[icebraining]

> It doesn't destroy the environment like Apple's or Samsung's phones.

"Looking at the 44 concerts, U2 will create enough carbon to fly all 90,000 people attending one of their Wembley dates (in London) to Dublin," Helen Roberts, an environmental consultant for carbonfootprint.com, told the Belfast Telegraph. Put another way, U2's CO2 emissions are reportedly the equivalent to the average annual waste produced by 6,500 British people, or the same as leaving a lightbulb running for 159,000 years. [1]

> It doesn't con people into giving up personal information like Facebook.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/05/arts/music/jay-z-is-watchi...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootki...

> It doesn't take advantage of desperate third world labor like everything Wal-Mart sells.

Wal-Mart sells pop media.

[1]: http://www.theguardian.com/music/2009/jul/10/u2-world-tour-c...

[tedunangst]

Ironically, "musicians should tour nonstop" is the most popular answer for how they should sustain themselves while giving away free music.

[rayiner]

You're comparing apples and oranges. The carbon footprints of iPhones alone sold in a single quarter is in the millions of tons. You point to a couple of privacy breaches versus Facebook whose entire business model is based on breaching privacy.

[icebraining]

The carbon footprints of iPhones alone sold in a single quarter is in the millions of tons.

Yes, and humans exhale almost a billion of tons in the same period. I don't think just measuring the total is very helpful; you'd need to analyze carefully the value of each things, and what they replaced. How many carbons were saved when teenagers start defining themselves based more on their smartphones that on their cars?

You point to a couple of privacy breaches versus Facebook whose entire business model is based on breaching privacy.

Sure, but being less bad than Facebook is not an achievement.