24 ms·

What really annoys me about Apple and what shows up again in this review: In each keynote the highlight how "green" they are and how much they care about the en

What really annoys me about Apple and what shows up again in this review: In each keynote the highlight how "green" they are and how much they care about the environment. But if they really would care about waste reduction and the environment then they would have switched over to USB-C for their phones (one truly universal type of cable = less waste), they would have kept the headphone jack (bluetooth earphones are a waste of precious resources), and they would produce laptops and desktops which are serviceable and upgradable by the user. Every single one of their products is made for "use it two years, throw it away when it breaks and buy a new one". Unfortunately other companies aren't much better, e.g. Microsofts Surface laptops which are impossible to repair.

nordsieck 9y ago
It's not clear that if Apple did those things, that they would have had the market success they currently enjoy.
- exBarrelSpoiler 9y ago
  And yet, now that they've climbed to the top of the heap built on planned obsolescence and chasing after relentless growth quarter after quarter, maybe it's time for them to use their wealth and influence to shape the market more thoroughly. Instead of simply continuing to chase more growth for the sake of the board's approval.
013a 9y ago
If all they really cared about were the environment, they wouldn't even make electronics at all. They're horribly polluting. Fortunately, its not all they care about. Its possible to have multiple priorities, you know.
- ttsda 9y ago
  A few months ago the trackpad on my late 2014 rMBP began to malfunction. I brought it to an apple repair centre and they had to replace the battery, keyboard, laptop and the aluminium top case of the laptop. A lot of people, when presented with the quote they gave me would very likely just get a new laptop and throw the old one away. If they were even slightly commited to the environment they would have the option to replace only the trackpad, it's not even the same part, they're attached by only a few screws! It's very easy to find things your company already do for another reason and say you're doing it for the planet. I don't think there's more than this to apple's "commitment to the environment"
  - ics 9y ago
    I'm actually amazed that almost every time I go to the Genius Bar for service, there are people paying ~50% of purchase price on repairs for their Mac/Book/Pad/Pros instead of refusing service and buying something new. Going with my first comment in this thread, my perception is that people have a much stronger connection with the thing they bought rather than optimizing for cost. To add another anecdote: a few years ago my wife dropped her iPhone 4 into water and it died shortly after. I told her to shut it off and even disassembled it to see if anything was salvageable (it wasn't for my level of DIY). She paid probably 75% of the original purchase price to have it "fixed" which meant pretty much a new phone dropped into the old housing. Contrast that with one week ago when my iPhone 7 fell out of my pocket while biking and got run over by a car (only one tire hit, squarely over the thing). There were only three scratches to the side of the aluminum and a cracked rear camera glass cover. Not even a scuff to the screen. Apple quoted me $320 for the "repair" which I refused and semi-jokingly replied that I'd wait for the next battery recall. For now I have a $5 replacement part coming which I'll install myself, but if it shows any other issues down the line I'll likely just buy a newer model and give the old one to a family member or use it for whatever still works– there's almost always a use for old Apple products that still turn on.
    - tqkxzugoaupvwqr 9y ago
      > people have a much stronger connection with the thing they bought rather than optimizing for cost Assuming people want to stay in the iOS ecosystem: Isn’t choosing the less expensive option (repair) instead of the more expensive option (buying a new iPhone) optimizing for cost?
      - derefr 9y ago
        That’s assuming they weren’t already planning to replace their phone soon. Personally, I’m four iPhone versions behind, and am probably going to wait one more refresh cycle before getting a new phone. But if my phone broke today, I’d just buy the currently-new model and then not buy the one a year from now. Either way is fine with me.
      - 9y ago
tedivm 9y ago
> Every single one of their products is made for "use it two years, throw it away when it breaks and buy a new one". Unfortunately other companies aren't much better, e.g. Microsofts Surface laptops which are impossible to repair. That is completely false. I'm typing this on a "MacBook Pro (Retina, Mid 2012)" that still works great. The MacBook I had before that lasted me about five years as well. The laptop I had before that one did break after two years, but that was because my cat spilled a bunch of soda into it while it was running (and the genius bar people spent an entire weekend trying to recover data from it anyways, and then gave me a huge discount on a new one). I get that it's a bit ridiculous that you can't add more ram, but realistically speaking the biggest upgrades come from the motherboard and processor architecture and there's not a lot of laptops that will let you swap that out anyways.
