Apple commits to be 100% carbon neutral for supply chain and products by 2030(apple.com)
apple.com
Apple commits to be 100% carbon neutral for supply chain and products by 2030
https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2020/07/apple-commits-to-be-100-percent-carbon-neutral-for-its-supply-chain-and-products-by-2030/
141 comments
I don't think laptops should be designed to optimize relatively rare events like battery swaps over day-to-day use. My MacBook Air is 8? years old and I've never cracked the case.
If it's common for MacBook batteries to last 3 years as it has for you, that's a far bigger concern than the fact that it's difficult to replace. I think that's pretty uncommon though, I don't have numbers either way.
If it's common for MacBook batteries to last 3 years as it has for you, that's a far bigger concern than the fact that it's difficult to replace. I think that's pretty uncommon though, I don't have numbers either way.
> I've never cracked the case.
You may want to pop it open and blow the dust out of the fans. They need annual maintenance to run at full efficiency. You might even notice the speedup in your computer if the CPU has been running slower to keep the heat down.
You may want to pop it open and blow the dust out of the fans. They need annual maintenance to run at full efficiency. You might even notice the speedup in your computer if the CPU has been running slower to keep the heat down.
> I don't think laptops should be designed to optimize relatively rare events like battery swaps over day-to-day use.
Is this reversing cause and effect? Battery swaps will indeed be rare if you have to disassemble the entire computer to do it.
Is this reversing cause and effect? Battery swaps will indeed be rare if you have to disassemble the entire computer to do it.
> Is this reversing cause and effect? Battery swaps will indeed be rare if you have to disassemble the entire computer to do it.
As I said above, if you need to replace the battery frequently, that's a big concern regardless of whether it's the laptop is serviceable or not.
As I said above, if you need to replace the battery frequently, that's a big concern regardless of whether it's the laptop is serviceable or not.
You're assuming the only reason to replace a battery is to replace it because it is faulty but back in the day people used to just carry spare batteries to increase capacity.
Now we're limited to those crazy plug-in power banks that don't work on most laptops anyway.
If you could still carry a spare battery, a lot of people would.
Now we're limited to those crazy plug-in power banks that don't work on most laptops anyway.
If you could still carry a spare battery, a lot of people would.
> ... back in the day people used to just carry spare batteries to increase capacity
"Back in the day" batteries lasted 2 hours or less and even then I didn't know many people who bothered buying a spare. The extra weight and expense weren't worth the trade-off.
Now with 8+ hour battery life, the trade-off is even worse.
"Back in the day" batteries lasted 2 hours or less and even then I didn't know many people who bothered buying a spare. The extra weight and expense weren't worth the trade-off.
Now with 8+ hour battery life, the trade-off is even worse.
Well it's only my anecdata vs your anecdata but that wasn't my experience at all. In the 90s through 2000s it was extremely common for people who primarily worked on laptops while travelling to have a "laptop bag", inside which you'd carry your power adapter, whatever PCMCIA cards you needed, a mouse, and a spare battery.
It wasn’t that long ago that our agency had thousands of people with laptops who travelled often (2007). We used to give them two batteries, a home charger and a car charger. You could get almost four hours on a full battery and that was not running a ton of software and no WiFi or wireless. Seemed common if you travelled to have more than one battery. Now it seems like you just want one of those battery backups to bring with for times when you don’t have a plug nearby.
> Well it's only my anecdata vs your anecdata but that wasn't my experience at all.
Indeed and much likely depended on use-cases.
But battery life is vastly different now regardless.
> PCMCIA cards you needed
LOL do not miss those. I did have a sweet PCMCIA network card because Linux didn't support the onboard NIC. Back in the days when you had to scour 30+ web sites to find a laptop you could run Linux on reliably.
Indeed and much likely depended on use-cases.
But battery life is vastly different now regardless.
> PCMCIA cards you needed
LOL do not miss those. I did have a sweet PCMCIA network card because Linux didn't support the onboard NIC. Back in the days when you had to scour 30+ web sites to find a laptop you could run Linux on reliably.
Interesting argument. If people didn't bother buying a spare even when battery life was shorter, maybe longer battery life doesn't really matter all that much. ;-)
Incidentally, I had a spare that I brought along when traveling. When I wasn't traveling, I generally didn't need the spare, but it was great when I did need it.
Incidentally, I had a spare that I brought along when traveling. When I wasn't traveling, I generally didn't need the spare, but it was great when I did need it.
It's not an easy task to make an extremely efficient and sleek design, and still make it easy to disassemble/reassemble/upgrade/etc.
The strides Apple has made to make devices smaller, more efficient, and more powerful are incredible. Though they come with obvious downsides. Cramming all that tech into a small space means you don't have an easy "click to remove" battery cell any longer - or hard drive, or memory sticks, or floppy drive bay... ;)
Not to negate your point - battery lifetimes are quite poor compared to the lifetimes of all other electronics in a computer and making them easily replaceable would be ideal.
Do we want smaller, faster, more efficient computers, or do we want easily modable computers?
Obviously both would be ideal, just not sure if that's really feasible with the way the technology is progressing.
The strides Apple has made to make devices smaller, more efficient, and more powerful are incredible. Though they come with obvious downsides. Cramming all that tech into a small space means you don't have an easy "click to remove" battery cell any longer - or hard drive, or memory sticks, or floppy drive bay... ;)
Not to negate your point - battery lifetimes are quite poor compared to the lifetimes of all other electronics in a computer and making them easily replaceable would be ideal.
Do we want smaller, faster, more efficient computers, or do we want easily modable computers?
Obviously both would be ideal, just not sure if that's really feasible with the way the technology is progressing.
We’re talking about a difference in thickness of millimeters though. Was my 2014 Macbook Pro really that bulky? The prevailing sentiment over the last several Apple announcements seems to have been “fewer gimmicks, more power”. Maybe software engineers aren’t the target market for these computers anymore though, or perhaps my bubble is too small.
Thin and sleek are "nice to haves".
Reduced environmental impact should be "musts".
Thinner, lighter and overall smaller footprint also have noticeable environmental impact. You have to ship these products and at millions of devices these things add up. The battery is also replaceable by Apple. People also recycle their computers, in which case a lot of these raw materials are recovered too.
> Do we want smaller, faster, more efficient computers, or do we want easily modable computers?
