Xbox Is Now the First Carbon Aware Console, Update Rolling Out to Everyone Soon

[Brooksie359]

18 hours ago, manikyath said:

well, there's something to both sides.

for "big corporate" (read: anything that is on the stock market) all that matters is profitability. pollution only matters when either A: taxation on pollution becomes cost prohibitive (or tax cuts for environmentally friendly decisions become profitable), or B: the public image hurts their bottom line enough that it becomes cost prohibitive.

 

 

there's also the problem of limited choice. if there's only 2 console manufacturers (i consider nintendo a separate sector in the "console wars" problem) you have to choose one or the other if you want a console. if MS pulls the eco card, and this shifts the narrative, it's down to sony to pull the card harder, etc.

but if people just take the 'too little to late' attitude, or as this thread seems to imply.. "it will always suck" attitude, the push towards environmentally friendly consoles isnt gonna happen, because clearly thinking about the impact didnt change the market.

 

it'll always be a matter of picking your poison, because everyone in this thread who says "microsoft doesnt care about the trees" couldnt be more right. all that "big corporate" cares about is the bottom line, because the very concept of having shareholders forces them to be that way.

BUT, knowing that, if you care about the birds and the bees, do your research. And maybe next time instead of picking the device that has the prettiest box art, pick the device that was built with the least impact.

(which is also my plea against putting lithium batteries in cars or bigger things.)

 

If only we could get rid of cruise ships then we would actually make a big dent in carbon emissions and no value lost. If anything cruise ships are a fire and health safety issue so another positive to getting rid of them.

[jagdtigger]

2 hours ago, williamcll said:

I mean if you are that paranoid you could just try swapping out the OS with something open source and a flexible power management system.

Good luck with that and breaking the lock on the mobo.....

[mr moose]

Well, my new job is in demolition and we make a shit ton of cash out of recycling mixed metals, refrigerant parts, electronics etc. The only thing we don't get paid for is plastic and concrete/brick, but we dump those that for free.  So someone must be able to use the products to make money, otherwise it would cost us to dump them.

 

 

 

 

[AlwaysFSX]

Small changes but at least it's something, at the very least they could have made packaging changes a couple generations ago.

 

21 hours ago, darknessblade said:

Still that does not allow them to make changes to MY SYSTEM, without MY PRIOR CONSENT,

That is like saying Company XXX can just say, from today all devices with "firmware version XXX" or older, will get a instant Killswitch that activates at boot.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, you seriously buy what you're saying? That tickles me.

[strajk-]

Everyone can see that this is a PR stunt, however it is still a good update that doesn't make the product worse, they're not mutually exclusive and both can be true, so I don't get why OP is railing here.

 

Secondly, ever read the EULA? You should. You bought the hardware, not the Software running on it, they're in their right to adjust it to their needs however they see fit...don't like it? Don't Update, new game doesn't support your old Version because of missing certain new API's and Feature Sets due to not updating? That's on you.

[jagdtigger]

2 minutes ago, strajk- said:

Secondly, ever read the EULA?

Eula was proven to be not legally binding several times AFAIK..... (especially if it has dubious or straight up illegal clauses)

[strajk-]

1 minute ago, jagdtigger said:

Eula was proven to be not legally binding several times AFAIK..... (especially if it has dubious or straight up illegal clauses)

So you bought the software that is running in that console? You can perform changes to it and not break any copyright law?

Because an EULA not being legally binding doesn't mean that everything inside it is void, just certain points can be disputed if brought all the way to court.

My point is explicitly on the Software side of things, if you don't want those new things, then simply don't update your system.

[Arika]

8 minutes ago, strajk- said:

Secondly, ever read the EULA? You should. You bought the hardware, not the Software running on it

which would be fine IF you could load your own Software onto it.

[jagdtigger]

6 minutes ago, strajk- said:

So you bought the software that is running in that console? You can perform changes to it and not break any copyright law?

I dont think copyright prohibits modifications unless i start sharing the modified work in its entirety....... When you buy a SW licence you own that copy and thus you can do wahtever you want with it, even sell it even against the will of the dev (MS actually got burnt in Germany over their stupid restrictions of selling sw you own).

[Brooksie359]

33 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

Eula was proven to be not legally binding several times AFAIK..... (especially if it has dubious or straight up illegal clauses)

Eula is often times not legally binding but not all of the time. For instance if you use a student version of a license for commercial use which is against the EULA you can easily get sued. 

[darknessblade]

13 hours ago, IkeaGnome said:

Emphasis mine. They're making a change for them, not you. Even if you look at it cynically and say "They're only doing this for profits and for good media attention" Who cares. It's a step in the right direction. 

 

If they want to make a change why aren't they shutting of the lights in the offices during the night when nobody is around, or just use PIR sensors in all the hallways, making useless waste of having light on in hallways nobody uses a thing of the past?

 

Or turn of servers for regions, where there is low traffic during certain times, redirecting traffic to a different server?

