Have you considered that your question is a non-sequitur? Short of quitting my job and becoming a subsistence farmer, my company is going to supply me with a computer and a phone for the foreseeable future. The exact nature of those devices isn't really important. They're going to exist and they're going to cost the same order of magnitude as a Macbook Pro and an iPhone.

Yes, I thought about possible reasons why it might be meaningless to ask the question. (Maybe gonational already has billions invested in green tech, or maybe they consider Apple a more responsible GHG emitter than any of the other phone manufacturers even if he/she buys a phone for $400 and plants trees for $600.)

But I was interested in his/her reasons.

A false dilemma is not how you make a constructive pro-environment argument. It is unnecessary, and won't convince anyone. You could've asked what else they do for or against the environment, but that'd be off-topic in this thread I suppose.

It's not a dilemma, it's a sincere question of consideration.

The contrast between some HN comments on the "Wetbulb heatwave omg it's the end" thread and this one was pretty striking.