It's not about making them moddable, it's about making them more sustainable. Of course everyone's values differ, but wanting to repair your own stuff is something that has become more than just gimmicky, and for good reason in my opinion.
It's not about making them moddable, it's about making them more sustainable. Of course everyone's values differ, but wanting to repair your own stuff is something that has become more than just gimmicky, and for good reason in my opinion.
I upgraded the RAM, did two hard drive swaps, and replaced the battery in my 2009 MBP. That laptop case also had less flex to it than the 2018 MBP I'm using today. I would much rather have a thicker but upgradeable/maintainable/solid laptop than the current models.
Thermal management on the 2018 models is also not great. Ambient temps on my house didn't really impact the 2009 model, but they definitely do for the 2018 version. I think most of this comes from processor improvements over those nine years, so there's a tradeoff, but don't know for sure. Only ARM will tell.
Totally agree that the efficiency and power management on the iPhone line is amazing. They've done a lot of work there. So far, the batteries in my iPhones have lasted about as long as the rest of the device, typically four years.
The possibility of a convergent device, like an iPhone I could use with an external display and keyboard (see https://youtu.be/yBeza4UNOm8), is intriguing. I would like that. And I would be more likely to accept the compromises for that form factor, because I can get down to one computing device.
But just having a sleeker design is not enough for the tradeoffs I see with the vintage vs. modern MBP line.
Thermal management on the 2018 models is also not great. Ambient temps on my house didn't really impact the 2009 model, but they definitely do for the 2018 version. I think most of this comes from processor improvements over those nine years, so there's a tradeoff, but don't know for sure. Only ARM will tell.
Totally agree that the efficiency and power management on the iPhone line is amazing. They've done a lot of work there. So far, the batteries in my iPhones have lasted about as long as the rest of the device, typically four years.
The possibility of a convergent device, like an iPhone I could use with an external display and keyboard (see https://youtu.be/yBeza4UNOm8), is intriguing. I would like that. And I would be more likely to accept the compromises for that form factor, because I can get down to one computing device.
But just having a sleeker design is not enough for the tradeoffs I see with the vintage vs. modern MBP line.
On every Apple device I've owned, the thing that became end-of-life first has always been the software. The battery and hardware health have always kept on going, long after the device stopped getting OS updates. To the point where you had to either jailbreak or throw away perfectly good hardware because the software was hopelessly out of date and inevitably contained unpatched vulnerabilities.
I have a 20 year old PC sitting next to me with a Pentium 4 in it that still happily runs the latest Debian, but I can't get this coming year's OS updates for a seven year old phone or a six year old MacMini.
I have a 20 year old PC sitting next to me with a Pentium 4 in it that still happily runs the latest Debian, but I can't get this coming year's OS updates for a seven year old phone or a six year old MacMini.
Everyone says this because they never have to put their money where there mouth is and daily drive a behemoth like the old MBPs. My mom uses my 2010 MBP. The thing is enormous, ridiculously heavy. Huge, hard to fit in a backpack. Battery life is mediocre. It gets pretty hot too despite its size.
I would never go back to then, nor would most consumers. I want my laptop to last a long time and be portable. People moan about upgrades but I doubt that is even half a percent of Apple's consumer base now.
I would never go back to then, nor would most consumers. I want my laptop to last a long time and be portable. People moan about upgrades but I doubt that is even half a percent of Apple's consumer base now.
I would go back to my 2006 17-inch MacBook Pro form factor in a second. Best laptop I've ever owned. Well designed.
There used to be a distinction between Pro and non-Pro. If you valued light and small over power, then you'd buy the non-Pro Mac. But Apple won't let us make the tradeoff anymore. Do Pro users even want the Touch Bar? Mostly not.
There used to be a distinction between Pro and non-Pro. If you valued light and small over power, then you'd buy the non-Pro Mac. But Apple won't let us make the tradeoff anymore. Do Pro users even want the Touch Bar? Mostly not.
Sure you would, that's what everyone says who doesn't have to do it or can't.
I still have the machine. The only reason I had to stop using it is that it can't run anything later than Lion.
This is my point. It's easy to say you'd do something you'd never be forced into doing. It's just rose-colored glasses "back in my day...blah blah blah"
> This is my point.
You have no point. My point is that I can literally put my 2014 and 2006 MacBook Pros next to each other and compare them, in the present, right in front of my eyes, not wearing any glasses, much less "rose-colored".
You have no point. My point is that I can literally put my 2014 and 2006 MacBook Pros next to each other and compare them, in the present, right in front of my eyes, not wearing any glasses, much less "rose-colored".
> It's not an easy task to make an extremely efficient and sleek design, and still make it easy to disassemble/reassemble/upgrade/etc.
If we're just talking about the battery, that's bullshit.
1) They could use Phillips or even Torx screw heads instead of Apple's Pentalobe screw head. The back already comes off relatively easily.
2) The batteries are already connectorized, but they could use a pull-tab adhesive or a thin screw plate to secure the battery instead of fucking epoxy. There's zero space for the cells to move... they're not going to slide around. The only thing the glue does is guarantee that you're going to destroy the cells when you attempt to remove them.
3) They could sell replacement cells on their website like every other manufacturer.
Socketed mobile CPUs are probably never coming back, but RAM and SSD sockets are still a trade-off for pretty much every other manufacturer. Nobody is surprised by Apple's direction here, but it's absolutely possible to design a nice, high-end thin and light laptop with socketed RAM and storage, and many manufacturers are doing just that.
If we're just talking about the battery, that's bullshit.
1) They could use Phillips or even Torx screw heads instead of Apple's Pentalobe screw head. The back already comes off relatively easily.
2) The batteries are already connectorized, but they could use a pull-tab adhesive or a thin screw plate to secure the battery instead of fucking epoxy. There's zero space for the cells to move... they're not going to slide around. The only thing the glue does is guarantee that you're going to destroy the cells when you attempt to remove them.
3) They could sell replacement cells on their website like every other manufacturer.
Socketed mobile CPUs are probably never coming back, but RAM and SSD sockets are still a trade-off for pretty much every other manufacturer. Nobody is surprised by Apple's direction here, but it's absolutely possible to design a nice, high-end thin and light laptop with socketed RAM and storage, and many manufacturers are doing just that.