ics 9y ago
I agree that they could reduce consumption and make life easier by consolidating connectors and not screwing around with those already established. However, in my experience whatever I buy from Apple tends to last longer and I definitely don't throw any of it out until it's completely unusable. In the cases where their product isn't more durable (e.g. certain MagSafe connectors) people tend to baby them because of the cost to replace. In over 15 years of buying Apple products, the only products I've discarded were a pair of earbuds that were stepped on and torn and a MagSafe charger which caught fire (early MacBook Pro). I think in some sense it's Apple customers customers who keep them "green" just by holding on to their stuff as long as possible.
Finnucane 9y ago
As you see, it isn't just Apple, it's our whole economy. Building products that are durable and maintainable are better for the user and a less wasteful us of resources, but building things to be disposable is better for the short-term corporate bottom line. So all manufacturing tends to move in that direction.
21 9y ago
Apple sells not so much a tech product as an aspiration. By buying Apple you are a better person, and better persons care about the environment. It would be against their brand to not care. One day, it will be very cool and "woke" to pay taxes. You will see then how much noise Apple will be making about "paying their dues" well and beyond the minimal requirements and loop-holes.
gumby 9y ago
Yoodenvranx you make a good point. But it's worse than you think: I understand a number of Apple employees have children, which has an even greater impact on the environment. And many of them use motor vehicles of one sort or another to get to work. Have they no shame?????
- innagadadavida 9y ago
  Sarcasm aside, are you advocating a one child policy and very high car taxes (like Singapore)? This thread has just degenerated to “world has many problem, let’s just blame Apple”
  - gumby 9y ago
    I'm certainly not advocating a one child policy!! I haven't really thought much about high car taxes; I tend to think car ownership will go away once they drive themselves, though I don't know about the pollution impact. My point was that people make choices, and the ultimate end result of economic activity should be the satisfaction of people, not other goals, and that the particular ones that happen to drive person X wild (or that they want to higlight for the purposes of virtue signalling) simply reflect personal choices as well. I have my own bugbears in this regard, though they happen to be different from the GP poster's. I actually do have an opinion on childbearing. I am a parent and enjoyed it tremendously but by hanging around with other parents there are many, perhaps a majority, who seem like they would have been happier having fewer, or even none. Certainly that is the case of one of my parents. It's great to have a child because you want one, sad to do it because you think you ought to. But I don't think that should be a policy issue; if there's any policy issue in there it's haveing an educational system that encourages people to make decisions that will make them happy. Hmm, good luck with that.
oldcynic 9y ago
In the scheme of things cabling is a relatively trivial point. Perhaps a better target to find fault with is lack of easy memory upgrade, or use of sealed rechargeables in mouse and especially keyboard. Apple are far from unique in claiming, perhaps undeserved, green credentials. In general Apple and Thinkpad seem to be the only brands that will last. I suspect it is environmentally far better, for all their faults, to keep a machine for 5 years rather than have 2 or 3 cheaper machines over the same period. So what would you suggest that doesn't require a rethink of the whole tech industry?
askafriend 9y ago
On the contrary, my Apple computers have lasted longer and have been more reliable than any other computers I've ever used. While my dad gets a new PC laptop seemingly every 2 years, my Macbooks last 4-5 years easily while taking a whole lot of abuse. And since Apple products tend to hold their value really well, there's a thriving second-hand economy for these products that doesn't really exist for other manufactures. So older products get re-used by people looking for cheaper Macs or iPhones or whatever. One last point: no one really upgrades computers anymore, especially not laptops. Desktop computers are rare in the home now, and the people who are really spending a lot of effort into maintaining their desktop rigs are gamers and video professionals. Upgrading becomes a moot point when a system lasts as long as 5 years. By that time, there is far newer technology and upgrading is no longer worth it or feasible (newer motherboard types, incompatible RAM pins, etc). The best way to do good for the environment is to create a reliable product with sustainable materials that serves it's purpose for as long as possible and then continues to deliver value through re-use. That's exactly what they're doing and it's the smart way to do it - it becomes a natural part of the product lifecycle with no additional effort required from the customer. Yes Apple do highlight how "green" they are, and you can read their annual reports and decide for yourself if it's a deserved point of pride or not for them: https://www.apple.com/environment/ https://www.apple.com/environment/ I will say they are probably one of the more transparent manufacturers in the industry, with initiatives ranging from carbon neutral office buildings down to the material sciences level in their products.
