4 ms·

"Cut down on waste" was clearly not the primary motivator.

ben_w 5y ago
Which is the primary and which is the secondary is hard to be sure about, but it’s not unreasonable to assume both played a part — Apple is not short of profit and visibly actions a lot more charitable causes than many other megacorps, and yet one can also cynically say the causes it puts visible support into are merely part of its branding, just like one can argue that all altruism in the humans and other animals is merely genetic self promotion.
- schwartzworld 5y ago
  A company who cared about waste wouldn't make planned obsolescence such a big part of their business model.
  - colejohnson66 5y ago
    How is supporting 6+ year old devices planned obsolescence? iOS 15 supports[0] devices as old as the iPhone 6s (released September 2015), the iPad Air 2 (October 2014), iPad mini 4th gen (September 2015), and the 1st gen iPad Pro (November 2015). Could Apple do better about opening up the devices (especially after support ends)? Sure. But they're doing a hell of a lot better than Android manufacturers where "two years of updates" is a marketing bullet point. A $1000 Samsung S20 (released March 2020) will only get Android 10, 11, and 12.[1] [0]: https://support.apple.com/guide/iphone/supported-models-iphe3fa5df43/ios https://support.apple.com/guide/iphone/supported-models-iphe... and https://3nions.com/list-of-ios-15-supported-devices/ https://3nions.com/list-of-ios-15-supported-devices/ [1]: https://9to5google.com/2020/03/03/samsung-galaxy-s20-android-updates/ https://9to5google.com/2020/03/03/samsung-galaxy-s20-android...
- bogwog 5y ago
  But what can’t be argued against in good faith is that the planet would be better off if Apple ceased all manufacturing operations. Painting them as anything other than an eco-villain is simply dishonest. There are other manufacturers out there destroying the planet, but Apple is without a doubt one of the worst, and not just because of their massive scale. They seem to be on a mission to create as much e-waste as possible, making their devices difficult to repair and using their lawyers to make it even harder.
  - ben_w 5y ago
    > But what can’t be argued against in good faith is that the planet would be better off if Apple ceased all manufacturing operations. Hmm… I mean, if they stopped making stuff themselves they’d be outsourcing more, but assuming you mean they don’t cause anything to be built even in their name, sure. > Painting them as anything other than an eco-villain is simply dishonest. Regular reports about how much they’re reducing emissions in their entire supply chain, that they themselves are already carbon neutral in the US, and are on a path to get the supply chain and product life cycle carbon neutral by 2030? Sure, they’re not perfect, but a villain? Nope. > They seem to be on a mission to create as much e-waste as possible Funny way of doing that, by removing redundant stuff from their sales. I’d certainly like it if their stuff was easier to repair — my first-gen Apple Watch only died last year and could’ve been saved if the screen hadn’t cracked when the battery expanded, and my MacBook Air from mid-2013 is still working but could use a new keyboard and battery and one new USB port and the power cable is a disaster — but 8 years is a fantastic duration compared to any tech I’ve ever used, possibly excluding the things my family bought before I was aware: a Commodore 64, a Video 2000 cassette recorder, a landline telephone, and a cathode ray TV (but even then some of the buttons fell off).
altacc 5y ago
Profit is the primary motivator for pretty much any business decision, either directly or indirectly (e.g. the PR of corporate giving). The best we can ever hope for is beneficial secondary effects.

Which is the primary and which is the secondary is hard to be sure about, but it’s not unreasonable to assume both played a part — Apple is not short of profit and visibly actions a lot more charitable causes than many other megacorps, and yet one can also cynically say the causes it puts visible support into are merely part of its branding, just like one can argue that all altruism in the humans and other animals is merely genetic self promotion.

schwartzworld 5y ago
A company who cared about waste wouldn't make planned obsolescence such a big part of their business model.
- colejohnson66 5y ago
  How is supporting 6+ year old devices planned obsolescence? iOS 15 supports[0] devices as old as the iPhone 6s (released September 2015), the iPad Air 2 (October 2014), iPad mini 4th gen (September 2015), and the 1st gen iPad Pro (November 2015). Could Apple do better about opening up the devices (especially after support ends)? Sure. But they're doing a hell of a lot better than Android manufacturers where "two years of updates" is a marketing bullet point. A $1000 Samsung S20 (released March 2020) will only get Android 10, 11, and 12.[1] [0]: https://support.apple.com/guide/iphone/supported-models-iphe3fa5df43/ios https://support.apple.com/guide/iphone/supported-models-iphe... and https://3nions.com/list-of-ios-15-supported-devices/ https://3nions.com/list-of-ios-15-supported-devices/ [1]: https://9to5google.com/2020/03/03/samsung-galaxy-s20-android-updates/ https://9to5google.com/2020/03/03/samsung-galaxy-s20-android...
bogwog 5y ago
But what can’t be argued against in good faith is that the planet would be better off if Apple ceased all manufacturing operations. Painting them as anything other than an eco-villain is simply dishonest. There are other manufacturers out there destroying the planet, but Apple is without a doubt one of the worst, and not just because of their massive scale. They seem to be on a mission to create as much e-waste as possible, making their devices difficult to repair and using their lawyers to make it even harder.
- ben_w 5y ago
  > But what can’t be argued against in good faith is that the planet would be better off if Apple ceased all manufacturing operations. Hmm… I mean, if they stopped making stuff themselves they’d be outsourcing more, but assuming you mean they don’t cause anything to be built even in their name, sure. > Painting them as anything other than an eco-villain is simply dishonest. Regular reports about how much they’re reducing emissions in their entire supply chain, that they themselves are already carbon neutral in the US, and are on a path to get the supply chain and product life cycle carbon neutral by 2030? Sure, they’re not perfect, but a villain? Nope. > They seem to be on a mission to create as much e-waste as possible Funny way of doing that, by removing redundant stuff from their sales. I’d certainly like it if their stuff was easier to repair — my first-gen Apple Watch only died last year and could’ve been saved if the screen hadn’t cracked when the battery expanded, and my MacBook Air from mid-2013 is still working but could use a new keyboard and battery and one new USB port and the power cable is a disaster — but 8 years is a fantastic duration compared to any tech I’ve ever used, possibly excluding the things my family bought before I was aware: a Commodore 64, a Video 2000 cassette recorder, a landline telephone, and a cathode ray TV (but even then some of the buttons fell off).

altacc 5y ago

Profit is the primary motivator for pretty much any business decision, either directly or indirectly (e.g. the PR of corporate giving). The best we can ever hope for is beneficial secondary effects.