5 ms·

It's because they can see the bigger picture, beyond these 2010s-era complaints of 'user-upgradable RAM.' This is totally irrelevant in a SOC world. Apple is i

It's because they can see the bigger picture, beyond these 2010s-era complaints of 'user-upgradable RAM.' This is totally irrelevant in a SOC world. Apple is indeed reducing the carbon footprint of computer manufacturing, by consolidating more and more components on a single chip (SOC) with M1, and creating smaller and smaller hardware. There's a ridiculous amount of carbon footprint saved by not having to source, ship, and assemble separate RAM, GPUs, Processors, etc from separate suppliers located all across the world. 10 years from now when your entire motherboard and all its components sit inside a chip small enough to fit inside a single AirPod...and 20 years from now when the need for physical LCD/OLED panels disappears...does it really matter how repairable it is? Even 100 million of them won't fill a single average-sized landfill. Hell, we've already broke 1nm [1]. This means hardware will continue to get smaller and smaller for years to come. Hardware consolidation and physical size reduction is the bigger gain, and the goal we all should be focused on if we actually care about sustainability. The fact is, only a tiny minority of consumers would even entertain the idea of replacing computer components in the first place. This has been true for the 4 decades PCs have been around with easily replaceable hardware, so I don't think Apple changing to Philips head screws is going to change that. [1] https://technosports.co.in/2021/05/20/tsmc-mit-and-ntu-announce-1nm-chip-breakthrough-weeks-after-ibms-2nm-success/ https://technosports.co.in/2021/05/20/tsmc-mit-and-ntu-annou...

z-nexx 5y ago
idk what you are on about, you wanna defend throwing away a whole laptop when the battery's dead or the LCD is broken? You don't think "right to repair" is all about replacing IC's on a PCB, right? There are a ton of vital components in a modern laptop that would easily be replacable by either a dedicated layman or an unlicenced professional. E.g. the webcam, SSD, battery, cables between these and the MB, the LCD, keyboard, touchpad, power button, speakers, screen bezel, digitizer, daughterboards, lid sensor, the list goes on and on and on. And remember that "right to repair" does not only entail end users, but also local repair shops and IT service companies who simply are not licensed with a specific brand.
swiley 5y ago
Yeah no that's bullshit. (and a change of subject) We're not asking for modular connectors (although those are nice) or larger competents. we're asking Apple (and everyone imitating them) to stop artificially preventing people from replacing parts (either via deals with suppliers that prevent people from buying them or via software lockouts.) People do surface mount rework all the time (I think the guy TFA is talking about is the same that inspired me to learn how to do it.) Not having to throw stuff away because a single component that could otherwise be replaced is a huge gain for the environment (especially people in places that ewaste accumulates) and doesn't have to come at the expense of size reduction.
- pembrook 5y ago
  > “People do surface mount rework all the time” What percentage of Apple customers are doing surface mount rework, or even hiring other people to do this, in your estimation? My guess is less than .01%. And how much could that really be increased if Apple were forced to make their parts accessible and available in the aftermarket? Vs the carbon footprint of the extra manufacturing effort and having to set up distribution channels for these parts? I just don’t see the sustainability argument. I don’t think any large number of people would suddenly say they want to keep their slow, heat-generating Intel MBPs if they were more repairable. The upgrade cycle will always be the upgrade cycle. It’s disingenuous to play the “green” card here. I’d be more on the side of the right to repair Apple critics if they would just be honest and say “hey, this is a hobby for us and we want to save money and we just want to be able to do this stuff because it’s fun!”
  - Proziam 5y ago
    > My guess is less than .01%. Because it's prohibitively expensive vs the cost of a new device due to the policies being discussed in this thread. There was a time I could get a screen replaced in a phone for $40-50. Today, Apple literally bricks the device for swapping out a broken button, even if the part is an authentic Apple component. The trend has been getting progressively worse, and while this thread is mostly about Apple it affects far more industries (Farming being a big example). > And how much could that really be increased if Apple were forced to make their parts accessible and available in the aftermarket? I'd reckon a pretty high % of people with cracked screens would happily get them repaired if it were not either ludicrously expensive to do so, or if they felt that they could get it done by 'professionals' instead at some random corner store. These shops can't source parts and schematics "legitimately" and the whole process feels very grey market which drives people away.
BeFlatXIII 5y ago
What display technology will be used in 10–20 years? LCDs & OLEDs may be obviated by then, but panels of some sort will still be a must.
atoav 5y ago
What do you think reduces the carbon footprint of a company more: A) Company consolidates hardware into a single unrepairable resin block B) All customers are able to use their devices 50% longer because stuff is repairable As someone who designes PCBs you could save the world by doing the math here for me and convince me how this is better for the planet than e.g. my fairphone where I can swap out my battery when it is broken instead of throwing the whole assembly away or trying to source parts and removing a glued in battery. Replacing some component in a computer/phone is something every member of my extended family did within the last 3 years. Usually it was a screen, a battery, a home button, a headphone jack, a hard drive, ... Every instance where they did this they used a piece of electronics longer and thus reduced the carbon footprint more than any single engineering change Apple could have come up with.
- pembrook 5y ago
  Clearly A is better. Because those resin blocks will be made smaller and smaller in the next decade or so to the point that arguments like "Landfills!" become irrelevant. B isn't even a possibility. It's a fundamental misunderstanding of the technology upgrade/purchase cycle, and of consumer behavior in general. Most people don't throw away their computers because they "break and can't be repaired." They throw them away because newer hardware is more powerful and smaller and uses less energy. When I went home last year my parents had 4 old PC towers of various generations sitting in their basement, they recently took them all to the local dump. All of them were still completely functional. Literally nothing was broken. Why did they throw them away? Because they were 1/10th the processing power of a modern MacBook and impossible to move around the house. Nobody was using them. There's mountains of giant plastic PC towers sitting in landfills that were built with the easy to repair/upgrade mindset everybody here is so nostalgic about. It did nothing to save the environment.

