5 ms·

>> Apple is not happy that I bought a laptop in 2015 that was so good that it is still working fine 9 years later. And it's also not happy that I bought a phone

>> Apple is not happy that I bought a laptop in 2015 that was so good that it is still working fine 9 years later. And it's also not happy that I bought a phone more than 4 years ago that still does all the things I need it to do. Because they need to make money. More money. Well I'm not so sure about "more" as much about "keep making". And here lays the problem in almost every business on this planet. Everyone needs money to survive and if those money are obtained by selling produce, if that produce doesn't sell, they don't survive. So what do you propose instead?

imhoguy 3y ago
Not trying to propose anything, but if anyone needs some evening rabbit hole: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degrowth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degrowth
kjkjadksj 3y ago
Its not that apple won’t survive. People still need laptops just less than what they might like to sell a year. If operations need to shrink so be it. Lean and mean is a good thing sometimes. Most of apples really inventive projects came when the company was smaller than it is today.
- wentin 3y ago
  Lean and mean could mean people lose their job, lead to talent churn in the job market, wasting their talent and time doing things they don't love. Keep a steady cushy job so these talent can make great product while enjoy their life is a net gain for society.
  - digging 3y ago
    > Keep a steady cushy job so these talent can make great product while enjoy their life is a net gain for society No, it's a gross gain. And probably a small one, honestly. Whereas the associated costs to society are in the billions or trillions of dollars when we measure the environmental and social effects of mandatory-growth-culture. So it's a net loss.
- digging 3y ago
  > Most of apples really inventive projects came when the company was smaller than it is today Just want to point out that this isn't necessarily a causative effect.
ericol 3y ago
> So what do you propose instead? Make a product so good that people would choose to switch. I bought a Mac M1 2 years ago. I did some really shitty research when buying it - I didn't have that much money available at the time tbh, even thought at the time they were cheaper in my country (don't ask) than in the US - and went for the lower end of the MacBook Pro. That's a decision I regretted almost immediately, and then end of last year I decided to go for an M3 with better specs. With this machine, the only thing that is probably going to make me change - besides it breaking down - is probably blazing fast IA capabilities (As in, real-time LlaMA stuff, or similar). Otherwise I plan to use this machine for as long as I can keep using it. Same applies to my iPhone 13; unless I see a real need for changing it, I'm keeping it - that is if I don't decide to go back to middle tier Samsung phones that in my opinion are better than iPhones.
- zer00eyz 3y ago
  This is a great example of growth, and why your long term plan is likely going to fizzle. I'll give you all your money back for you M3, and give you the M1 you have/had only at a maxed out spec. Would you take the deal? It sounds good, but progress is a thing. That AI workload you want to run, isnt going to do so hot on the m1 (it doesn't have the right floating point systems). Its likely that the current m3 will remain usable as a laptop for a few more years due to extra ram and storage, but it has a shelf life for high end workloads...
  - ericol 3y ago
    > Its likely that the current m3 will remain usable as a laptop for a few more years due to extra ram and storage, but it has a shelf life for high end workloads... Isn't that my point exactly? (Sorry if I miss explained myself, not a native speaker and I didn't quite proofread my comment either) What I want to say is, I have the feeling my M3 is going to provide good service for probably a longer time than Apple is expecting to, and the only reason that'll make me change is having the need - and the money - for a better option. And I do think one of the biggest reasons as to why I might not make the switch is due to how incredible well this machine is engineered. As I'm kind of Apple's target pop - I did buy, afterall, 2 machines from them in a very short span of time - the previous point I made plays against them. > I'll give you all your money back for you M3, and give you the M1 you have/had only at a maxed out spec. > Would you take the deal? Depends on the deal, but very likely yes. Maxed out M1's are incredible capable machines in my opinion. Thanks for your comment!
stemlord 3y ago
If apple didn't need constant growth it'd likely be totally fine selling devices with a 10+ year turnaround. I mean the shop on my corner has been the same for 15 years and it didn't die because of it.
- slongfield 3y ago
  I don't know the specifics, but I'm pretty sure the shop on your corner sells things more than once a decade.
  - stemlord 3y ago
    1. Obviously Apple's market reach is wildly different-- they can still sell globally without requiring to scale indefinitely. 2. Hardware isn't their only product. Anyway, infinite growth is impossible, so the comparison to a local business is moot. Also, it should be legally required for Apple to make products that last 10+ years from an environmental standpoint.
noahtallen 3y ago
I don't think this is a fair take for massive businesses like Apple. When you spend $77B on stock buybacks, "money to survive" is very far out of the question. Apple does not need to have increased profit margins every single year to survive. They could be very financially successful and also more consumer friendly in many areas. They do not need to have a walled garden and locked-down messaging to survive. They do not need to make components hard to repair and impossible to upgrade to survive. They do not need to offer only 5GB of iCloud storage, or only 8GB of ram on new laptops to survive. They could be more generous and friendly to their consumers, and would probably have an even happier fanbase as a result. But it would likely not be more profitable, so they won't. The point here is that more profitable every year is not necessary for survival or for a company to be strong. It's simply a way to make shareholders very rich. That doesn't make it good for society. This is not about companies surviving. This is about companies needing to grow and grow and grow... And as the author says, there is no real end state. You keep growing until you buy out every one of your competitors? And when you have a stranglehold on the market, you can severely cut costs and reduce quality to continue growing profits without needing to find more customers. This shit really happens in a number of industries! It's not good for society. Sure, survival applies to small companies, startups, mom & pop shops. But many of these massive companies are operating at a completely different level, and "needing money to survive," is not at all what they are trying to do. They are trying to grow profits every year, to make the shareholders happy and wealthy. Not to help them or the company's employees survive. (We all know these companies are very happy to do a layoff if that's what will move the needle on profit growth.)
- jimbokun 3y ago
  Just because Apple is trying to grow infinitely, doesn't mean they will. If they continue to do things that hobble their products, people will stop buying them and that will put a natural break on Apple's growth. Of course there is also the question of monopolistic practices, and that's where it's appropriate for governments to step in, as the Biden administration is attempting with their recent lawsuit against Apple. I sense from progressives a growing sense that shaming people, corporations, organizations, governments, is the most effective means of social change. From what I can see, it accomplishes very little.

