4 ms·

One paragraph on that page bothers me: "Better for the Environment" No, it is not better for the environment, it is not as bad for the environment.

onetom 4y ago
No matter how I squint, those 2 statements are logically equivalent, while "both harm the environment" is also true, but you "harm" the environment too, in that sense, no?
- FollowingTheDao 4y ago
  Yes, I guess it is better to say the environment is out of balance. And that imbalance will kill us. The environment is never really harmed. There was a time when the earth could handle the CO2 humans created. There was a balance.
haswell 4y ago
Given two options, both of which are bad for the environment, but one is less bad, is one not better than the other? Can you point to a product that highlights its strengths by framing them in a negative light instead of painting them positively?
- seabriez 4y ago
  Creating products that you can't easily repair or upgrade? Creating a vicious upgrade cycle? Hmmm...
  - haswell 4y ago
    Upgrade-ability and repair-ability are important topics, and do impact how environmentally friendly a device can be considered to be, but this is unrelated to the core of the topic at hand. The contention was that "They should have said it's less bad instead of saying it's better". That is what I was responding to. You've introduced a different topic, that is tangentially related, but not directly relevant to a discussion about framing things. It'd be relevant in a discussion about the absolute environmental friendliness of the device, but that's another discussion entirely.
  - onetom 4y ago
    I'm still using a 2017 MacBook Pro, though I have an M1 Mac Mini. I had 2 second-hand 27" iMacs too, from 2011 and 2013. I gave the 2011 one away, because I couldn't upgrade it anymore, but it is still used for audio/video editing. The 2013 one has some issues with its hard-drive and I'm planning to upgrade it to an SSD. It's still a pretty capable machine, though I would probably put Linux on it, since the macOS upgrades for that are discontinued too. The display panels are "just" 2K in them, but still super sharp, though a bit dusty inside... They are better than most cheaper external monitors I saw ppl using for everyday work... I think a decade of runtime for Macs is not that uncommon. 2 decades would be even better, but I wouldn't call it a "vicious upgrade cycle"... I mean, I'm still on an iPhone Xs Max and before that I had an iPhone 7 Pro and I have no intention of upgrading, despite the back-glass being cracked on it. and not because I can't afford it, but because I won't really utilize the extra power of the latest versions.
    - seabriez 4y ago
      Yeah, same. Tho my PC, I pretty much upgrade everything, and keep using older components. Now I know it's not 100% green, but with an old PC you can literally grind it to the ground by using it as an old storage device, linux box, or ad blocker. My original PC case I've literally been using it for 20 years now, it's crazy it still works/fits all the hardware in there perfectly, and that's probably the biggest component.
- dylan604 4y ago
  Just to show our commitment to our users, we're only responsible for 25% of future cancer where our competitors are responsible for 29%. I just don't see that line being effective.
  - haswell 4y ago
    What do you propose, then? Should they just not say anything at all? Or is your contention that the product should not even exist?
    - dylan604 4y ago
      Chaning one's perspective on PR vomit would be my suggestion. If it comes from a PR team, then of course it is all shiny, smells great, long lasting, making the world a better place. The true information will never come from those PR departments. Maybe, it'll come from an interested 3rd party, but then you have to know if they are just being informative or if they have an agenda and distorting info as well.
    - FollowingTheDao 4y ago
      Yes, they should say nothing at all. Instead of saying things like "This means that every Mac Apple creates, from design to manufacturing, will be 100 percent carbon neutral." Carbon Neutrality is branding and does nothing to reverse CO2 or climate change. It is all green washing. https://www.resurgence.org/magazine/article256-the-carbon-neutral-myth.html https://www.resurgence.org/magazine/article256-the-carbon-ne... Better for the environment is never buying another computer. Yes, I am saying that the MacBook Air M1 I am writing on right now should not exist. That what short term gains I am getting from it now will end up causing all your kids to suffer. I am saying you are all sacrificing your children future for novelty and convince. I ams also saying there is no way out of this because we have built this Tower of Babel and what will happen now is out of our hands.
      - haswell 4y ago
        While I appreciate where you're coming from, your conclusion seems to imply there is no world in which technology and a sustainable future can coexist. I realize we are closer to the end now than ever before, but what you are suggesting is that the ending is inevitable. If this is true - we've triggered our downfall and nothing can stop it - then should we not be praising companies that make efforts towards sustainability? Since we can't just put things back into a box, isn't complaining about marketing like this just barking up entirely the wrong tree? If the premise is that technology ideally shouldn't exist in its current form, then that requires an entirely different discussion built on an entirely different foundation, and Apple's marketing claims are just a small distraction at best.

onetom 4y ago

No matter how I squint, those 2 statements are logically equivalent, while "both harm the environment" is also true, but you "harm" the environment too, in that sense, no?