z-nexx 5y ago

idk what you are on about, you wanna defend throwing away a whole laptop when the battery's dead or the LCD is broken? You don't think "right to repair" is all about replacing IC's on a PCB, right? There are a ton of vital components in a modern laptop that would easily be replacable by either a dedicated layman or an unlicenced professional. E.g. the webcam, SSD, battery, cables between these and the MB, the LCD, keyboard, touchpad, power button, speakers, screen bezel, digitizer, daughterboards, lid sensor, the list goes on and on and on. And remember that "right to repair" does not only entail end users, but also local repair shops and IT service companies who simply are not licensed with a specific brand.

swiley 5y ago

Yeah no that's bullshit. (and a change of subject) We're not asking for modular connectors (although those are nice) or larger competents. we're asking Apple (and everyone imitating them) to stop artificially preventing people from replacing parts (either via deals with suppliers that prevent people from buying them or via software lockouts.) People do surface mount rework all the time (I think the guy TFA is talking about is the same that inspired me to learn how to do it.) Not having to throw stuff away because a single component that could otherwise be replaced is a huge gain for the environment (especially people in places that ewaste accumulates) and doesn't have to come at the expense of size reduction.

pembrook 5y ago
> “People do surface mount rework all the time” What percentage of Apple customers are doing surface mount rework, or even hiring other people to do this, in your estimation? My guess is less than .01%. And how much could that really be increased if Apple were forced to make their parts accessible and available in the aftermarket? Vs the carbon footprint of the extra manufacturing effort and having to set up distribution channels for these parts? I just don’t see the sustainability argument. I don’t think any large number of people would suddenly say they want to keep their slow, heat-generating Intel MBPs if they were more repairable. The upgrade cycle will always be the upgrade cycle. It’s disingenuous to play the “green” card here. I’d be more on the side of the right to repair Apple critics if they would just be honest and say “hey, this is a hobby for us and we want to save money and we just want to be able to do this stuff because it’s fun!”
- Proziam 5y ago
  > My guess is less than .01%. Because it's prohibitively expensive vs the cost of a new device due to the policies being discussed in this thread. There was a time I could get a screen replaced in a phone for $40-50. Today, Apple literally bricks the device for swapping out a broken button, even if the part is an authentic Apple component. The trend has been getting progressively worse, and while this thread is mostly about Apple it affects far more industries (Farming being a big example). > And how much could that really be increased if Apple were forced to make their parts accessible and available in the aftermarket? I'd reckon a pretty high % of people with cracked screens would happily get them repaired if it were not either ludicrously expensive to do so, or if they felt that they could get it done by 'professionals' instead at some random corner store. These shops can't source parts and schematics "legitimately" and the whole process feels very grey market which drives people away.

BeFlatXIII 5y ago

What display technology will be used in 10–20 years? LCDs & OLEDs may be obviated by then, but panels of some sort will still be a must.

atoav 5y ago

What do you think reduces the carbon footprint of a company more: A) Company consolidates hardware into a single unrepairable resin block B) All customers are able to use their devices 50% longer because stuff is repairable As someone who designes PCBs you could save the world by doing the math here for me and convince me how this is better for the planet than e.g. my fairphone where I can swap out my battery when it is broken instead of throwing the whole assembly away or trying to source parts and removing a glued in battery. Replacing some component in a computer/phone is something every member of my extended family did within the last 3 years. Usually it was a screen, a battery, a home button, a headphone jack, a hard drive, ... Every instance where they did this they used a piece of electronics longer and thus reduced the carbon footprint more than any single engineering change Apple could have come up with.

pembrook 5y ago
Clearly A is better. Because those resin blocks will be made smaller and smaller in the next decade or so to the point that arguments like "Landfills!" become irrelevant. B isn't even a possibility. It's a fundamental misunderstanding of the technology upgrade/purchase cycle, and of consumer behavior in general. Most people don't throw away their computers because they "break and can't be repaired." They throw them away because newer hardware is more powerful and smaller and uses less energy. When I went home last year my parents had 4 old PC towers of various generations sitting in their basement, they recently took them all to the local dump. All of them were still completely functional. Literally nothing was broken. Why did they throw them away? Because they were 1/10th the processing power of a modern MacBook and impossible to move around the house. Nobody was using them. There's mountains of giant plastic PC towers sitting in landfills that were built with the easy to repair/upgrade mindset everybody here is so nostalgic about. It did nothing to save the environment.