11 ms·

From the article: "According to a wildly popular ad campaign against the product earlier this year, there are so many discarded K-Cups that if you lined them up

by dpflan 8y ago

From the article: "According to a wildly popular ad campaign against the product earlier this year, there are so many discarded K-Cups that if you lined them up it would be enough to circle the earth more than 10 times — and that's just from one year's worth of coffee pods." Yes. I think the incentives to have a sustainable/ethical design in the context of reducing waste or recycling waste would be a good incentive for products/service/companies like this. Could there be a subsidy for companies that take the time to manage their products/design/supply-chain to combat wastefulness/negative externalities of using the product/service? For example, Apple appears to be taking the environmental impact of their business seriously: > https://www.apple.com/environment/ https://www.apple.com/environment/

dima55 8y ago
Apple practically invented the concept of "planned obsolescence". They are also the people who pioneered the idea of non-removable batteries in laptops and phones, and they are so antagonistic to people repairing their hardware that they invented extra pain-in-the-ass screws. Let's not hold them up as some sort of beacon of environmental stewardship, ok?
- oneplane 8y ago
  Fixed batteries are nothing new, anti-tampering screws are nothing new, and trying to prevent more support cases by limiting the things customers can break is also nothing new. What is new is the polarization over technology brands and people using arguments on things they pretty much know nothing about and have no experience with.
  - mattigames 8y ago
    Nope, Apple does a lot of stuff specifically to make it so not even technicians (not customers directly) cannot repair an iphone.
    - mattnewton 8y ago
      Disclaimer: ex apple engineer with apple stock still. The perspective inside for the rank and file was dominated by concern about hackers and stolen iPhones for the touchid security. Apple was trying to get people to trust their medical records and finances to the device (a massive market opportunity) and so took an extremely paranoid approach to how replaceable the hardware was, to prevent trivial exploits. The repairability market was small peanuts compared to that, and I genuinely believe that no one wanted iPhones to be harder to service vs other phones.
      - drb91 8y ago
        > genuinely believe that no one wanted iPhones to be harder to service vs other phones. Unfortunately this hasn’t resulted in a repairable iphone. Yet again corporate incentives and lack of moral ownership work against consumer interests.
      - rtkwe 8y ago
        I'd be more willing to accept the security justifications for bad repair-ability if it didn't extend across their entire portfolio and to their authorized service providers. Why do AOSPs have to replace entire mainboards (CPU, memory and all) instead of individual components on the iMac?
        oneplane 8y ago
        I'd guess because it's manufactured and tested as a whole module, and because time costs more than replacement hardware.
        rtkwe 8y ago
        For Apple maybe but for the users it turns a same day job into several days as the AOSP waits for the part to come in.
      - anigbrowl 8y ago
        I think you and the decision-makers were entirely sincere, but good intentions can still result in market failures. As a side note it's baffling tome that a firm like Apple would go all in on touch ID given the numerous demonstrations in movies and TV of how that would likely be abused, many of which have made the jump from fiction to reality.
  - hnbroseph 8y ago
    i don't think an apple pr executive could have said it any better! it's a great strategy to spin bad behavior as nominally neutral things, or to divert with red herrings, so as to diffuse the application of ethical or moral considerations.
  - deogeo 8y ago
    While the person you replied to emphasized how Apple supposedly pioneered those practices, I don't consider "not new" a good defense, even if factual (or a defense at all, really). And they are certainly worse than the competition in using those user-hostile anti-features.
  - ineedasername 8y ago
    What is new is the polarization over technology brands I've survived the apple gigahertz gap, countless generations of console wars, seen usenet flamewars last for weeks, and any number of minor brand skirmishes & salvos. Polarization over tech brands is nothing new. "War never changes" [0] [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0vGpXPGFZY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0vGpXPGFZY
    - oneplane 8y ago
      Well, that is of course correct. I guess I was simply thinking with YouTube and non-technical people screaming on the internet in mind, which is obviously not what techno-polarisation embodies.
  - anigbrowl 8y ago