- qplex 9y ago
  >The best way to do good for the environment is to create a reliable product with sustainable materials that serves it's purpose for as long as possible and then continues to deliver value through re-use. >That's exactly what they're doing No. Only a couple of days ago there was a NY Times article posted here on how the iPad has become obsolete just because the software isn't being updated anymore.
  - coldtea 9y ago
    >Only a couple of days ago there was a NY Times article posted here on how the iPad has become obsolete just because the software isn't being updated anymore. Like with the WMDs, don't believe all you read on the NYTs. And generally, don't get your tech news from the mainstream press. The iPads that are left behind are those released before 2013 -- so like 5 years ago. And even those will still function just fine, just wont get any new updates. Now, consider how Android phones and tablets often don't even get an official update to the next version of Android than the one they came with for comparison...
stephen_g 9y ago
> Every single one of their products is made for "use it two years, throw it away when it breaks and buy a new one" That’s absolutely rubbish - totally false. I got six years out of one of my MacBooks - it still actually works fine as a web browsing machine but is a bit slow. The next went well for four years but was taken out by a faulty graphics card. Luckily Apple replaced it free-of charge with a model four years newer, which is still going strong after three years. I don’t foresee having to replace that for at least another two or three years either. I’ve got three years out of each of my my iPhones too, whereas many of my friends with Android phones seem to replace theirs as often as every year and a half, which is about how long they tend to get updates, unlike iPhones that keep getting them for years.
- qplex 9y ago
  This has been mentioned a thousand times over: on Android devices one can usually install LineageOS when the vendor support runs out. No such option for iPhones. When the support runs out you will be left hanging.
  - duskwuff 9y ago
    Apple's OS support for iOS devices has generally been quite generous -- 5 years is typical. For example, iOS 11, which was released in September 2017, dropped support for the iPhone 5, which was released in September 2012.
    - qplex 9y ago
      The point is that after the support runs out you're out of luck - there are no alternatives in the Apple ecosystem.
      - innagadadavida 9y ago
        What support do you need? Not hypothetical ones. Have you discovered any new vulnerability in iOS 8/9/10 that we don’t know about please do share.
coldtea 9y ago
>But if they really would care about waste reduction and the environment then they would have switched over to USB-C for their phones (one truly universal type of cable = less waste), they would have kept the headphone jack (bluetooth earphones are a waste of precious resources), and they would produce laptops and desktops which are serviceable and upgradable by the user. All three things sound inconsequential regarding the environment. First, there are so many iPhones out there and there have been hundreds of millions of lighting cables sold before USB-C was a thing -- you suggest throwing those is better for the environment? Besides, each iPhone comes with a free such cable. If it came with a free USB-C cable it would have been better for the environment because? Second, "bluetooth earphones are a waste of precious resources". Doesn't that contradict your first statement, about the waste of resources cables represent? Not to mention that old headphones can be used with new iPhones with a tiny adapter. Lastly, "Every single one of their products is made for "use it two years, throw it away when it breaks and buy a new one", nope. In fact it's the opposite, Macs have a better lifetime, and more resale value than your average PC. And people use old iPhones and iPads perfectly fine. And of course, when you're done, they can recycle the whole thing.
- addicted 9y ago
  The “better resale value” thing needs to be addressed. People keep using this as evidence of the Mac or iphone’s longevity, but I hardly doubt that’s the cause for the better resale value. Broken, non-working Mac products also have better resale value than the equivalent Windows products. It seems far more likely the better resale value is simply because (a) Their parts have higher value due to Apple using proprietary parts, rather than cheap openly available parts, making them valuable for repairers (b) Apple does not sell products below a certain price range, so if someone’s kid wants a portable Mac, but they can’t afford to spend more than $500, they have to go the second hand route. In the Windows world you have a plethora of new devices available at a fraction of the cost of any new device, therefore making it impossible for the old device to hold its value since it isn’t competing only with its original price.