FollowingTheDao 4y ago
Yes, I guess it is better to say the environment is out of balance. And that imbalance will kill us. The environment is never really harmed. There was a time when the earth could handle the CO2 humans created. There was a balance.

haswell 4y ago

Given two options, both of which are bad for the environment, but one is less bad, is one not better than the other? Can you point to a product that highlights its strengths by framing them in a negative light instead of painting them positively?

seabriez 4y ago
Creating products that you can't easily repair or upgrade? Creating a vicious upgrade cycle? Hmmm...
- haswell 4y ago
  Upgrade-ability and repair-ability are important topics, and do impact how environmentally friendly a device can be considered to be, but this is unrelated to the core of the topic at hand. The contention was that "They should have said it's less bad instead of saying it's better". That is what I was responding to. You've introduced a different topic, that is tangentially related, but not directly relevant to a discussion about framing things. It'd be relevant in a discussion about the absolute environmental friendliness of the device, but that's another discussion entirely.
- onetom 4y ago
  I'm still using a 2017 MacBook Pro, though I have an M1 Mac Mini. I had 2 second-hand 27" iMacs too, from 2011 and 2013. I gave the 2011 one away, because I couldn't upgrade it anymore, but it is still used for audio/video editing. The 2013 one has some issues with its hard-drive and I'm planning to upgrade it to an SSD. It's still a pretty capable machine, though I would probably put Linux on it, since the macOS upgrades for that are discontinued too. The display panels are "just" 2K in them, but still super sharp, though a bit dusty inside... They are better than most cheaper external monitors I saw ppl using for everyday work... I think a decade of runtime for Macs is not that uncommon. 2 decades would be even better, but I wouldn't call it a "vicious upgrade cycle"... I mean, I'm still on an iPhone Xs Max and before that I had an iPhone 7 Pro and I have no intention of upgrading, despite the back-glass being cracked on it. and not because I can't afford it, but because I won't really utilize the extra power of the latest versions.
  - seabriez 4y ago
    Yeah, same. Tho my PC, I pretty much upgrade everything, and keep using older components. Now I know it's not 100% green, but with an old PC you can literally grind it to the ground by using it as an old storage device, linux box, or ad blocker. My original PC case I've literally been using it for 20 years now, it's crazy it still works/fits all the hardware in there perfectly, and that's probably the biggest component.
dylan604 4y ago
Just to show our commitment to our users, we're only responsible for 25% of future cancer where our competitors are responsible for 29%. I just don't see that line being effective.
- haswell 4y ago
  What do you propose, then? Should they just not say anything at all? Or is your contention that the product should not even exist?
  - dylan604 4y ago
    Chaning one's perspective on PR vomit would be my suggestion. If it comes from a PR team, then of course it is all shiny, smells great, long lasting, making the world a better place. The true information will never come from those PR departments. Maybe, it'll come from an interested 3rd party, but then you have to know if they are just being informative or if they have an agenda and distorting info as well.
  - FollowingTheDao 4y ago
    Yes, they should say nothing at all. Instead of saying things like "This means that every Mac Apple creates, from design to manufacturing, will be 100 percent carbon neutral." Carbon Neutrality is branding and does nothing to reverse CO2 or climate change. It is all green washing. https://www.resurgence.org/magazine/article256-the-carbon-neutral-myth.html https://www.resurgence.org/magazine/article256-the-carbon-ne... Better for the environment is never buying another computer. Yes, I am saying that the MacBook Air M1 I am writing on right now should not exist. That what short term gains I am getting from it now will end up causing all your kids to suffer. I am saying you are all sacrificing your children future for novelty and convince. I ams also saying there is no way out of this because we have built this Tower of Babel and what will happen now is out of our hands.
    - haswell 4y ago
      While I appreciate where you're coming from, your conclusion seems to imply there is no world in which technology and a sustainable future can coexist. I realize we are closer to the end now than ever before, but what you are suggesting is that the ending is inevitable. If this is true - we've triggered our downfall and nothing can stop it - then should we not be praising companies that make efforts towards sustainability? Since we can't just put things back into a box, isn't complaining about marketing like this just barking up entirely the wrong tree? If the premise is that technology ideally shouldn't exist in its current form, then that requires an entirely different discussion built on an entirely different foundation, and Apple's marketing claims are just a small distraction at best.