It's just laziness. The interior of modern laptops is mostly space that can be filled by batteries. Laptop packaging is far easier than it was 25 years ago. A screw on cover and a pluggable cable aren't going to ruin anybody's precious design.
I think if there is any company that could wow us with upgradeability and repairability, it would be Apple after they decided to innovate in those areas.
>They're intentionally making devices disposable.
Well no. This is what intentionally making devices disposable looks like.
>According to iFixit, the Surface Laptop isn’t repairable at all. In fact, it got a 0 out of 10 for repairability and was labeled a “glue-filled monstrosity.”
The lowest scores previously were a 1 out of 10 for all previous iterations of the Surface Pro
https://www.extremetech.com/computing/251046-ifixit-labels-s...
Well no. This is what intentionally making devices disposable looks like.
>According to iFixit, the Surface Laptop isn’t repairable at all. In fact, it got a 0 out of 10 for repairability and was labeled a “glue-filled monstrosity.”
The lowest scores previously were a 1 out of 10 for all previous iterations of the Surface Pro
https://www.extremetech.com/computing/251046-ifixit-labels-s...
If the product is 100% carbon neutral then selling multiple copies of that products would have no impact either.
This means that planned obsolescence and being impossible to repair for the user would have no effect on the environment.
This means that planned obsolescence and being impossible to repair for the user would have no effect on the environment.
That is a huge(!) leap. 'Carbon neutral' does not mean 'no side-effects' it means literally 'carbon neutral' of course there is pollution from the churn of obsoleting devices left and right.
Can we not keep repeating this myopic 'the only problem is X' and then creating a bunch of new problems from not accounting for externalities. I am reminded of the great horse-shit meeting of europe that ended with no solution and then the car came along and everyone was 'yay no more pollution' because for them 'pollution' was horse shit, not exhaust fumes.
Can we not keep repeating this myopic 'the only problem is X' and then creating a bunch of new problems from not accounting for externalities. I am reminded of the great horse-shit meeting of europe that ended with no solution and then the car came along and everyone was 'yay no more pollution' because for them 'pollution' was horse shit, not exhaust fumes.
What about the ecological disruption involved in mining all of the material for those multiple products?
Being carbon neutral isn't sufficient to undo the damage that we have done. We need to become carbon negative.
Being carbon neutral isn't sufficient to undo the damage that we have done. We need to become carbon negative.
The environment is composed of more than CO2 levels.
I mean all the phone manufacturers are doing it, but phones used to have replaceable batteries. I think companies realized they could make more by selling new phones. But the iphone has never had a replaceable battery.
I never got a new phone because the battery was not good enough anymore (and it can be replaced, just not by yourself). Apple charges about $50, obviously 10x cheaper than a new phone.
Funny, my last few phone upgrades were in large part because of that.
I went through 3 replacement batteries on my last phone (a Galaxy S5) over the course of 4-5 years because the OEM ones kept bulging (possibly due in part from heat generated by my aftermarket Qi panel).
I find it terribly annoying being pushed to upgrade my device every couple years.
I bought a brand new S10+ and after a year of use there's a noticeable difference in battery life. It's the model with 1TB Flash storage (yes) so I'm not eager to throw away the investment. I wish I could put in a new battery without need for adhesive peeling, a heat gun and luck.
I agree with the comments about user-hostile design in regard to smartphone batteries.
I went through 3 replacement batteries on my last phone (a Galaxy S5) over the course of 4-5 years because the OEM ones kept bulging (possibly due in part from heat generated by my aftermarket Qi panel).
I find it terribly annoying being pushed to upgrade my device every couple years.
I bought a brand new S10+ and after a year of use there's a noticeable difference in battery life. It's the model with 1TB Flash storage (yes) so I'm not eager to throw away the investment. I wish I could put in a new battery without need for adhesive peeling, a heat gun and luck.
I agree with the comments about user-hostile design in regard to smartphone batteries.
Does it really matter if it’s “user serviceable” or does it just need to be “serviceable.” Because I think Apple meets that bar. I don’t really care that for all practical purposes my transmission isn’t serviceable by me personally, but that I can take it to the shop for an okay price.
Getting my iPhone battery replaced was a pretty painless experience compared to my old Nexus. Hell it was actually easier than my Samsung that had a user replaceable battery because by the time it needed replaced I couldn’t find a 1st party replacement battery!
Getting my iPhone battery replaced was a pretty painless experience compared to my old Nexus. Hell it was actually easier than my Samsung that had a user replaceable battery because by the time it needed replaced I couldn’t find a 1st party replacement battery!
EDIT - When looking up Watch service prices I missed that there was a cheaper $80 battery replacement vs the general out of warranty service price. But that's still 47% of the current street price (S3 is $170 from Amazon, Target, or Walmart).
Similarly, AirPods are $50 each for battery replacement, another $50 for the charging case, versus a list price of $200 and having gone on sale for $150. So if your batteries are shot in both AirPods and the case it's 75% of list price, or the entire full cost of buying them on sale. And this is a device where when brand new the tiny little batteries were barely good enough.
If my car's transmission blew and it was $10,000 to get it repaired, I'd be taking it to a scrapyard instead of a mechanic. Same goes for a 2-3 year old gadget if I'm expected to spend 75% of the replacement cost to get a battery replaced. I'm just going to say "I guess it's time for an upgrade" and see if someone on CraigsList will pay me for the old one, maybe just for spare parts depending on how bad the battery is.
If Apple really wants to extend the lifetime of their devices, they need to get the price down for replacing the disposable components, or make the disposable parts user replaceable again.
I've said it before re: AirPods battery life, but this was a predictable outcome for something with a 5 hour battery: https://9to5mac.com/2019/01/28/airpods-battery-life/
Similarly, AirPods are $50 each for battery replacement, another $50 for the charging case, versus a list price of $200 and having gone on sale for $150. So if your batteries are shot in both AirPods and the case it's 75% of list price, or the entire full cost of buying them on sale. And this is a device where when brand new the tiny little batteries were barely good enough.
If my car's transmission blew and it was $10,000 to get it repaired, I'd be taking it to a scrapyard instead of a mechanic. Same goes for a 2-3 year old gadget if I'm expected to spend 75% of the replacement cost to get a battery replaced. I'm just going to say "I guess it's time for an upgrade" and see if someone on CraigsList will pay me for the old one, maybe just for spare parts depending on how bad the battery is.
