4 ms·

Promoting reuse and repair is environmentalism. Preventing repair (as Apple does) generates more e-waste. There really is no way around that fact. >What matter

by ksk 6y ago

Promoting reuse and repair is environmentalism. Preventing repair (as Apple does) generates more e-waste. There really is no way around that fact. >What matters environmentally is aggregate device lifetime, so you get the most use out of the materials. Apple devices use a minimum of materials and have industry leading usable lifetimes. They are also designed to be highly recyclable. Reuse and repair is FAR superior to recycle - which actually wastes a lot of energy, in addition to generating e-waste for the parts which are not recycled. >Greenpeace rated Apple the number 1 most environmentally friendly of the big technology companies. What good does it do? They are still harming the environment.

simonh 6y ago
For a manufacturer on the whole it’s a negligible issue. It’s simply a fact that Apple devices have longer average lifetimes and lower overall environmental impact than any of the other manufacturers. Hence the Greenpeace rating. If you actually care about the environment, as you claim, the choice is clear. What you are doing is picking a single marginal factor that can make a difference in rare cases, but is next to irrelevant in practice, and raising that above the total environmental impact of the whole range of devices. That’s just absurd.
- alacombe 6y ago
  > It’s simply a fact that Apple devices have longer average lifetimes I've used the same desktop for the 8 to 6 years, upgrading with STANDARDIZED components over the years, and my laptop from that era still works. Heck, I've got a 18 years old thinpad still working fine. In the mean time, two MBP died on me. Try again...
  - simonh 6y ago
    Do you care about the overall ecological footprint of Apple, as Greenpeace does, or only a few specific devices in particular? How do you evaluate likely future device lifetimes and ecological footprint, cherry picked statistics or manufacturer track record? Should I take your evaluation in thus, or trust a detailed whole enterprise evaluation by Greenpeace?
jlokier 6y ago
> Preventing repair (as Apple does) generates more e-waste. There really is no way around that fact. There are plenty of ways around that fact. Preventing repair while changing nothing else generates more e-waste. But that's not what Apple does. If you prevent repair in order to also do any or all of the following things at the same time enough, the result is less e-waste than if you didn't prevent repair: - Use less environmentally harmful materials (e.g. on-board sockets, larger PCBs etc) - Make the device last longer before it needs repair (reliability, longevity) - Make the device easier to recycle > Reuse and repair is FAR superior to recycle It's a good goal, but it's only superior for sure if everything else is able to be kept the same to make it possible. Some things really are better for the environment melted down and ground down and then rebuilt from scratch. I'm guessing big old servers running 24x7 are in this category: Recycling the materials into new computers takes a lot of energy, but just running the old server takes a huge amount of energy over its life compared with the newer, faster, more efficient ones you could make from the same materials. I would be surprised if not recycling was less harmful than recycling. > What good does it do? They are still harming the environment. When saying Apple should change they way they manufacture to be more like other manufacturers for environmental benefit, Apple being rated number 1 tells you that the advice is probably incorrect, as following it would probably cause more environmental harm not less.
- ksk 6y ago
  >- Make the device last longer before it needs repair (reliability, longevity) If Apple makes devices that last so long, then how come Apple's own extended warranty program generates billions of dollars of revenue? Note that this doesn't include third party repair shops. To me, this indicates a large industry dedicated to repairing Apple products - hardly a niche industry. To me, this indicates that a large amount of Apple devices need repair, something that Apple is hostile to. Also while AppleCare is easy and convenient for the customer, Apple's "geniuses" do not do board-repair, they simply replace and throw away broken logic boards (which sometimes all they might need is a simple 10 cent capacitor). If that wasn't as bad, they actively prevent other businesses from performing component level repair by blocking access to spare parts. > I'm guessing big old servers running 24x7 are in this category: Recycling the materials into new computers takes a lot of energy, but just running the old server takes a huge amount of energy over its life compared with the newer, faster, more efficient ones you could make from the same materials. I would be surprised if not recycling was less harmful than recycling. If that was the case, then of course, we should recycle. Maybe we should have a case-by-case approach depending on specific products? I'm totally willing to go wherever the evidence leads us. As of now pretty much every single environmental organization promotes reuse over recycling for electronics. >When saying Apple should change they way they manufacture to be more like other manufacturers for environmental benefit, Apple being rated number 1 tells you that the advice is probably incorrect, I merely accepted the "number one" in good faith at face value. Digging further with a cursory Google search, things seem a lot more nuanced. That being said, I have no idea what "number one" even means without context. https://www.fastcompany.com/40561811/greenpeace-to-apple-forget-the-robots-and-make-iphones-repairable https://www.fastcompany.com/40561811/greenpeace-to-apple-for...
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