 

These are just some simple examples, as there are many ways they can reduce THEIR [Microsoft's] electricity usage/CO2 generation, Them telling users when they can and cannot use THEIR [the user] console is not one of them.

 

In my opinion Microsoft can only implement this if they are also paying for MY ENTIRE ELECTRICITY BILL.

[starsmine]

1 hour ago, darknessblade said:

 

If they want to make a change why aren't they shutting of the lights in the offices during the night when nobody is around, or just use PIR sensors in all the hallways, making useless waste of having light on in hallways nobody uses a thing of the past?

 

Or turn of servers for regions, where there is low traffic during certain times, redirecting traffic to a different server?

 

These are just some simple examples, as there are many ways they can reduce THEIR [Microsoft's] electricity usage/CO2 generation, Them telling users when they can and cannot use THEIR [the user] console is not one of them.

 

In my opinion Microsoft can only implement this if they are also paying for MY ENTIRE ELECTRICITY BILL.

What are you talking about?
At what point are they telling users when they can or can not use their xbox at home?

MS is giving you the ability to lower your power bill every month with some new/smarter settings with literally no downside then a couple of extra seconds to wait on wake, that you as a user can choose not use. 
And you think that MS giving you that ability means they should pay your bill?

[xAcid9]

Good move Microsoft.

[rockyroller]

13 hours ago, Arika S said:

you should join the Olympics, you would absolutely win gold in the long jump for such a leap

well it is happening if you want it or not.

[rockyroller]

2 hours ago, strajk- said:

Everyone can see that this is a PR stunt,

I see it more of a Western trend and the only PR is them telling you when its happening regardless of what you say or think

[rockyroller]

51 minutes ago, starsmine said:

What are you talking about?
At what point are they telling users when they can or can not use their xbox at home?

MS is giving you the ability to lower your power bill every month with some new/smarter settings with literally no downside then a couple of extra seconds to wait on wake, that you as a user can choose not use. 
And you think that MS giving you that ability means they should pay your bill?

 

If it is about saving the power grid what else would would they deny the average household?

That Xbox saving will come, as it starts with air conditioners and entertainment next?

It happened in the USA and now parts of the EU.

Operation Thermostat! Italy turns down air conditioning in bid to reduce dependence on Russian gas – POLITICO

Spain Air Conditioning Crackdown Set to Take Effect - Bloomberg

[starsmine]

12 minutes ago, rockyroller said:

 

If it is about saving the power grid what else would would they deny the average household?

That Xbox saving will come, as it starts with air conditioners and entertainment next?

It happened in the USA and now parts of the EU.

Operation Thermostat! Italy turns down air conditioning in bid to reduce dependence on Russian gas – POLITICO

Spain Air Conditioning Crackdown Set to Take Effect - Bloomberg

I hate to belabor the point. 
But what are you being denied here. 
Why are you asking 
"What else would "they" deny the avg household?"

WHAT ARE YOU BEING DENIED HERE. 
Why are you mad a firmware update gives you, the user, levers to use less power and the power that it does use, a tiny amount more carbon efficient, and a company pats themselves on the back for engineering that solution. 
What is being taken away from you. 

This straight up isnt a culture war from the "other" side you think it is. 

Every time someone asks you or OP to expand on what they are upset about, you two go off on these non sequitur rants that are not even tangentially related. 

[leadeater]

3 hours ago, darknessblade said:

If they want to make a change why aren't they shutting of the lights in the offices during the night when nobody is around, or just use PIR sensors in all the hallways, making useless waste of having light on in hallways nobody uses a thing of the past?

A lot of places do have movement activated lights and hallways and stairwells must always have lights on at all times as that is a health and safety requirement.

 

A lot of things that seem stupid quite often actually have a reason behind it, we don't have to agree with the reason but one will likely exist.

 

3 hours ago, darknessblade said:

Or turn of servers for regions, where there is low traffic during certain times, redirecting traffic to a different server?

Only during low traffic? So never then.

 

3 hours ago, darknessblade said:

In my opinion Microsoft can only implement this if they are also paying for MY ENTIRE ELECTRICITY BILL.

Microsoft operates industry leading energy efficient datacenters. Not because PR, because electricity is a cost so less is better for them.

 

3 hours ago, darknessblade said:

Them telling users when they can and cannot use THEIR [the user] console is not one of them.

They aren't doing that though....

 

Do you really want to be the person that is screaming at a company for doing something they aren't actually doing? You know how that looks right?

[darknessblade]

  

2 hours ago, starsmine said:

What are you talking about?
At what point are they telling users when they can or can not use their xbox at home?

MS is giving you the ability to lower your power bill every month with some new/smarter settings with literally no downside then a couple of extra seconds to wait on wake, that you as a user can choose not use. 
And you think that MS giving you that ability means they should pay your bill?