If Apple really wants to extend the lifetime of their devices, they need to get the price down for replacing the disposable components, or make the disposable parts user replaceable again.
I've said it before re: AirPods battery life, but this was a predictable outcome for something with a 5 hour battery: https://9to5mac.com/2019/01/28/airpods-battery-life/
The economics of a extremely large machine with thousands of parts are different than the economics of a $150 piece of electronics with 4 parts.
I'm not sure why this surprises people.
I'm not sure why this surprises people.
I'm not surprised, I just think Apple could do more to keep old devices in use if they were really concerned about it. Going 100% carbon neutral on your supply chain is great, but it's even better to just make and dispose of less stuff to begin with.
The economic incentives of selling gadgets less often obviously don't line up with making Apple more money, but neither do all of their other environmental initiatives. Some things they do because it's the right thing to do.
On the phones side I'm holding them to a high standard, knowing they already do a better job keeping phones useful compared to any of their competition. I don't think that's the case for laptops and other devices where there are serviceable alternatives though; I see a lot more old ThinkPads in use than I do old MacBooks. That's probably because an old laptop still gets OS updates, and other manufactures make more repairable laptops than Apple does. Apple's gadgets (laptops and everything else) eventually hit limited software support.
The economic incentives of selling gadgets less often obviously don't line up with making Apple more money, but neither do all of their other environmental initiatives. Some things they do because it's the right thing to do.
On the phones side I'm holding them to a high standard, knowing they already do a better job keeping phones useful compared to any of their competition. I don't think that's the case for laptops and other devices where there are serviceable alternatives though; I see a lot more old ThinkPads in use than I do old MacBooks. That's probably because an old laptop still gets OS updates, and other manufactures make more repairable laptops than Apple does. Apple's gadgets (laptops and everything else) eventually hit limited software support.
> The economic incentives of selling gadgets less often obviously don't line up with making Apple more money...
I disagree. Longevity is a big part of why I buy Apple products. Laptops that last 8-10+ years and the fact that they hold enough resale value that I can sell it used when I need to upgrade are massive selling points. Likewise the fact that I get 4-5 years of useful (supported) life out of the iPhone versus 2-3 for Android phones.
> I don't think that's the case for laptops and other devices where there are serviceable alternatives though; I see a lot more old ThinkPads in use than I do old MacBooks.
My MacBook is 8 years old and will likely be in use for at least a few more years. Pretty much every Mac I've owned has lasted for a decade or I've sold it while it was still running. As I said above, reliability is a big chunk of why I started buying Macs.
Apple's single standout reliability on MacBooks as far as I know is that keyboard issue.
I disagree. Longevity is a big part of why I buy Apple products. Laptops that last 8-10+ years and the fact that they hold enough resale value that I can sell it used when I need to upgrade are massive selling points. Likewise the fact that I get 4-5 years of useful (supported) life out of the iPhone versus 2-3 for Android phones.
> I don't think that's the case for laptops and other devices where there are serviceable alternatives though; I see a lot more old ThinkPads in use than I do old MacBooks.
My MacBook is 8 years old and will likely be in use for at least a few more years. Pretty much every Mac I've owned has lasted for a decade or I've sold it while it was still running. As I said above, reliability is a big chunk of why I started buying Macs.
Apple's single standout reliability on MacBooks as far as I know is that keyboard issue.
YMMV I guess. My Mac longevity has been less impressive, MacBook Pro I got for college lasted 4 years and then went totally unbootable, and the Air replacing had its audio inputs/outputs die around 3 years. I dragged that one out for a while longer with bluetooth headphones and replaced it when the 2016 MBPs launched, which as you mentioned have keyboard problems. Otherwise still solid, so maybe this will be my first 8-year Mac.
My iPhone SE 2016 is >4 years though, so I'm doing above average on that one at least.
My iPhone SE 2016 is >4 years though, so I'm doing above average on that one at least.
I would define serviceable as replaceable with reasonable cost or effort, with reasonable being closer to the price of the component than the whole device.
In other words: if the part is a battery that costs around $70, I should expect a change to be around 100-150max, not 500-600, where I’d consider upgrading to the next device.
Also it would be nice if certain components would be interchangeable in the way chargers are, though I understand that there’s higher customization for things in the device and this might not be feasible.
In other words: if the part is a battery that costs around $70, I should expect a change to be around 100-150max, not 500-600, where I’d consider upgrading to the next device.
Also it would be nice if certain components would be interchangeable in the way chargers are, though I understand that there’s higher customization for things in the device and this might not be feasible.
There are some structural limitations to doing this. Car side impact performance is substantially hampered by the very large holes we need to make the driver and passengers replaceable. Nobody wants to crawl in the top like a tank, and we compromise heavily because of this.
One solution that occurs to me is to look at what 3M has for a thermally stable version of the removable adhesives they use for those wall hooks. How many watt hours of capacity do you lose making space for 1) the adhesive, and 2) lower tolerances to account for human error in centering the new battery? I suspect this could be engineered to be less problematic. Possibly with some sort of tool for aligning the battery and dropping it in (thinking suction cups and some rails to drop it straight in).
One solution that occurs to me is to look at what 3M has for a thermally stable version of the removable adhesives they use for those wall hooks. How many watt hours of capacity do you lose making space for 1) the adhesive, and 2) lower tolerances to account for human error in centering the new battery? I suspect this could be engineered to be less problematic. Possibly with some sort of tool for aligning the battery and dropping it in (thinking suction cups and some rails to drop it straight in).
In one of my first laptops the battery lid was the battery. But this doesn’t allow for a sleek unibody. Apple sacrifices a substantial amount of functionality for the sake „sleekness“. Another prominent example is the keyboard which they not only kept long after they knew it was bust, but the repair was also made needlessly hard because of the Macbook’s design. There are some laptops where you can replace the keyboard without opening the laptop. I don’t expect Apple to make battery lids and swappable keyboards but the current design is user hostile and environmental unfriendly.
Apple had those for quite a while.
The problem is that a battery compartment has six sides. The lid is, best case, only one of the two largest. Square voids are very difficult to brace around. They started stir welding the braces to the unibody to improve stiffness not too long before they did away with the discrete battery. Then they started manufacturing (assembling, really) their own prismatic cells to substantially reduce the amount of packaging and gaps in the laptops.