imhoguy 3y ago

Not trying to propose anything, but if anyone needs some evening rabbit hole: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degrowth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degrowth

kjkjadksj 3y ago

Its not that apple won’t survive. People still need laptops just less than what they might like to sell a year. If operations need to shrink so be it. Lean and mean is a good thing sometimes. Most of apples really inventive projects came when the company was smaller than it is today.

wentin 3y ago
Lean and mean could mean people lose their job, lead to talent churn in the job market, wasting their talent and time doing things they don't love. Keep a steady cushy job so these talent can make great product while enjoy their life is a net gain for society.
- digging 3y ago
  > Keep a steady cushy job so these talent can make great product while enjoy their life is a net gain for society No, it's a gross gain. And probably a small one, honestly. Whereas the associated costs to society are in the billions or trillions of dollars when we measure the environmental and social effects of mandatory-growth-culture. So it's a net loss.
digging 3y ago
> Most of apples really inventive projects came when the company was smaller than it is today Just want to point out that this isn't necessarily a causative effect.

ericol 3y ago

> So what do you propose instead? Make a product so good that people would choose to switch. I bought a Mac M1 2 years ago. I did some really shitty research when buying it - I didn't have that much money available at the time tbh, even thought at the time they were cheaper in my country (don't ask) than in the US - and went for the lower end of the MacBook Pro. That's a decision I regretted almost immediately, and then end of last year I decided to go for an M3 with better specs. With this machine, the only thing that is probably going to make me change - besides it breaking down - is probably blazing fast IA capabilities (As in, real-time LlaMA stuff, or similar). Otherwise I plan to use this machine for as long as I can keep using it. Same applies to my iPhone 13; unless I see a real need for changing it, I'm keeping it - that is if I don't decide to go back to middle tier Samsung phones that in my opinion are better than iPhones.