    anti-tampering screws are nothing new Can't agree with that. Being able to get into anything with a Philips screwdriver and then think through what I found inside was how I developed the hacker mentality way back in the 70s/80s, back when a pocket calculator had lots of discrete components and one chip. Repairability alone won't solve an environmental crisis, and of course as technology advances integration makes many repairs impossible, so bad luck if your SD card gets damaged. But being able to open things up is still valuable. A year or two back I called out a synthesizer manufacturer who was misrepresenting the technical capabilities of their expensive but software-incomplete product. If I hadn't developed the experience and confidence to find my way around unfamiliar circuit boards and how to read component markings I wouldn't have been able to do that.
    - oneplane 8y ago
      Anti-tampering screws have been around a long time. I remember somewhere in the 90's being surprised to see triangle screws and clockwise-only screws (not sure what their name is) in kids toys. Not all of them did it, but I distinctly remember Siku (a german manufacturer?) and Matchbox doing this. In Apple's case; I don't think malice is why they do what they do, it's probably a byproduct of a much simpler reason. As posted above, security might be one. If a device is harder to take apart, it's also harder to tamper with. I personally think that this would only hold up to some degree as an attacker with enough resources could get in anyway, but perhaps the required resources are are a high enough level that common attacks are less feasible. Another thing that is a way bigger issue (in my hacker mindset) is when SMT/SMD became common, just like VLSI. You suddenly can no longer easily see how a circuit works, and repairing a few failed components on a PCB gets much harder for most people. Then again, the cost (in time or paid time) is also no longer reasonably to have someone else do it. Replacing hardware and the benefits that can come with that are often a better deal than a repair.
      - cr0sh 8y ago
        Nintendo had security screws on their cartridges for the NES, so that goes back to the mid-1980s. I'm sure there were other products and devices that did the same (probably in the industrial and commercial arenas), but for the general US consumer, security screws basically made their appearance with the home video game console "revolution" (post-Atari 2600).
- mattnewton 8y ago
  Disclaimer: ex apple engineer with apple stock still. Apple is serious in a way no other brand I know of is about the recyclability of their products. https://www.apple.com/environment/ https://www.apple.com/environment/ I suspect the batteries and serviceability are a drop in the bucket when done directly by the consumer. Apple is very serious about making goods that last and that hold their value when refurbished.
  - dima55 8y ago
    No idea if they're serious about recyclability, but keeping an old thing is 100% better than getting a new thing while recycling the old one, environmentally speaking. And Apple's "innovations" make that difficult.
    - mattnewton 8y ago
      Apple is also serious about that; the policy under jobs was “we don’t ship junk” and AFAIK that continues today. I know plenty of people still rocking the iPhone 5s, their software support is ahead of other manufacturers I know off and they offer programs to replace worn batteries of all their models in stores, as well as trade in programs for almost all models. I am not aware of any android manufacturers with such long resale value.
- Scaevolus 8y ago
  I'd give that award to the light bulb cartel at the turn of the century that agreed on 1000 hours as the target lifetime.
  - Judgmentality 8y ago
    > light bulb cartel I know nothing about this and have no strong opinions about it one way or the other, but that phrasing is hilarious.
    - kup0 8y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoebus_cartel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoebus_cartel > The Phoebus cartel created a notable landmark in the history of the global economy because it engaged in large-scale planned obsolescence to generate repeated sales and maximize profit. > The cartel conveniently lowered operational costs and worked to standardize the life expectancy of light bulbs at 1,000 hours (down from 2,500 hours) and raised prices without fear of competition. The cartel tested their bulbs and fined manufacturers for bulbs that lasted more than 1,000 hours.
      - JohnJamesRambo 8y ago
        There's a special circle in hell that should be reserved for people like this.
        oftenwrong 8y ago
        They get to serve in the devil's cabinet.
  - coryrc 8y ago
    Incandescent light bulb life is inversely proportional to efficiency. The current choice already costs many times the purchase price in electricity use, so if anything, they chose a value too long.
    - 8y ago
- cptskippy 8y ago
  > Apple practically invented the concept of "planned obsolescence". It was the automotive industry that invented and perfected it, not Apple.
  - JustSomeNobody 8y ago