The model where this all came together, by the way, got a roughly 2-fold increase in battery life. That is not a small compromise you are talking about. Sure, 30% of that was from OS improvements to manage peak power draw, but the rest was due to better, larger batteries by filling every void in the case with custom, higher density cells (with no shielding of their own).
I do not like that the batteries are bonded to a board that takes $400 to replace. You should absolutely be able to separate those, I just don't agree that it's worth having to carry a spare battery in order to have a spare battery.
The problem is that a battery compartment has six sides. The lid is, best case, only one of the two largest. Square voids are very difficult to brace around. They started stir welding the braces to the unibody to improve stiffness not too long before they did away with the discrete battery. Then they started manufacturing (assembling, really) their own prismatic cells to substantially reduce the amount of packaging and gaps in the laptops.
The model where this all came together, by the way, got a roughly 2-fold increase in battery life. That is not a small compromise you are talking about. Sure, 30% of that was from OS improvements to manage peak power draw, but the rest was due to better, larger batteries by filling every void in the case with custom, higher density cells (with no shielding of their own).
I do not like that the batteries are bonded to a board that takes $400 to replace. You should absolutely be able to separate those, I just don't agree that it's worth having to carry a spare battery in order to have a spare battery.
I definitely agree but there's a lot of room for compromise between "user servicable battery" and "repair shops can't even buy the parts".
Maybe I'll take Apple's environmental efforts seriously when they stop waging war against independent repair and stop blocking their suppliers from selling replacement parts.
How can you claim to be environmental lt conscious when a huge part of your business is built on suckering customers into buying new, replacement devices when all they want is a repair or replacement for a relatively cheap component?
How can you claim to be environmental lt conscious when a huge part of your business is built on suckering customers into buying new, replacement devices when all they want is a repair or replacement for a relatively cheap component?
This is the 15th time this has been talked about, but the reason they starve independent repair is because they can only guarantee a quality repair and/or replace a bad repair when they perform it (or when someone that has gone through their training and certifications has done it). If a customer goes to a repair shop that uses off-brand parts and is sloppy with their repair to the point that the issue re-surfaces in a few months, the customer is likely to blame Apple again instead of whoever did the repair.
> the customer is likely to blame Apple again instead of whoever did the repair.
Says who?
Bad repair shops are a problem, but Apple is exacerbating that problem and they know it. They want people to go the Apple store where their "geniuses" can tell them they have to spend thousands of dollars to replace a main board when the actual problem is a bent pin or an unplugged battery. They want independent repair to have a bad name so they can keep getting away with that nonsense.
How are independent repair shops supposed to use on-brand parts when Apple wont even sell them at a reasonable price without some ridiculous contract?
Apple's independent repair program is complete BS. Expensive parts, a lackluster part selection, and frivolous certifications are one thing, but that's not enough for Apple. Their independent repair program essentially prevents shops from doing anything more than simple screen and battery replacements. If they offer services beyond that, Apple revokes the shop's "privilege" to purchase overpriced OEM components.
They say they want to prevent customers from being scammed by bad repair shops, but Apple's scam is just as bad. They want you to buy new devices, regardless of whether you want them, and they will trick you into buying them if they think they can get away with it.
Says who?
Bad repair shops are a problem, but Apple is exacerbating that problem and they know it. They want people to go the Apple store where their "geniuses" can tell them they have to spend thousands of dollars to replace a main board when the actual problem is a bent pin or an unplugged battery. They want independent repair to have a bad name so they can keep getting away with that nonsense.
How are independent repair shops supposed to use on-brand parts when Apple wont even sell them at a reasonable price without some ridiculous contract?
Apple's independent repair program is complete BS. Expensive parts, a lackluster part selection, and frivolous certifications are one thing, but that's not enough for Apple. Their independent repair program essentially prevents shops from doing anything more than simple screen and battery replacements. If they offer services beyond that, Apple revokes the shop's "privilege" to purchase overpriced OEM components.
They say they want to prevent customers from being scammed by bad repair shops, but Apple's scam is just as bad. They want you to buy new devices, regardless of whether you want them, and they will trick you into buying them if they think they can get away with it.
Good on Apple! All companies should strive for some levels of sustainability. Upfront it might cost them but it will save them money down the road.
Wouldn't be awesome if large corporations competed to reach the carbon neutral mark with the same enthusiasm they had for the trillion dollar mark? :)
Every company should add a page with a live chart showing how well they are doing right now and how far away they are to be carbon neutral.
Every company should add a page with a live chart showing how well they are doing right now and how far away they are to be carbon neutral.
Perhaps such a chart could be made for them on their behalf? Actually curious now if someone is already charting this.
This lay the ground work where Apple will not include a Charger and EarPod in the next iPhone.
They will probably tout it from an Environmental perspective along with the rumour of a braided USB -Lightning Cable. Apple could tout its packaging is 50% reduction in weight, and 30% reduction in total size in shipping. And less Carbon footprint in Shipping. Which will also saves them some money.
From an environmental prospective, Apple is now so far ahead of everyone else in the industry that no company is matching them in theses checkboxes. So far ahead that it would be easier to get ARM to co-Design a competitive SoC against Apple's Ax Series than to catch up these environment issues. From Design, and Sourcing Renewables materials to providing or funding development of renewable energy, to shipping and recycling products.
While I have criticise Apple for many of its design flaws. ( MacBook 2019 Magic Keyboard is still awful, Battery Replacement is still expensive, TouchBar, oversized Trackpad... etc ) Their supply chain operation is second to none and truly a marvel to behold.
They will probably tout it from an Environmental perspective along with the rumour of a braided USB -Lightning Cable. Apple could tout its packaging is 50% reduction in weight, and 30% reduction in total size in shipping. And less Carbon footprint in Shipping. Which will also saves them some money.
From an environmental prospective, Apple is now so far ahead of everyone else in the industry that no company is matching them in theses checkboxes. So far ahead that it would be easier to get ARM to co-Design a competitive SoC against Apple's Ax Series than to catch up these environment issues. From Design, and Sourcing Renewables materials to providing or funding development of renewable energy, to shipping and recycling products.
While I have criticise Apple for many of its design flaws. ( MacBook 2019 Magic Keyboard is still awful, Battery Replacement is still expensive, TouchBar, oversized Trackpad... etc ) Their supply chain operation is second to none and truly a marvel to behold.
