4 ms·

Is your argument that we shouldn't care, or is your argument that it is not user hostile? Just curious. I'm not personally affected, and my Apple outrage cup i

by ksk 6y ago

Is your argument that we shouldn't care, or is your argument that it is not user hostile? Just curious. I'm not personally affected, and my Apple outrage cup is already filled up with their sustained anti-repair pro-landfill stance.

simonh 6y ago
https://www.businessinsider.com/apple-greenest-tech-company-greenpeace-2017-1?r=US&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/apple-greenest-tech-company-... If you actually do care about the environmental impact of your electronics, Greenpeace are the real deal. They look into the details from renewable energy use, eliminating toxic materials, average device lifetimes to reduce device churn and recyclability, there's one clear option out of the big device manufacturers and it's not even close.
- ksk 6y ago
  Oh are we playing a link game now? https://www.fastcompany.com/40561811/greenpeace-to-apple-forget-the-robots-and-make-iphones-repairable https://www.fastcompany.com/40561811/greenpeace-to-apple-for...
  - simonh 6y ago
    Yes that’s completely true. However repairability only matters environmentally because it helps the device have a longer useful lifetime. iPhones have the longest useful lifetimes of any smartphones anyway though, so they’re still clearly the best choice overall. My one criticism of the a Greenpeace report I think is that they don’t really put enough weight on average device working lifetime. It’s a direct multiplier on every other factor.
    - ksk 6y ago
      >iPhones have the longest useful lifetimes of any smartphones anyway though, so they’re still clearly the best choice overall. Not exactly, because other phones can be repaired which extends their life. Apple's doesn't do board repair themselves, and blocks others from doing it as well. This means more components end up in land fills. Apple's own extended warranty program makes billions of dollars. And the repair industry itself is quite large - millions maybe hundreds of millions of dollars per year. Apple products clearly fail and need repair at some point or another. I hope you'll join everyone else in demanding Apple stop opposing right to repair legislation.
      - simonh 6y ago
        Repairability isn’t a significant metric because beyond battery replacement, which is very reasonably for iPhones since Apple halved their battery replacement prices a few years ago, very few phones are ever repaired. “..researchers found that brand, an intangible property, is more important than repairability or memory size in extending the life of a product.”[0] The article found that Apple phones last on average a year longer than Samsung’s. [0]https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/10/181016142434.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/10/181016142434.h... Another estimate puts Apple device lifespans at 4 years 3 months.[1] [1]https://www.zdnet.com/article/iphone-ipad-mac-heres-how-long-your-apple-device-will-last/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/iphone-ipad-mac-heres-how-long... The average for all smartphones is estimated as from 2 to 3 years, but bear in mind that includes many Apple devices, so non Apple devices must average the low end of that.[2] [2]https://www.coolblue.nl/en/advice/lifespan-smartphone.html https://www.coolblue.nl/en/advice/lifespan-smartphone.html The fact is repairability simply isn’t a significant factor in environmental impact overall. I do completely accept that wanting it as an individual right is entirely reasonable. There are plenty of solid arguments in favour of repairability, but environmentalism isn’t one of them. If you care about the environment more than right to repair, Apple devices win by a very large margin.
        ksk 6y ago
        I posted direct quotes from Greenpeace. You're linking to ZDNet, and a random study that has no published data as far as I can tell. Note that I am not easily swayed by studies - I work in Vaccine R&D and I read tons of research papers, and many of them are junk. A study doesn't mean something is true. I'd trust Greenpeace knowing about the environment more than ZDNet. >The fact is repairability simply isn’t a significant factor in environmental impact overall. This is not a fact. Every single environmental group on this planet agrees that repair is significant component in reducing environmental impact. By definition it means fewer devices need to be re-purchased, fewer devices end up in landfills, more local repair jobs, more support-economy jobs, etc. I don't think I will be able to convince you otherwise. I will let you have the last word. Have a nice day :)
        6y ago
jhayward 6y ago
It's an honest question to see if my priors are adequate. My priors tell me that to a close approximation, this will prevent 0 people from installing MacOS. It's just "outrage porn".