nordsieck 9y ago

It's not clear that if Apple did those things, that they would have had the market success they currently enjoy.

exBarrelSpoiler 9y ago
And yet, now that they've climbed to the top of the heap built on planned obsolescence and chasing after relentless growth quarter after quarter, maybe it's time for them to use their wealth and influence to shape the market more thoroughly. Instead of simply continuing to chase more growth for the sake of the board's approval.

013a 9y ago

If all they really cared about were the environment, they wouldn't even make electronics at all. They're horribly polluting. Fortunately, its not all they care about. Its possible to have multiple priorities, you know.

ttsda 9y ago
A few months ago the trackpad on my late 2014 rMBP began to malfunction. I brought it to an apple repair centre and they had to replace the battery, keyboard, laptop and the aluminium top case of the laptop. A lot of people, when presented with the quote they gave me would very likely just get a new laptop and throw the old one away. If they were even slightly commited to the environment they would have the option to replace only the trackpad, it's not even the same part, they're attached by only a few screws! It's very easy to find things your company already do for another reason and say you're doing it for the planet. I don't think there's more than this to apple's "commitment to the environment"
- ics 9y ago
  I'm actually amazed that almost every time I go to the Genius Bar for service, there are people paying ~50% of purchase price on repairs for their Mac/Book/Pad/Pros instead of refusing service and buying something new. Going with my first comment in this thread, my perception is that people have a much stronger connection with the thing they bought rather than optimizing for cost. To add another anecdote: a few years ago my wife dropped her iPhone 4 into water and it died shortly after. I told her to shut it off and even disassembled it to see if anything was salvageable (it wasn't for my level of DIY). She paid probably 75% of the original purchase price to have it "fixed" which meant pretty much a new phone dropped into the old housing. Contrast that with one week ago when my iPhone 7 fell out of my pocket while biking and got run over by a car (only one tire hit, squarely over the thing). There were only three scratches to the side of the aluminum and a cracked rear camera glass cover. Not even a scuff to the screen. Apple quoted me $320 for the "repair" which I refused and semi-jokingly replied that I'd wait for the next battery recall. For now I have a $5 replacement part coming which I'll install myself, but if it shows any other issues down the line I'll likely just buy a newer model and give the old one to a family member or use it for whatever still works– there's almost always a use for old Apple products that still turn on.
  - tqkxzugoaupvwqr 9y ago
    > people have a much stronger connection with the thing they bought rather than optimizing for cost Assuming people want to stay in the iOS ecosystem: Isn’t choosing the less expensive option (repair) instead of the more expensive option (buying a new iPhone) optimizing for cost?
    - derefr 9y ago
      That’s assuming they weren’t already planning to replace their phone soon. Personally, I’m four iPhone versions behind, and am probably going to wait one more refresh cycle before getting a new phone. But if my phone broke today, I’d just buy the currently-new model and then not buy the one a year from now. Either way is fine with me.
    - 9y ago

tedivm 9y ago

> Every single one of their products is made for "use it two years, throw it away when it breaks and buy a new one". Unfortunately other companies aren't much better, e.g. Microsofts Surface laptops which are impossible to repair. That is completely false. I'm typing this on a "MacBook Pro (Retina, Mid 2012)" that still works great. The MacBook I had before that lasted me about five years as well. The laptop I had before that one did break after two years, but that was because my cat spilled a bunch of soda into it while it was running (and the genius bar people spent an entire weekend trying to recover data from it anyways, and then gave me a huge discount on a new one). I get that it's a bit ridiculous that you can't add more ram, but realistically speaking the biggest upgrades come from the motherboard and processor architecture and there's not a lot of laptops that will let you swap that out anyways.

ics 9y ago

I agree that they could reduce consumption and make life easier by consolidating connectors and not screwing around with those already established. However, in my experience whatever I buy from Apple tends to last longer and I definitely don't throw any of it out until it's completely unusable. In the cases where their product isn't more durable (e.g. certain MagSafe connectors) people tend to baby them because of the cost to replace. In over 15 years of buying Apple products, the only products I've discarded were a pair of earbuds that were stepped on and torn and a MagSafe charger which caught fire (early MacBook Pro). I think in some sense it's Apple customers customers who keep them "green" just by holding on to their stuff as long as possible.