If they're serious about reducing their pollution, they'll give more consideration to the end of the product life cycle.
On the other hand, if the device has no footprint then it doesn’t matter as much. If Apple wants sustainability without compromising form/function this is a great way to do it.
One can always do more - that’s an easy and always applying criticism. Let’s applaud when people do something good.
One can always do more - that’s an easy and always applying criticism. Let’s applaud when people do something good.
But "no footprint" seams pretty far away if not impossible. They claim _carbon_ neutrality in 10 years. There will still be pollution and resource over consumption which product lifecycle extension could work to improve up on.
> On the other hand, if the device has no footprint then it doesn’t matter as much.
Agreed. The problem is, I'm sure "carbon neutral" means they're using carbon offsets to a significant degree. Offsets are good, and I certainly wouldn't want to discourage any company from using them. But, they're also not a panacea—certainly not to the point where there's zero harm in buying a new phone versus fixing an existing one.
Agreed. The problem is, I'm sure "carbon neutral" means they're using carbon offsets to a significant degree. Offsets are good, and I certainly wouldn't want to discourage any company from using them. But, they're also not a panacea—certainly not to the point where there's zero harm in buying a new phone versus fixing an existing one.
>The problem is, I'm sure "carbon neutral" means they're using carbon offsets to a significant degree.
They aren't. See page 18.
https://www.apple.com/environment/pdf/Apple_Environmental_Pr...
They aren't. See page 18.
https://www.apple.com/environment/pdf/Apple_Environmental_Pr...
That page only accounts for electricity used at Apple-owned facilities. There's a lot more to the carbon footprint than that.
Keep reading from page 18. The good news is that they're using the same strategy for all their suppliers, which is putting renewable energy onto the grid.
First off, the way they're describing the suppliers sounds different, and sounds like offsets.
Secondly, electricity used in facilities is not the whole of their carbon footprint. You've got all the shipping across the supply chain for one example.
Secondly, electricity used in facilities is not the whole of their carbon footprint. You've got all the shipping across the supply chain for one example.
>We launched the Supplier Clean Energy
Program in October 2015 to advance
those goals through our manufacturing
supply chain. Since then, we have made
strong progress toward our initial goal
of bringing online 4 gigawatts of new
clean energy by 2020. Building on that
momentum, we recently set a new,
even more ambitious goal: to transition
our entire manufacturing supply chain
to 100 percent renewable electricity
by 2030.
>We’re proud of the progress our suppliers have made so far. As of June 2020, 71 manufacturing partners in 17 different countries have committed to 100 percent renewable energy for Apple production. And Apple itself has continued to invest directly in renewable energy projects to cover a portion of upstream emissions. The Supplier Clean Energy Program now has 7.8 gigawatts of clean energy commitments, of which 2.7 gigawatts was operational in 2019.
They're funding new renewable energy projects all over the world, including in China [1].
>Secondly, electricity used in facilities is not the whole of their carbon footprint.
It's just the vast majority of their carbon footprint.
>Since 2018, we’ve generated or sourced 100 percent renewable electricity for all of Apple’s global facilities, driving our scope 2 emissions from electricity to zero. And we estimate that in our manufacturing supply chain, which itself makes up 75 percent of Apple’s overall carbon footprint, around 70 percent of emissions come from electricity.
[1] https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2019/09/apple-launched-china-...
>We’re proud of the progress our suppliers have made so far. As of June 2020, 71 manufacturing partners in 17 different countries have committed to 100 percent renewable energy for Apple production. And Apple itself has continued to invest directly in renewable energy projects to cover a portion of upstream emissions. The Supplier Clean Energy Program now has 7.8 gigawatts of clean energy commitments, of which 2.7 gigawatts was operational in 2019.
They're funding new renewable energy projects all over the world, including in China [1].
>Secondly, electricity used in facilities is not the whole of their carbon footprint.
It's just the vast majority of their carbon footprint.
>Since 2018, we’ve generated or sourced 100 percent renewable electricity for all of Apple’s global facilities, driving our scope 2 emissions from electricity to zero. And we estimate that in our manufacturing supply chain, which itself makes up 75 percent of Apple’s overall carbon footprint, around 70 percent of emissions come from electricity.
[1] https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2019/09/apple-launched-china-...
> They're funding new renewable energy projects all over the world, including in China [1].
Yep, to offset their supplier's usage. That's an offset.
And you're quoting is 75% of 70%, or 52.5%. I wouldn't call that a _vast_ majority.
Yep, to offset their supplier's usage. That's an offset.
And you're quoting is 75% of 70%, or 52.5%. I wouldn't call that a _vast_ majority.
When people refer to "offsets" they're talking about buying renewable energy credits (RECs). Funding new renewable energy projects, and thus putting renewable energy onto the grid, is not that.
I see where you're coming from, but in my view that's still an offset.
Do you also consider Carbon sequestering an "offset"?
> Apple has protected and restored forests, wetlands, and grasslands since 2015. Through our work with The Conservation Fund and the World Wildlife Fund, we have protected and improved the management of over 1 million acres of forests in China and the U.S.
> Starting in 2020, we plan to scale up our ambition to remove atmospheric CO2 by creating a first -of -its-kind fund that will invest in the restoration and protection of forests and natural ecosystems globally. By investing in nature-based carbon removal projects, this fund aims to cover residual emissions that we believe are not otherwise avoidable.
> Apple has protected and restored forests, wetlands, and grasslands since 2015. Through our work with The Conservation Fund and the World Wildlife Fund, we have protected and improved the management of over 1 million acres of forests in China and the U.S.
> Starting in 2020, we plan to scale up our ambition to remove atmospheric CO2 by creating a first -of -its-kind fund that will invest in the restoration and protection of forests and natural ecosystems globally. By investing in nature-based carbon removal projects, this fund aims to cover residual emissions that we believe are not otherwise avoidable.
Are there consumer tech product companies that have longer support cycles?