zer00eyz 3y ago
This is a great example of growth, and why your long term plan is likely going to fizzle. I'll give you all your money back for you M3, and give you the M1 you have/had only at a maxed out spec. Would you take the deal? It sounds good, but progress is a thing. That AI workload you want to run, isnt going to do so hot on the m1 (it doesn't have the right floating point systems). Its likely that the current m3 will remain usable as a laptop for a few more years due to extra ram and storage, but it has a shelf life for high end workloads...
- ericol 3y ago
  > Its likely that the current m3 will remain usable as a laptop for a few more years due to extra ram and storage, but it has a shelf life for high end workloads... Isn't that my point exactly? (Sorry if I miss explained myself, not a native speaker and I didn't quite proofread my comment either) What I want to say is, I have the feeling my M3 is going to provide good service for probably a longer time than Apple is expecting to, and the only reason that'll make me change is having the need - and the money - for a better option. And I do think one of the biggest reasons as to why I might not make the switch is due to how incredible well this machine is engineered. As I'm kind of Apple's target pop - I did buy, afterall, 2 machines from them in a very short span of time - the previous point I made plays against them. > I'll give you all your money back for you M3, and give you the M1 you have/had only at a maxed out spec. > Would you take the deal? Depends on the deal, but very likely yes. Maxed out M1's are incredible capable machines in my opinion. Thanks for your comment!

stemlord 3y ago

If apple didn't need constant growth it'd likely be totally fine selling devices with a 10+ year turnaround. I mean the shop on my corner has been the same for 15 years and it didn't die because of it.

slongfield 3y ago
I don't know the specifics, but I'm pretty sure the shop on your corner sells things more than once a decade.
- stemlord 3y ago
  1. Obviously Apple's market reach is wildly different-- they can still sell globally without requiring to scale indefinitely. 2. Hardware isn't their only product. Anyway, infinite growth is impossible, so the comparison to a local business is moot. Also, it should be legally required for Apple to make products that last 10+ years from an environmental standpoint.

noahtallen 3y ago

I don't think this is a fair take for massive businesses like Apple. When you spend $77B on stock buybacks, "money to survive" is very far out of the question. Apple does not need to have increased profit margins every single year to survive. They could be very financially successful and also more consumer friendly in many areas. They do not need to have a walled garden and locked-down messaging to survive. They do not need to make components hard to repair and impossible to upgrade to survive. They do not need to offer only 5GB of iCloud storage, or only 8GB of ram on new laptops to survive. They could be more generous and friendly to their consumers, and would probably have an even happier fanbase as a result. But it would likely not be more profitable, so they won't. The point here is that more profitable every year is not necessary for survival or for a company to be strong. It's simply a way to make shareholders very rich. That doesn't make it good for society. This is not about companies surviving. This is about companies needing to grow and grow and grow... And as the author says, there is no real end state. You keep growing until you buy out every one of your competitors? And when you have a stranglehold on the market, you can severely cut costs and reduce quality to continue growing profits without needing to find more customers. This shit really happens in a number of industries! It's not good for society. Sure, survival applies to small companies, startups, mom & pop shops. But many of these massive companies are operating at a completely different level, and "needing money to survive," is not at all what they are trying to do. They are trying to grow profits every year, to make the shareholders happy and wealthy. Not to help them or the company's employees survive. (We all know these companies are very happy to do a layoff if that's what will move the needle on profit growth.)

jimbokun 3y ago
Just because Apple is trying to grow infinitely, doesn't mean they will. If they continue to do things that hobble their products, people will stop buying them and that will put a natural break on Apple's growth. Of course there is also the question of monopolistic practices, and that's where it's appropriate for governments to step in, as the Biden administration is attempting with their recent lawsuit against Apple. I sense from progressives a growing sense that shaming people, corporations, organizations, governments, is the most effective means of social change. From what I can see, it accomplishes very little.