by ksk 6y ago

simonh 6y ago

https://www.businessinsider.com/apple-greenest-tech-company-greenpeace-2017-1?r=US&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/apple-greenest-tech-company-... If you actually do care about the environmental impact of your electronics, Greenpeace are the real deal. They look into the details from renewable energy use, eliminating toxic materials, average device lifetimes to reduce device churn and recyclability, there's one clear option out of the big device manufacturers and it's not even close.

ksk 6y ago
Oh are we playing a link game now? https://www.fastcompany.com/40561811/greenpeace-to-apple-forget-the-robots-and-make-iphones-repairable https://www.fastcompany.com/40561811/greenpeace-to-apple-for...
- simonh 6y ago
  Yes that’s completely true. However repairability only matters environmentally because it helps the device have a longer useful lifetime. iPhones have the longest useful lifetimes of any smartphones anyway though, so they’re still clearly the best choice overall. My one criticism of the a Greenpeace report I think is that they don’t really put enough weight on average device working lifetime. It’s a direct multiplier on every other factor.
  - ksk 6y ago
    >iPhones have the longest useful lifetimes of any smartphones anyway though, so they’re still clearly the best choice overall. Not exactly, because other phones can be repaired which extends their life. Apple's doesn't do board repair themselves, and blocks others from doing it as well. This means more components end up in land fills. Apple's own extended warranty program makes billions of dollars. And the repair industry itself is quite large - millions maybe hundreds of millions of dollars per year. Apple products clearly fail and need repair at some point or another. I hope you'll join everyone else in demanding Apple stop opposing right to repair legislation.
    - simonh 6y ago
      Repairability isn’t a significant metric because beyond battery replacement, which is very reasonably for iPhones since Apple halved their battery replacement prices a few years ago, very few phones are ever repaired. “..researchers found that brand, an intangible property, is more important than repairability or memory size in extending the life of a product.”[0] The article found that Apple phones last on average a year longer than Samsung’s. [0]https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/10/181016142434.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/10/181016142434.h... Another estimate puts Apple device lifespans at 4 years 3 months.[1] [1]https://www.zdnet.com/article/iphone-ipad-mac-heres-how-long-your-apple-device-will-last/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/iphone-ipad-mac-heres-how-long... The average for all smartphones is estimated as from 2 to 3 years, but bear in mind that includes many Apple devices, so non Apple devices must average the low end of that.[2] [2]https://www.coolblue.nl/en/advice/lifespan-smartphone.html https://www.coolblue.nl/en/advice/lifespan-smartphone.html The fact is repairability simply isn’t a significant factor in environmental impact overall. I do completely accept that wanting it as an individual right is entirely reasonable. There are plenty of solid arguments in favour of repairability, but environmentalism isn’t one of them. If you care about the environment more than right to repair, Apple devices win by a very large margin.
      - ksk 6y ago
        I posted direct quotes from Greenpeace. You're linking to ZDNet, and a random study that has no published data as far as I can tell. Note that I am not easily swayed by studies - I work in Vaccine R&D and I read tons of research papers, and many of them are junk. A study doesn't mean something is true. I'd trust Greenpeace knowing about the environment more than ZDNet. >The fact is repairability simply isn’t a significant factor in environmental impact overall. This is not a fact. Every single environmental group on this planet agrees that repair is significant component in reducing environmental impact. By definition it means fewer devices need to be re-purchased, fewer devices end up in landfills, more local repair jobs, more support-economy jobs, etc. I don't think I will be able to convince you otherwise. I will let you have the last word. Have a nice day :)
        6y ago

jhayward 6y ago

It's an honest question to see if my priors are adequate. My priors tell me that to a close approximation, this will prevent 0 people from installing MacOS. It's just "outrage porn".