(Sent from my 2012 MacBook Air running latest macOS)
(Sent from my 2012 MacBook Air running latest macOS)
I think they do give some consideration to that. For example you can send any Apple device back to Apple, or drop it off at one of their stores, and they will recycle it. In the U.S. at least, they will send you a prepaid shipping label to ship it.
https://www.apple.com/recycling/nationalservices/
And if that doesn't happen, and the machine ends up in a landfill, that's where their standard list of "made without arsenic, lead, etc" can help. In terms of the shell, aluminum and glass, while energy-intensive to produce, are arguably more benign substances to have in a landfill than plastic.
https://www.apple.com/recycling/nationalservices/
And if that doesn't happen, and the machine ends up in a landfill, that's where their standard list of "made without arsenic, lead, etc" can help. In terms of the shell, aluminum and glass, while energy-intensive to produce, are arguably more benign substances to have in a landfill than plastic.
They already do give far more consideration to the end of the product life cycle than any competitor and they continue to improve.
I love the ambitious goal-setting.
One thing to notice: > they’ve helped us make our products more energy efficient and bring new sources of clean energy online around the world.
This is a play in the sustainable-tech market space. Inasmuch as _other companies_ care about sustainability, Apple is trying to publicly stay ahead so it can credibly claim expertise when other companies start paying attention.
One thing to notice: > they’ve helped us make our products more energy efficient and bring new sources of clean energy online around the world.
This is a play in the sustainable-tech market space. Inasmuch as _other companies_ care about sustainability, Apple is trying to publicly stay ahead so it can credibly claim expertise when other companies start paying attention.
I hope they focus on the human well-being aspect as well in their production and supply chain. There is no reason a Chinese worker should experience worse working-conditions than a US worker
They have been generating annual, detailed reports for years on the conditions at their suppliers and their programs to remediate problems.
As far as I can tell, they are going much farther towards enforcing humane treatment than anyone else in the computer business, but I’d be curious to hear who’s doing a better job.
https://www.apple.com/supplier-responsibility/
As far as I can tell, they are going much farther towards enforcing humane treatment than anyone else in the computer business, but I’d be curious to hear who’s doing a better job.
https://www.apple.com/supplier-responsibility/
They already do. And the difference is in economic, social and political situation in US and China. Nobody should experience worse working conditions than anybody else, but short of economic embargo on China by entire world, I doubt anything can move them.
While this is definitely a noble goal, I wonder what it would take for Apple to become carbon negative and what the timeframe for that would be?
January 2, 2030. They just need to become neutral and plant an extra tree :)
I don't think it's possible. (Unless my understanding of the term "carbon negative" is mistaken.)
Let's suppose you could manufacture your devices with 0 carbon emissions. No solar, no wind, no gas, no nothing. Some other energy source with no carbon inputs needed. For the sticklers, let's suppose none of the human employees breath or anything during the manufacture of the products. So no carbon there either.
You still have to deliver it right?
Let's suppose you make it in Chicago, or Miami, or San Fran, wherever. How are you going to get that product to Lincoln Nebraska with no carbon emissions? How will you get it to Lyon France? Or Aguadilla PR? or Ningbo? Or Mwanza? (And in this case it would have to be more than "no" carbon emissions, it would have to be "negative" carbon emissions.)
I'm not certain any company can deliver a physical product with negative carbon emissions. It seems almost impossible without using funny math.
Let's suppose you could manufacture your devices with 0 carbon emissions. No solar, no wind, no gas, no nothing. Some other energy source with no carbon inputs needed. For the sticklers, let's suppose none of the human employees breath or anything during the manufacture of the products. So no carbon there either.
You still have to deliver it right?
Let's suppose you make it in Chicago, or Miami, or San Fran, wherever. How are you going to get that product to Lincoln Nebraska with no carbon emissions? How will you get it to Lyon France? Or Aguadilla PR? or Ningbo? Or Mwanza? (And in this case it would have to be more than "no" carbon emissions, it would have to be "negative" carbon emissions.)
I'm not certain any company can deliver a physical product with negative carbon emissions. It seems almost impossible without using funny math.
Microsoft will be carbon negative by 2030:
https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2020/01/16/microsoft-will-b...
To reach that they mention actively investing and deploying carbon removal systems.
https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2020/01/16/microsoft-will-b...
To reach that they mention actively investing and deploying carbon removal systems.
I believe negative carbon emissions are typically done via projects like carbon capture (various methods) and regulatory credits (essentially paying other people to reduce their emissions).
https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2020/01/16/microsoft-will-b...
Microsoft plans to be carbon negative by 2030. I think it's via offsets. For example, if Apple planted a tree for every iPhone sold.
This is probably much more difficult given the consumer nature of their physical products, but it's not like they're short on cash.
Microsoft plans to be carbon negative by 2030. I think it's via offsets. For example, if Apple planted a tree for every iPhone sold.
This is probably much more difficult given the consumer nature of their physical products, but it's not like they're short on cash.
[deleted]
By 2030?! Is this serious?
If you want to trade in green credentials, do it today. They could offset their entire operation with a few calls. They have the cash to do it. They could take more active steps in short order too. Waiting 10 years to meet the target is a poor show.
If you want to trade in green credentials, do it today. They could offset their entire operation with a few calls. They have the cash to do it. They could take more active steps in short order too. Waiting 10 years to meet the target is a poor show.
It feels like it's a too far away goal and too big goal.
2030 is the new 2020 where we push away dreams for the future, forget about them, try to do them at the last moment and miss the deadline. I think it would be better to have have smaller goals with a shorter timeframe.
2030 is the new 2020 where we push away dreams for the future, forget about them, try to do them at the last moment and miss the deadline. I think it would be better to have have smaller goals with a shorter timeframe.
Apple has been making and achieving smaller goals with shorter timeframes for a decade now. They committed to and acheived carbon neutrality for their first party operations already and are now incrementally pushing that out to their supply chain and product lifecycle.
Based on past evidence this is not likely to be a set and forget arrangement for Apple.
Based on past evidence this is not likely to be a set and forget arrangement for Apple.
This is such negative comment. I don't understand why this gets traction.
I'm sure pretty smart people spent a lot of time in coming up with this goal that is ambitious and pretty noble may a I say. Probably going through months of goal planning a long vision setups.
And with low effort comment you can say, meh, I think I know better without almost any contextual information about any of this.
I don't mean to be insulting, just that I think it's a little disrespectful to peoples effort. And only negative.
Maybe you can present us a semi detailed plan of how Apple can better set their carbon emission program.
I'm sure pretty smart people spent a lot of time in coming up with this goal that is ambitious and pretty noble may a I say. Probably going through months of goal planning a long vision setups.