    Indeed. Cars form the 80's didn't even last for the 4 year loan.
- coldtea 8y ago
  >Apple practically invented the concept of "planned obsolescence" I don't think so. While they have indeed closed down self-repairs and upgrades, and stop supporting some models after 5-6 years: a) Their products keep their resale value higher. That's the opposite of "planned obsolescence" b) They update iPhones/iPads for as many iOS releases as they can, whereas Android phones have historically been (and still predominantly are) left off with no updates post-sale (statistics verify this) c) Their stuff might not be user operable but can be upgraded at their stores and is also regularly refurbished (and it happens by the hundreds of millions too) d) They also have recycling programs in place That said, easier repair and upgrades would indeed be more environment friendly. Even better, less models, as opposed to a new model a year and having people chase it. A heavy tax on buying gadgetry (proportional not to the value of the product, but to one's income) would help. But of course the whole economy is based on "more more more, externalities be damned".
- lucas_membrane 8y ago
  Their focus on slim and fashionable devices fits in with their whole product architecture. Fashions change, so Apple devices get replaced with newer ones often. So, why bother to make them last long? They shave every possible millimeter off the dimensions of phones and computers. This means that the devices have thin, easily cracked surfaces and more heat problems inside, leading to short lives. With the computers, they mitigate the customer outrage that would result from the heat-related breakdowns after a few years by getting the customers to anticipate the planned obsolescence. The warranty business is also a huge pot of gold for the company: with the marginal cost of a device so far below the average cost (which includes product development and promotion), the value of the warranty to many customers is so far above the cost of replacement products to Apple, any extension in the average product lifetime would drop the value of Apple by hundreds of billions.
- osdiab 8y ago
  Although they're not easily repairable, they remain usable so much longer than competition. Not sure if this source is accurate, but I've heard the statistic that 63% of iPhones ever made are still being used [1], which I'm pretty sure you can't say about Android phones. Also, my personal experience with Apple stuff is that it lasts quite long; for example, I used my last Macbook Pro for around 6 years, and even then it was still working just fine, I just wanted TouchID when I upgraded it. On the other hand, my dad, on Asus/Lenovo/Dell machines, has replaced his laptop 3 times in the same period. Not to mention all the other people talking about just how small a slice of consumers actually do properly salvage and repair their stuff. I'd assume a tiny, tiny percent of sophisticated consumers actually do, while the vast majority don't go to much lengths to repair or properly dispose of their electronics. I like repairability for myself because I am capable of DIY fixing things. But I don't assume that companies that do it do so because they're somehow more environmentally conscious, when probably plenty of other practices they do are extremely environmentally destructive. [1] https://newzoo.com/insights/articles/63-percent-of-all-iphones-ever-sold-still-in-use/ https://newzoo.com/insights/articles/63-percent-of-all-iphon...
unclenoriega 8y ago
> Could there be a subsidy for companies that take the time to manage their products/design/supply-chain to combat wastefulness/negative externalities of using the product/service? Isn't that functionally what a "carbon tax" is? Seems like the obvious solution we (speaking from the U.S.) should have implemented decades ago. There are other types of waste, but plastic seems like the most problematic.
maxxxxx 8y ago
"For example, Apple appears to be taking the environmental impact of their business seriously: " I think Apple is doing "greenwashing". If they were serious they would make their devices repairable and upgradeable.
- mattigames 8y ago
  Apple puts a lot of effort to make iphones NON-repairable as explained by this technician: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26cNHSilikI&feature=youtu.be&t=8m32s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26cNHSilikI&feature=youtu.be...
- bilbo0s 8y ago
  Devil's Advocate I know, but would people recycle things if they could repair things themselves? I mean, let's figure you have two possibilities: 1 You have to take it to Apple and have it replaced. In which case Apple will try to salvage (recycle) whatever they can. 2 You buy a new sub-component, take the old sub-component out, and salvage (recycle) the old sub-component yourself. In all honesty, what is the percentage of people who would actually complete the salvage (recycle) step of option 2? I think it's, at least reasonable, to suspect that the percentage is not terribly high.
SllX 8y ago