Finnucane 9y ago

As you see, it isn't just Apple, it's our whole economy. Building products that are durable and maintainable are better for the user and a less wasteful us of resources, but building things to be disposable is better for the short-term corporate bottom line. So all manufacturing tends to move in that direction.

21 9y ago

Apple sells not so much a tech product as an aspiration. By buying Apple you are a better person, and better persons care about the environment. It would be against their brand to not care. One day, it will be very cool and "woke" to pay taxes. You will see then how much noise Apple will be making about "paying their dues" well and beyond the minimal requirements and loop-holes.

gumby 9y ago

Yoodenvranx you make a good point. But it's worse than you think: I understand a number of Apple employees have children, which has an even greater impact on the environment. And many of them use motor vehicles of one sort or another to get to work. Have they no shame?????

innagadadavida 9y ago
Sarcasm aside, are you advocating a one child policy and very high car taxes (like Singapore)? This thread has just degenerated to “world has many problem, let’s just blame Apple”
- gumby 9y ago
  I'm certainly not advocating a one child policy!! I haven't really thought much about high car taxes; I tend to think car ownership will go away once they drive themselves, though I don't know about the pollution impact. My point was that people make choices, and the ultimate end result of economic activity should be the satisfaction of people, not other goals, and that the particular ones that happen to drive person X wild (or that they want to higlight for the purposes of virtue signalling) simply reflect personal choices as well. I have my own bugbears in this regard, though they happen to be different from the GP poster's. I actually do have an opinion on childbearing. I am a parent and enjoyed it tremendously but by hanging around with other parents there are many, perhaps a majority, who seem like they would have been happier having fewer, or even none. Certainly that is the case of one of my parents. It's great to have a child because you want one, sad to do it because you think you ought to. But I don't think that should be a policy issue; if there's any policy issue in there it's haveing an educational system that encourages people to make decisions that will make them happy. Hmm, good luck with that.

oldcynic 9y ago

In the scheme of things cabling is a relatively trivial point. Perhaps a better target to find fault with is lack of easy memory upgrade, or use of sealed rechargeables in mouse and especially keyboard. Apple are far from unique in claiming, perhaps undeserved, green credentials. In general Apple and Thinkpad seem to be the only brands that will last. I suspect it is environmentally far better, for all their faults, to keep a machine for 5 years rather than have 2 or 3 cheaper machines over the same period. So what would you suggest that doesn't require a rethink of the whole tech industry?

askafriend 9y ago

On the contrary, my Apple computers have lasted longer and have been more reliable than any other computers I've ever used. While my dad gets a new PC laptop seemingly every 2 years, my Macbooks last 4-5 years easily while taking a whole lot of abuse. And since Apple products tend to hold their value really well, there's a thriving second-hand economy for these products that doesn't really exist for other manufactures. So older products get re-used by people looking for cheaper Macs or iPhones or whatever. One last point: no one really upgrades computers anymore, especially not laptops. Desktop computers are rare in the home now, and the people who are really spending a lot of effort into maintaining their desktop rigs are gamers and video professionals. Upgrading becomes a moot point when a system lasts as long as 5 years. By that time, there is far newer technology and upgrading is no longer worth it or feasible (newer motherboard types, incompatible RAM pins, etc). The best way to do good for the environment is to create a reliable product with sustainable materials that serves it's purpose for as long as possible and then continues to deliver value through re-use. That's exactly what they're doing and it's the smart way to do it - it becomes a natural part of the product lifecycle with no additional effort required from the customer. Yes Apple do highlight how "green" they are, and you can read their annual reports and decide for yourself if it's a deserved point of pride or not for them: https://www.apple.com/environment/ https://www.apple.com/environment/ I will say they are probably one of the more transparent manufacturers in the industry, with initiatives ranging from carbon neutral office buildings down to the material sciences level in their products.

