4 ms·

> Shipping maybe 2x the amount of iPhones via the same cargo plane is cheaper and contributes way more to reducing environmental impact than not needing to crea

> Shipping maybe 2x the amount of iPhones via the same cargo plane is cheaper and contributes way more to reducing environmental impact than not needing to create the 5W charger. Is there an impartial source for this claim or are you parroting Apple's marketing and PR? Here's one source on why you and Apple (and Samsung) are wrong about this[1]. Spoiler alert, it's all for the money and doesn't save the environment. Pure hypocrisy from all of them. If they really cared bout the environment they had so many other things they could improve. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVPM6D-3aZo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVPM6D-3aZo

judge2020 5y ago
To be fair, linking to another soapbox without its own hard analysis or sources isn't much more of a source than my own claim (below) or your claim. But I also can't find much of a source on this matter outside of articles talking about Apple's or Samsung's claims. If you have 10,000 iPhones on a cargo ship that previously could only have 5,000, you've cut out a whole shipment. Whether or not this is realistically how it works is not too important (since whenever I buy it, I get tracking all the way from China and it shows China->Alaska->US, so it's likely on a plane) but let's assume this is a shipment 5 months in and they've downgraded to cargo ships. Now imagine that, out of those iPhones, half of the people buying them don't have a USB-C brick and don't have any existing USB-A bricks+USB-A charging cables lying around, aka any new customer coming from a USB-A Android. Indeed this might mean a lot more packaging like your video says, but these are people that already know for a fact that they need the new USB-C charging brick to charge their phone. For the other half of people that already have a wall charger, this new 5W charger that would have came in the box would have been thrown in a drawer somewhere, maybe never getting used since they already have chargers for where they need them, which is arguably more of a waste of rare earth metals than the packaging that the new charger comes in.

judge2020 5y ago

To be fair, linking to another soapbox without its own hard analysis or sources isn't much more of a source than my own claim (below) or your claim. But I also can't find much of a source on this matter outside of articles talking about Apple's or Samsung's claims. If you have 10,000 iPhones on a cargo ship that previously could only have 5,000, you've cut out a whole shipment. Whether or not this is realistically how it works is not too important (since whenever I buy it, I get tracking all the way from China and it shows China->Alaska->US, so it's likely on a plane) but let's assume this is a shipment 5 months in and they've downgraded to cargo ships. Now imagine that, out of those iPhones, half of the people buying them don't have a USB-C brick and don't have any existing USB-A bricks+USB-A charging cables lying around, aka any new customer coming from a USB-A Android. Indeed this might mean a lot more packaging like your video says, but these are people that already know for a fact that they need the new USB-C charging brick to charge their phone. For the other half of people that already have a wall charger, this new 5W charger that would have came in the box would have been thrown in a drawer somewhere, maybe never getting used since they already have chargers for where they need them, which is arguably more of a waste of rare earth metals than the packaging that the new charger comes in.