Honestly the only effective potential remedy I see is to probably tax producers for their wasteful byproducts. Tax Keurig the corporation a dime for every one of those cups, and I don’t buy the things but figure a box comes in increments of a half dozen, so we’re talking between 60¢ to an additional $2.40 a box. Now theoretically the cup and the seal are separate components as far as a recycler is concerned, so maybe they should be charged separately for both the lid and the cup, but at least the coffee itself is compostable so there is no need to also charge for that, but you can go ahead and throw an additional dime on for the box itself and any other cardboard components that act as a spacer inside the box, and maybe a dime on for the tape. Charge a quarter for any non-recycleable components. Then: nix the tax for any corporation willing to take back their own wasteful byproducts at their own cost and recycle them. Extreme? Oh yes, but also a great way to align a corporations incentives, and anything else is most likely a half measure that makes the problem worse by preventing an effective measure from being put in place.
- nikanj 8y ago
  The turtle choking to a Keurig cup in the Pacific doesn't really care that the cup had an additional tax on it. In general, we should stop making waste just for the sake of appearing more sophisticated. Keurig has very successfully targeted the same people who insist on bottled water, even though tap water is higher quality and cheaper. I don't know what's wrong with the basic human wiring, but we really seem to have a glitch that makes us equate excessive consumption with higher socioeconomic class. See also: giant SUVs, etc, etc.
  - bryanlarsen 8y ago
    The turtle cares because a pigouvian tax is the most effective means of keeping that cup out of the ocean in the first place. You can't ban stuff because bans would be full of loopholes for "necessary" usage. You can't just appeal to people's better nature because humans are humans.
    - rue 8y ago
      If a tax is prohibitive, then by the same logic there will be loopholes for necessary usage.
notyourwork 8y ago
The problem is Apple is a unicorn in this regard. If you have a treasure chest of money collecting dust you can afford to be much more proactive. Most businesses are not afforded the luxury and will deliver what is the most cost effective which isn't always aligned with most environmentally sound.
simion314 8y ago
>Apple appears to be taking the environmental impact of their business seriously: The keyword is "appears" , having to replace half of a laptop because a key is broken is not environmental friendly even if you could 99% recycle the materials since you consumed ton of energy and created CO2 producing and then recycling those working parts.
newnewpdro 8y ago
> For example, Apple appears to be taking the environmental impact of their business seriously You sir need to take a break from the Apple kool-aid.
anigbrowl 8y ago
Subsidies seem like the wrong approach, in that they require copious extra administration and are subject to abuse. Some economics theorists argue for securitizing externalities in some fashion, but I think the market for shipping recyclables to China is a good example of how this too can break down. I don't have a definite solution but I like the idea of disallowing deduction of all costs for tax purposes where they're a large increase in post-consumer waste, on the grounds that it's simpler to address the problem at source rather than in the large. I had to install some new light bulbs yesterday and I swear there's as much plastic in the containers they came in as in the ballast of the bulb itself.
SamReidHughes 8y ago
> there are so many discarded K-Cups that if you lined them up it would be enough to circle the earth more than 10 times Or, that means you could put them into ten 76x76x76 foot cubes, with really inefficient cubic packing density, with one two-inch cube per K-cup. And that volume is mostly empty air, not plastic.
ackfoo 8y ago
Oh, you lie, or else you are profoundly ignorant. Apple is THE WORST environmental offender. You have swallowed their marketing BS. I have a dozen perfectly functional recent model iPads and iPhones at the moment that have come into our donation program. They are LOCKED by default and there is no way to unlock them. The people who donated them don’t even know they are useless and there is no way to get in touch with them. Apple could easily allow us to send a request email to have them unlocked, but they do not. They obscure the email and they refuse to forward an unlock request. Apple wants to grind up these devices so as to maximize the sale of new devices. That process is horribly inefficient compared with re-use. It is an atrocity against the planet. Apple is environmentally monstrous in the name of profit.
- dang 8y ago
  This comment crosses into personal attack and that's not ok here. If you'd review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and follow the rules from now on, we'd be grateful. Your comment would be ok without the first paragraph (but note the guideline about allcaps).