qplex 9y ago
>The best way to do good for the environment is to create a reliable product with sustainable materials that serves it's purpose for as long as possible and then continues to deliver value through re-use. >That's exactly what they're doing No. Only a couple of days ago there was a NY Times article posted here on how the iPad has become obsolete just because the software isn't being updated anymore.
- coldtea 9y ago
  >Only a couple of days ago there was a NY Times article posted here on how the iPad has become obsolete just because the software isn't being updated anymore. Like with the WMDs, don't believe all you read on the NYTs. And generally, don't get your tech news from the mainstream press. The iPads that are left behind are those released before 2013 -- so like 5 years ago. And even those will still function just fine, just wont get any new updates. Now, consider how Android phones and tablets often don't even get an official update to the next version of Android than the one they came with for comparison...

stephen_g 9y ago

> Every single one of their products is made for "use it two years, throw it away when it breaks and buy a new one" That’s absolutely rubbish - totally false. I got six years out of one of my MacBooks - it still actually works fine as a web browsing machine but is a bit slow. The next went well for four years but was taken out by a faulty graphics card. Luckily Apple replaced it free-of charge with a model four years newer, which is still going strong after three years. I don’t foresee having to replace that for at least another two or three years either. I’ve got three years out of each of my my iPhones too, whereas many of my friends with Android phones seem to replace theirs as often as every year and a half, which is about how long they tend to get updates, unlike iPhones that keep getting them for years.

qplex 9y ago
This has been mentioned a thousand times over: on Android devices one can usually install LineageOS when the vendor support runs out. No such option for iPhones. When the support runs out you will be left hanging.
- duskwuff 9y ago
  Apple's OS support for iOS devices has generally been quite generous -- 5 years is typical. For example, iOS 11, which was released in September 2017, dropped support for the iPhone 5, which was released in September 2012.
  - qplex 9y ago
    The point is that after the support runs out you're out of luck - there are no alternatives in the Apple ecosystem.
    - innagadadavida 9y ago
      What support do you need? Not hypothetical ones. Have you discovered any new vulnerability in iOS 8/9/10 that we don’t know about please do share.

coldtea 9y ago

>But if they really would care about waste reduction and the environment then they would have switched over to USB-C for their phones (one truly universal type of cable = less waste), they would have kept the headphone jack (bluetooth earphones are a waste of precious resources), and they would produce laptops and desktops which are serviceable and upgradable by the user. All three things sound inconsequential regarding the environment. First, there are so many iPhones out there and there have been hundreds of millions of lighting cables sold before USB-C was a thing -- you suggest throwing those is better for the environment? Besides, each iPhone comes with a free such cable. If it came with a free USB-C cable it would have been better for the environment because? Second, "bluetooth earphones are a waste of precious resources". Doesn't that contradict your first statement, about the waste of resources cables represent? Not to mention that old headphones can be used with new iPhones with a tiny adapter. Lastly, "Every single one of their products is made for "use it two years, throw it away when it breaks and buy a new one", nope. In fact it's the opposite, Macs have a better lifetime, and more resale value than your average PC. And people use old iPhones and iPads perfectly fine. And of course, when you're done, they can recycle the whole thing.

addicted 9y ago
The “better resale value” thing needs to be addressed. People keep using this as evidence of the Mac or iphone’s longevity, but I hardly doubt that’s the cause for the better resale value. Broken, non-working Mac products also have better resale value than the equivalent Windows products. It seems far more likely the better resale value is simply because (a) Their parts have higher value due to Apple using proprietary parts, rather than cheap openly available parts, making them valuable for repairers (b) Apple does not sell products below a certain price range, so if someone’s kid wants a portable Mac, but they can’t afford to spend more than $500, they have to go the second hand route. In the Windows world you have a plethora of new devices available at a fraction of the cost of any new device, therefore making it impossible for the old device to hold its value since it isn’t competing only with its original price.