded by their watch to move, so they do, there and then. Instead of putting it off until a more sensible/suitable time.

            Not only that, but from what he's quoted as saying is that they all do it at "ten minutes before the hour" - which sounds to me like they all do it at the same time, at ten minutes to n o'clock. (So if these reminders are set by the users themselves, why don't some of them set it for, say, twenty five minutes past the hour? Surely it doesn't matter at what point in the hour that ten minutes of moving around takes place, so long as it's typically ten minutes out of every hour on average).

            TBH, the more I think about it, the more I think Cook was bullshitting to big up the health benefits of the watch: "Look, it even reminds you to disrupt meetings for ten minutes out of the hour to ensure you're getting the right amount of exercise."

  4. JeffyPoooh
    FAIL

    $848M could have been spent more effectively

    That's enough money to convert gigawatts of electric power from coal to natural gas, thus saving 50% of the CO2. A whole bunch at 50% CO2 reduction is more effective than a tiny amount at even 100% CO2 reduction, which it isn't.

    Next time somebody has a billion to spend on "green" energy, could somebody at least work out where in the world it could be most effectively spent? Please. If the available money isn't spent efficiently, then we might run out of money having barely kept up with growth.

    Being ineffective and inefficient with green money is criminally irresponsible.

    1. Charlie Clark Silver badge

      Re: $848M could have been spent more effectively

      By removing the demand for bulk load it is already stimulating the demand for gas which is better at intermittent supply.

      But it is not the job of a private company to effect CO2 reductions out of the goodness of its heart. This is a tax-efficient way of guaranteeing supply over a long-term. That said, solar in California is pretty efficient even without tax-breaks.

    2. Tim Almond

      Re: $848M could have been spent more effectively

      "Next time somebody has a billion to spend on "green" energy, could somebody at least work out where in the world it could be most effectively spent? Please. If the available money isn't spent efficiently, then we might run out of money having barely kept up with growth."

      There's a group called the Copenhagen Consensus that does precisely that. And their outcome was that with $75bn to spend, things like adding micronutrients to poor people's diets (eg iron supplements), malaria treatment, immunisation, TB treatment all come far above climate change.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Is it subsidised?

    Solar in the UK and EU is heavily subsidised by the taxpayer. Is it also subsidised by the state in the USA?

    1. Charlie Clark Silver badge

      Re: Is it subsidised?

      Solar in the UK and EU is heavily subsidised by the taxpayer

      Yes, the investment will benefit from tax breaks, though nothing like as much as the issuance of bonds and share buybacks that Apple is currently engaged in.

      As to who pays the subsidy: well, it's taxpayers and and energy consumers. But this is just as true for the new nuclear power station being built in the UK which will sell energy at a guaranteed price to the grid.

      Subsidies for anything but the briefest of period are generally bad.

  6. RudeUnion

    R&d tends to be very expensive but people do it in hopes to make money, help people, etc. Investments in different renewable energies furthers it's maturity. No one knows what will happen in the future. Just like in business, being diverse and not putting everything in one or two baskets keeps you protected when disaster strikes. What if we're on the verge of a breakthrough which makes these kinds of techs super efficient. Then what will all the naysayers say? We're still using dangerous radioactive material and burning fossil fuels as our main power sources. The argument to keep the status quo seems just as short sighted as everyone fighting to kill Tesla, or blindly following or hating one company over another for personal reasons. The bottom line is if they're smart they may figure it out, and we all benefit from clean and safe power.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like