by dpflan 8y ago

dima55 8y ago

Apple practically invented the concept of "planned obsolescence". They are also the people who pioneered the idea of non-removable batteries in laptops and phones, and they are so antagonistic to people repairing their hardware that they invented extra pain-in-the-ass screws. Let's not hold them up as some sort of beacon of environmental stewardship, ok?

oneplane 8y ago
Fixed batteries are nothing new, anti-tampering screws are nothing new, and trying to prevent more support cases by limiting the things customers can break is also nothing new. What is new is the polarization over technology brands and people using arguments on things they pretty much know nothing about and have no experience with.
- mattigames 8y ago
  Nope, Apple does a lot of stuff specifically to make it so not even technicians (not customers directly) cannot repair an iphone.
  - mattnewton 8y ago
    Disclaimer: ex apple engineer with apple stock still. The perspective inside for the rank and file was dominated by concern about hackers and stolen iPhones for the touchid security. Apple was trying to get people to trust their medical records and finances to the device (a massive market opportunity) and so took an extremely paranoid approach to how replaceable the hardware was, to prevent trivial exploits. The repairability market was small peanuts compared to that, and I genuinely believe that no one wanted iPhones to be harder to service vs other phones.
    - drb91 8y ago
      > genuinely believe that no one wanted iPhones to be harder to service vs other phones. Unfortunately this hasn’t resulted in a repairable iphone. Yet again corporate incentives and lack of moral ownership work against consumer interests.
    - rtkwe 8y ago
      I'd be more willing to accept the security justifications for bad repair-ability if it didn't extend across their entire portfolio and to their authorized service providers. Why do AOSPs have to replace entire mainboards (CPU, memory and all) instead of individual components on the iMac?
      - oneplane 8y ago
        I'd guess because it's manufactured and tested as a whole module, and because time costs more than replacement hardware.
        rtkwe 8y ago
        For Apple maybe but for the users it turns a same day job into several days as the AOSP waits for the part to come in.
    - anigbrowl 8y ago
      I think you and the decision-makers were entirely sincere, but good intentions can still result in market failures. As a side note it's baffling tome that a firm like Apple would go all in on touch ID given the numerous demonstrations in movies and TV of how that would likely be abused, many of which have made the jump from fiction to reality.
- hnbroseph 8y ago
  i don't think an apple pr executive could have said it any better! it's a great strategy to spin bad behavior as nominally neutral things, or to divert with red herrings, so as to diffuse the application of ethical or moral considerations.
- deogeo 8y ago
  While the person you replied to emphasized how Apple supposedly pioneered those practices, I don't consider "not new" a good defense, even if factual (or a defense at all, really). And they are certainly worse than the competition in using those user-hostile anti-features.
- ineedasername 8y ago
  What is new is the polarization over technology brands I've survived the apple gigahertz gap, countless generations of console wars, seen usenet flamewars last for weeks, and any number of minor brand skirmishes & salvos. Polarization over tech brands is nothing new. "War never changes" [0] [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0vGpXPGFZY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0vGpXPGFZY
  - oneplane 8y ago
    Well, that is of course correct. I guess I was simply thinking with YouTube and non-technical people screaming on the internet in mind, which is obviously not what techno-polarisation embodies.
- anigbrowl 8y ago
