3 ms·
This piece positions Apple as a nefarious actor with exploitative intent. I'd imagine that if Apple built products without holding aesthetics in the highest est
by mikysco 8y ago
This piece positions Apple as a nefarious actor with exploitative intent. I'd imagine that if Apple built products without holding aesthetics in the highest esteem (like many Android or non-Apple manufacturers do), their audience wouldn't be willing to buy. The market has clearly voted with its dollars - think of how bulky ultra-low-profile earbuds would become if their batteries were replaceable, or how much more susceptible to water damage & general abuse.
And Apple already runs a fairly generous program for old iPhones, which btw, last far longer than their Android counter-parts.
Anyway, not to say that Apple can't improve its recycling process (or incentive systems for consumers to recycle) but to my knowledge, it's far ahead of the competition.
- anoncake 8y agoCustomers may prefer Apples earbuds, but we dont know if that is because they prefer aesthetic ones over ones with replaceable batteries. We would only know that if Apple also made Airbuds with replaceable batteries -- i.e. same general design, same build quality, same pairing UX, same brand etc. -- but with replaceable batteries and the associated trade-offs. Since they dont do that, its more appropriate to blame Apple than its customers. Customers cannot choose between replaceable batteries and bulk, only between the packages that companies offer.