 

The problem is that microsoft Enables it by default, and most users do not know its a "feature"

It is also a FORCED opt-in. that you cannot choose to opt out without having to go trough the entire menu,

giving it trough a simple prompt that you get after installing the latest update  

 

 

12 minutes ago, leadeater said:

A lot of places do have movement activated lights and hallways and stairwells must always have lights on at all times as that is a health and safety requirement.

 

A lot of things that seem stupid quite often actually have a reason behind it, we don't have to agree with the reason but one will likely exist.

 

Only during low traffic? So never then.

 

Microsoft operates industry leading energy efficient datacenters. Not because PR, because electricity is a cost so less is better for them.

 

They aren't doing that though....

 

Do you really want to be the person that is screaming at a company for doing something they aren't actually doing? You know how that looks right?

 

Even if I am said person

Companies will start small and slowly get you used to getting screwed over to the point where it seems normal.

 

I am just looking at the most extreme Hypothetical future that could happen.

 

Since once a company can get away with something small they will soon increase said thing to encompass more features that they lock down by default, where they will later force you to pay to enable something like 'High performance modus" making it essentially a monthly subscription, where you pay to get better performance.

 

 

[DANK_AS_gay]

On 1/25/2023 at 5:36 AM, CarlBar said:

Which of course conveniently ignores that all those companies are only producing those emissions in the process of creating products for Mr joe Blogs - Private Citizen. But you still see it a lot, people wanting the "evil companies" to deal with the issues without any change in their lives.

Then the change should be buying responsible goods, not worrying about electric cars or 10w less power or miniscule changes. We are constantly told how massive of an impact our -10w makes when in reality it is literally nothing compared to the massive emissions by larger companies. Why is so much research going into electric cars when they produce just as much emissions as an ICE car? That sort of stuff. And WE are told to lower OUR carbon footprint. Like that does anything. I'm not saying there isn't anything you can do, but what I am saying is that often times it's pointless for us to do it. Especially when power is so cheap (at least in the US right now it's still decently cheap, I know that the UK is hurting)

[DANK_AS_gay]

1 minute ago, darknessblade said:

where they will later force you to pay to enable something like 'High performance modus" making it essentially a monthly subscription, where you pay to get better performance.

Did you see the backlash on Mercedes and BMW when they tried that?

[leadeater]

12 minutes ago, darknessblade said:

Even if I am said person

Companies will start small and slowly get you used to getting screwed over to the point where it seems normal.

But they haven't started anything, the update to the power saving functions is literally nothing at all for this aspect.

 

Or how about you go back in time and scream at Sony for releasing an update to the PS3 which allowed developers and software/games to use the then reserved CPU core. How dare they after the fact allow you to use MORE of your own hardware, after determining it was safe to do so.

[darknessblade]

15 minutes ago, leadeater said:

But they haven't started anything, the update to the power saving functions is literally nothing at all for this aspect.

 

Or how about you go back in time and scream at Sony for releasing an update to the PS3 which allowed developers and software/games to use the then reserved CPU core. How dare they after the fact allow you to use MORE of your own hardware, after determining it was safe to do so.

For the PS3 the better example in this case, would have been them disabling the linux modus on the PS3 PHAT

[Lightwreather]

29 minutes ago, darknessblade said:

The problem is that microsoft Enables it by default, and most users do not know its a "feature"

Dear freaking bidoof,

If they had released this thing without wording it as better for the environment, would many people rating against it, rail against it? II'd say no.

This is literally just optimisation, not a feature, an optimisation. An optimisation that BENEFITS consumers…

 

The greenwashing sure, that is a valid point to rail against, but to say that this is an anti-consumer move (which is what you are implying) is just straight up madness.

[starsmine]

11 minutes ago, darknessblade said:

For the PS3 the better example in this case, would have been them disabling the linux modus on the PS3 PHAT

No, they are not analogous at all, PS3 issue was an issue because there was no choice. 

 

39 minutes ago, darknessblade said:

  The problem is that microsoft Enables it by default, and most users do not know its a "feature"

It is also a FORCED opt-in. that you cannot choose to opt out without having to go trough the entire menu,

giving it trough a simple prompt that you get after installing the latest update  

Forced opt-in?
I dont think you know what that word means.

And you can just... opt out as you said. its literally a non issue for you. 
Literally the only people who care to opt out are the small select group that are turning this into a culture war for reasons unknown to me. So they all know about the feature now, they can go ahead and turn it off. Use more power during standby to "own the other side" or whatever they think it does. Have the xbox turn on to update during peak power costs so you can feel good about giving money to the power utilities in your area or whatever. That is your choice to make still. 
There is no need to create friction for users who do not know about the feature to turn powersavings on.

This really feels like actively sticking your face in a truck tail pipe while it rolls coal to stick it to all those damn prius drivers moment honestly. Go do that if that is your life choice.  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I think you will find most people prefer not doing that and would rather not have the friction of having to choose to not actively do that.