  anti-tampering screws are nothing new Can't agree with that. Being able to get into anything with a Philips screwdriver and then think through what I found inside was how I developed the hacker mentality way back in the 70s/80s, back when a pocket calculator had lots of discrete components and one chip. Repairability alone won't solve an environmental crisis, and of course as technology advances integration makes many repairs impossible, so bad luck if your SD card gets damaged. But being able to open things up is still valuable. A year or two back I called out a synthesizer manufacturer who was misrepresenting the technical capabilities of their expensive but software-incomplete product. If I hadn't developed the experience and confidence to find my way around unfamiliar circuit boards and how to read component markings I wouldn't have been able to do that.
  - oneplane 8y ago
    Anti-tampering screws have been around a long time. I remember somewhere in the 90's being surprised to see triangle screws and clockwise-only screws (not sure what their name is) in kids toys. Not all of them did it, but I distinctly remember Siku (a german manufacturer?) and Matchbox doing this. In Apple's case; I don't think malice is why they do what they do, it's probably a byproduct of a much simpler reason. As posted above, security might be one. If a device is harder to take apart, it's also harder to tamper with. I personally think that this would only hold up to some degree as an attacker with enough resources could get in anyway, but perhaps the required resources are are a high enough level that common attacks are less feasible. Another thing that is a way bigger issue (in my hacker mindset) is when SMT/SMD became common, just like VLSI. You suddenly can no longer easily see how a circuit works, and repairing a few failed components on a PCB gets much harder for most people. Then again, the cost (in time or paid time) is also no longer reasonably to have someone else do it. Replacing hardware and the benefits that can come with that are often a better deal than a repair.
    - cr0sh 8y ago
      Nintendo had security screws on their cartridges for the NES, so that goes back to the mid-1980s. I'm sure there were other products and devices that did the same (probably in the industrial and commercial arenas), but for the general US consumer, security screws basically made their appearance with the home video game console "revolution" (post-Atari 2600).
mattnewton 8y ago
Disclaimer: ex apple engineer with apple stock still. Apple is serious in a way no other brand I know of is about the recyclability of their products. https://www.apple.com/environment/ https://www.apple.com/environment/ I suspect the batteries and serviceability are a drop in the bucket when done directly by the consumer. Apple is very serious about making goods that last and that hold their value when refurbished.
- dima55 8y ago
  No idea if they're serious about recyclability, but keeping an old thing is 100% better than getting a new thing while recycling the old one, environmentally speaking. And Apple's "innovations" make that difficult.
  - mattnewton 8y ago
    Apple is also serious about that; the policy under jobs was “we don’t ship junk” and AFAIK that continues today. I know plenty of people still rocking the iPhone 5s, their software support is ahead of other manufacturers I know off and they offer programs to replace worn batteries of all their models in stores, as well as trade in programs for almost all models. I am not aware of any android manufacturers with such long resale value.
Scaevolus 8y ago
I'd give that award to the light bulb cartel at the turn of the century that agreed on 1000 hours as the target lifetime.
- Judgmentality 8y ago
  > light bulb cartel I know nothing about this and have no strong opinions about it one way or the other, but that phrasing is hilarious.
  - kup0 8y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoebus_cartel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoebus_cartel > The Phoebus cartel created a notable landmark in the history of the global economy because it engaged in large-scale planned obsolescence to generate repeated sales and maximize profit. > The cartel conveniently lowered operational costs and worked to standardize the life expectancy of light bulbs at 1,000 hours (down from 2,500 hours) and raised prices without fear of competition. The cartel tested their bulbs and fined manufacturers for bulbs that lasted more than 1,000 hours.