by ksk 6y ago

simonh 6y ago

For a manufacturer on the whole it’s a negligible issue. It’s simply a fact that Apple devices have longer average lifetimes and lower overall environmental impact than any of the other manufacturers. Hence the Greenpeace rating. If you actually care about the environment, as you claim, the choice is clear. What you are doing is picking a single marginal factor that can make a difference in rare cases, but is next to irrelevant in practice, and raising that above the total environmental impact of the whole range of devices. That’s just absurd.

alacombe 6y ago
> It’s simply a fact that Apple devices have longer average lifetimes I've used the same desktop for the 8 to 6 years, upgrading with STANDARDIZED components over the years, and my laptop from that era still works. Heck, I've got a 18 years old thinpad still working fine. In the mean time, two MBP died on me. Try again...
- simonh 6y ago
  Do you care about the overall ecological footprint of Apple, as Greenpeace does, or only a few specific devices in particular? How do you evaluate likely future device lifetimes and ecological footprint, cherry picked statistics or manufacturer track record? Should I take your evaluation in thus, or trust a detailed whole enterprise evaluation by Greenpeace?

jlokier 6y ago

> Preventing repair (as Apple does) generates more e-waste. There really is no way around that fact. There are plenty of ways around that fact. Preventing repair while changing nothing else generates more e-waste. But that's not what Apple does. If you prevent repair in order to also do any or all of the following things at the same time enough, the result is less e-waste than if you didn't prevent repair: - Use less environmentally harmful materials (e.g. on-board sockets, larger PCBs etc) - Make the device last longer before it needs repair (reliability, longevity) - Make the device easier to recycle > Reuse and repair is FAR superior to recycle It's a good goal, but it's only superior for sure if everything else is able to be kept the same to make it possible. Some things really are better for the environment melted down and ground down and then rebuilt from scratch. I'm guessing big old servers running 24x7 are in this category: Recycling the materials into new computers takes a lot of energy, but just running the old server takes a huge amount of energy over its life compared with the newer, faster, more efficient ones you could make from the same materials. I would be surprised if not recycling was less harmful than recycling. > What good does it do? They are still harming the environment. When saying Apple should change they way they manufacture to be more like other manufacturers for environmental benefit, Apple being rated number 1 tells you that the advice is probably incorrect, as following it would probably cause more environmental harm not less.

ksk 6y ago
>- Make the device last longer before it needs repair (reliability, longevity) If Apple makes devices that last so long, then how come Apple's own extended warranty program generates billions of dollars of revenue? Note that this doesn't include third party repair shops. To me, this indicates a large industry dedicated to repairing Apple products - hardly a niche industry. To me, this indicates that a large amount of Apple devices need repair, something that Apple is hostile to. Also while AppleCare is easy and convenient for the customer, Apple's "geniuses" do not do board-repair, they simply replace and throw away broken logic boards (which sometimes all they might need is a simple 10 cent capacitor). If that wasn't as bad, they actively prevent other businesses from performing component level repair by blocking access to spare parts. > I'm guessing big old servers running 24x7 are in this category: Recycling the materials into new computers takes a lot of energy, but just running the old server takes a huge amount of energy over its life compared with the newer, faster, more efficient ones you could make from the same materials. I would be surprised if not recycling was less harmful than recycling. If that was the case, then of course, we should recycle. Maybe we should have a case-by-case approach depending on specific products? I'm totally willing to go wherever the evidence leads us. As of now pretty much every single environmental organization promotes reuse over recycling for electronics. >When saying Apple should change they way they manufacture to be more like other manufacturers for environmental benefit, Apple being rated number 1 tells you that the advice is probably incorrect, I merely accepted the "number one" in good faith at face value. Digging further with a cursory Google search, things seem a lot more nuanced. That being said, I have no idea what "number one" even means without context. https://www.fastcompany.com/40561811/greenpeace-to-apple-forget-the-robots-and-make-iphones-repairable https://www.fastcompany.com/40561811/greenpeace-to-apple-for...

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]