    - JohnJamesRambo 8y ago
      There's a special circle in hell that should be reserved for people like this.
      - oftenwrong 8y ago
        They get to serve in the devil's cabinet.
- coryrc 8y ago
  Incandescent light bulb life is inversely proportional to efficiency. The current choice already costs many times the purchase price in electricity use, so if anything, they chose a value too long.
  - 8y ago
cptskippy 8y ago
> Apple practically invented the concept of "planned obsolescence". It was the automotive industry that invented and perfected it, not Apple.
- JustSomeNobody 8y ago
  Indeed. Cars form the 80's didn't even last for the 4 year loan.
coldtea 8y ago
>Apple practically invented the concept of "planned obsolescence" I don't think so. While they have indeed closed down self-repairs and upgrades, and stop supporting some models after 5-6 years: a) Their products keep their resale value higher. That's the opposite of "planned obsolescence" b) They update iPhones/iPads for as many iOS releases as they can, whereas Android phones have historically been (and still predominantly are) left off with no updates post-sale (statistics verify this) c) Their stuff might not be user operable but can be upgraded at their stores and is also regularly refurbished (and it happens by the hundreds of millions too) d) They also have recycling programs in place That said, easier repair and upgrades would indeed be more environment friendly. Even better, less models, as opposed to a new model a year and having people chase it. A heavy tax on buying gadgetry (proportional not to the value of the product, but to one's income) would help. But of course the whole economy is based on "more more more, externalities be damned".
lucas_membrane 8y ago
Their focus on slim and fashionable devices fits in with their whole product architecture. Fashions change, so Apple devices get replaced with newer ones often. So, why bother to make them last long? They shave every possible millimeter off the dimensions of phones and computers. This means that the devices have thin, easily cracked surfaces and more heat problems inside, leading to short lives. With the computers, they mitigate the customer outrage that would result from the heat-related breakdowns after a few years by getting the customers to anticipate the planned obsolescence. The warranty business is also a huge pot of gold for the company: with the marginal cost of a device so far below the average cost (which includes product development and promotion), the value of the warranty to many customers is so far above the cost of replacement products to Apple, any extension in the average product lifetime would drop the value of Apple by hundreds of billions.
osdiab 8y ago
Although they're not easily repairable, they remain usable so much longer than competition. Not sure if this source is accurate, but I've heard the statistic that 63% of iPhones ever made are still being used [1], which I'm pretty sure you can't say about Android phones. Also, my personal experience with Apple stuff is that it lasts quite long; for example, I used my last Macbook Pro for around 6 years, and even then it was still working just fine, I just wanted TouchID when I upgraded it. On the other hand, my dad, on Asus/Lenovo/Dell machines, has replaced his laptop 3 times in the same period. Not to mention all the other people talking about just how small a slice of consumers actually do properly salvage and repair their stuff. I'd assume a tiny, tiny percent of sophisticated consumers actually do, while the vast majority don't go to much lengths to repair or properly dispose of their electronics. I like repairability for myself because I am capable of DIY fixing things. But I don't assume that companies that do it do so because they're somehow more environmentally conscious, when probably plenty of other practices they do are extremely environmentally destructive. [1] https://newzoo.com/insights/articles/63-percent-of-all-iphones-ever-sold-still-in-use/ https://newzoo.com/insights/articles/63-percent-of-all-iphon...

unclenoriega 8y ago

> Could there be a subsidy for companies that take the time to manage their products/design/supply-chain to combat wastefulness/negative externalities of using the product/service? Isn't that functionally what a "carbon tax" is? Seems like the obvious solution we (speaking from the U.S.) should have implemented decades ago. There are other types of waste, but plastic seems like the most problematic.

maxxxxx 8y ago

"For example, Apple appears to be taking the environmental impact of their business seriously: " I think Apple is doing "greenwashing". If they were serious they would make their devices repairable and upgradeable.

mattigames 8y ago
Apple puts a lot of effort to make iphones NON-repairable as explained by this technician: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26cNHSilikI&feature=youtu.be&t=8m32s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26cNHSilikI&feature=youtu.be...
bilbo0s 8y ago
Devil's Advocate I know, but would people recycle things if they could repair things themselves? I mean, let's figure you have two possibilities: 1 You have to take it to Apple and have it replaced. In which case Apple will try to salvage (recycle) whatever they can. 2 You buy a new sub-component, take the old sub-component out, and salvage (recycle) the old sub-component yourself. In all honesty, what is the percentage of people who would actually complete the salvage (recycle) step of option 2? I think it's, at least reasonable, to suspect that the percentage is not terribly high.

SllX 8y ago

Honestly the only effective potential remedy I see is to probably tax producers for their wasteful byproducts. Tax Keurig the corporation a dime for every one of those cups, and I don’t buy the things but figure a box comes in increments of a half dozen, so we’re talking between 60¢ to an additional $2.40 a box. Now theoretically the cup and the seal are separate components as far as a recycler is concerned, so maybe they should be charged separately for both the lid and the cup, but at least the coffee itself is compostable so there is no need to also charge for that, but you can go ahead and throw an additional dime on for the box itself and any other cardboard components that act as a spacer inside the box, and maybe a dime on for the tape. Charge a quarter for any non-recycleable components. Then: nix the tax for any corporation willing to take back their own wasteful byproducts at their own cost and recycle them. Extreme? Oh yes, but also a great way to align a corporations incentives, and anything else is most likely a half measure that makes the problem worse by preventing an effective measure from being put in place.

nikanj 8y ago
The turtle choking to a Keurig cup in the Pacific doesn't really care that the cup had an additional tax on it. In general, we should stop making waste just for the sake of appearing more sophisticated. Keurig has very successfully targeted the same people who insist on bottled water, even though tap water is higher quality and cheaper. I don't know what's wrong with the basic human wiring, but we really seem to have a glitch that makes us equate excessive consumption with higher socioeconomic class. See also: giant SUVs, etc, etc.
- bryanlarsen 8y ago
  The turtle cares because a pigouvian tax is the most effective means of keeping that cup out of the ocean in the first place. You can't ban stuff because bans would be full of loopholes for "necessary" usage. You can't just appeal to people's better nature because humans are humans.
  - rue 8y ago
    If a tax is prohibitive, then by the same logic there will be loopholes for necessary usage.

notyourwork 8y ago

The problem is Apple is a unicorn in this regard. If you have a treasure chest of money collecting dust you can afford to be much more proactive. Most businesses are not afforded the luxury and will deliver what is the most cost effective which isn't always aligned with most environmentally sound.

simion314 8y ago

>Apple appears to be taking the environmental impact of their business seriously: The keyword is "appears" , having to replace half of a laptop because a key is broken is not environmental friendly even if you could 99% recycle the materials since you consumed ton of energy and created CO2 producing and then recycling those working parts.

newnewpdro 8y ago

> For example, Apple appears to be taking the environmental impact of their business seriously You sir need to take a break from the Apple kool-aid.

anigbrowl 8y ago

Subsidies seem like the wrong approach, in that they require copious extra administration and are subject to abuse. Some economics theorists argue for securitizing externalities in some fashion, but I think the market for shipping recyclables to China is a good example of how this too can break down. I don't have a definite solution but I like the idea of disallowing deduction of all costs for tax purposes where they're a large increase in post-consumer waste, on the grounds that it's simpler to address the problem at source rather than in the large. I had to install some new light bulbs yesterday and I swear there's as much plastic in the containers they came in as in the ballast of the bulb itself.

SamReidHughes 8y ago

> there are so many discarded K-Cups that if you lined them up it would be enough to circle the earth more than 10 times Or, that means you could put them into ten 76x76x76 foot cubes, with really inefficient cubic packing density, with one two-inch cube per K-cup. And that volume is mostly empty air, not plastic.

ackfoo 8y ago

Oh, you lie, or else you are profoundly ignorant. Apple is THE WORST environmental offender. You have swallowed their marketing BS. I have a dozen perfectly functional recent model iPads and iPhones at the moment that have come into our donation program. They are LOCKED by default and there is no way to unlock them. The people who donated them don’t even know they are useless and there is no way to get in touch with them. Apple could easily allow us to send a request email to have them unlocked, but they do not. They obscure the email and they refuse to forward an unlock request. Apple wants to grind up these devices so as to maximize the sale of new devices. That process is horribly inefficient compared with re-use. It is an atrocity against the planet. Apple is environmentally monstrous in the name of profit.

dang 8y ago
This comment crosses into personal attack and that's not ok here. If you'd review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and follow the rules from now on, we'd be grateful. Your comment would be ok without the first paragraph (but note the guideline about allcaps).