And with low effort comment you can say, meh, I think I know better without almost any contextual information about any of this.
I don't mean to be insulting, just that I think it's a little disrespectful to peoples effort. And only negative.
Maybe you can present us a semi detailed plan of how Apple can better set their carbon emission program.
I don't think it's either negative or insulting. And it raises a good point. In 10 years' time lots of things could change that would make this "goal" irrelevant. Apple might be struggling to make ends meet 5 years down the line. I know that seems very unlikely for Apple right now, but imagine a company like Intel, add a big economic regression, trade wars with China (which for Apple is a big source of revenue) etc. But even just a few changes in the board of directors, or a change of CEO could see this target go out of the picture.
Besides, it's not a difficult target to achieve. I don't think it would cost much more than a few tens of millions of dollars to start and operate some solar and wind power stations of sufficient capacity to offset all of their consumption. It should be pocket change for Apple's budget.
Besides, it's not a difficult target to achieve. I don't think it would cost much more than a few tens of millions of dollars to start and operate some solar and wind power stations of sufficient capacity to offset all of their consumption. It should be pocket change for Apple's budget.
This feels different to me. Apple released a detailed, concrete ten year roadmap that other companies can follow - this already indicates serious commitment. There are enough in-flight initiatives that if carbon neutrality is deprioritized it will have to be an explicit decision from high-up in the company. Also, this is Apple we're talking about, not Google :P
Google already beat Apple to it long time ago. So you're right this is Apple not Google.
1. Reuse
2. Reduce
9. Recycle
They missed the first point
They missed the first point
It's 1.Reduce 2.Reuse 3.Recycle
What makes you think this? Reuse is fundamental to their strategy and has been for years.
_gmnw(1)
Wow, they found a new way to keep outsource in secret
Doesn't matter. You know what would be awesome? Repairable and upgradable products. Being stylish and environmentally friendly aren't competing concerns unless you make them.
>Repairable and upgradable products.
also no child slaves in Africa to mine minerals and in China to assemble parts
also no child slaves in Africa to mine minerals and in China to assemble parts
They've been working on those efforts for many years now, it's carbon neutrality that's new.
Unless you're suggesting that they can't attempt carbon neutrality until they've finished permanently eliminating the others first? It's not as if they haven't been trying for many, many years, since 2013[0] at least, and I think longer.
[0] https://www.cnet.com/news/apple-fires-supplier-after-audit-u...
Unless you're suggesting that they can't attempt carbon neutrality until they've finished permanently eliminating the others first? It's not as if they haven't been trying for many, many years, since 2013[0] at least, and I think longer.
[0] https://www.cnet.com/news/apple-fires-supplier-after-audit-u...
>Repairable and upgradable products.
This is just an excuse to prop up a industry that ultimately doesn't need to exist.
We need better warranties and written long term support of tech products.
This is just an excuse to prop up a industry that ultimately doesn't need to exist.
We need better warranties and written long term support of tech products.
This is a great comment and extremely disappointing to see down voted. It's perfectly understandable that lots of people on HN in particular, being hackers, want to be able to mess with hardware as a goal/value in and of itself. However, even here and certainly for the general population "repairability" or "modularity" are merely two possible tools of many, not goals themselves. The goal for most people, rightly, is that any given product lasts for a "reasonable lifespan" in line with its relative price and market conditions. In a world with crappy warranty coverage, a product that is easier to repair means that people who get stuck with a manufacturing/QA/shipping fuckup might not get quite as big a bill.
But they still get a bill, and often that's a flat out externality. Everyone expects (and most get) their phones say to last a good 3-6 years, with a longer time for more expensive nicer devices. What should happen is that is simply explicitly mandated and gets represented in the price. Manufacturers should be the ones responsible for figuring out the right way to make it happen at a price that will still sell. They can try a vast number of different combinations of efforts to accomplish that, and easier repairability could be one. But instead, they're allowed to hide that cost and foist the 1%/2%/whatever problems off onto consumers.
That's what the government should fix, not tell them exactly how to do so since every various way to do it involves trade offs. Repairability, modularity, and upgradeability aren't free either. They involve compromises in physical design and other aspects that many of us directly value.
But they still get a bill, and often that's a flat out externality. Everyone expects (and most get) their phones say to last a good 3-6 years, with a longer time for more expensive nicer devices. What should happen is that is simply explicitly mandated and gets represented in the price. Manufacturers should be the ones responsible for figuring out the right way to make it happen at a price that will still sell. They can try a vast number of different combinations of efforts to accomplish that, and easier repairability could be one. But instead, they're allowed to hide that cost and foist the 1%/2%/whatever problems off onto consumers.
That's what the government should fix, not tell them exactly how to do so since every various way to do it involves trade offs. Repairability, modularity, and upgradeability aren't free either. They involve compromises in physical design and other aspects that many of us directly value.
I wouldn’t mind having an SD slot and a 3.5mm headphone jack. The impenetrable sleekness of modern phones looks great in equally impenetrable television ads, but my real world would benefit from a bit more utility. Add replaceable battery to the list too, to swap out a dead one, or install a larger one.
And I would mind having an SD slot and a 3.5mm headphone jack.
This is the beauty of the market, yes? Both of us can shop at different brands, and the products that sell more get to continue to try new and better things.
I don't ask that every company stop using 3.5mm headphone jacks. Instead, I buy Apple. Why do you ask for Apple to re-add them? Instead, just buy some other brand.
This is the beauty of the market, yes? Both of us can shop at different brands, and the products that sell more get to continue to try new and better things.
I don't ask that every company stop using 3.5mm headphone jacks. Instead, I buy Apple. Why do you ask for Apple to re-add them? Instead, just buy some other brand.
If the goal of repairable/upgradable products is to reduce waste/resource depletion - how do warranties/long term support achieve the same objective?
Incentives to prevent planned obsolescence. I bet there's a lot of ewaste sitting at the bottom of the ocean because the market allowed software companies to obsolete working hardware, or hardware companies to make hardware where a small failure rendered the rest of the machine a writeoff.
My last iPhone worked perfectly, but stopped receiving updates. 8 months ago, I replaced it with a new iPhone for security reasons and some Apps did stop working too.
At first I was annoyed that I needed to replace it, but once I started using my new iPhone, my only regret was not upgrading sooner. I use my phone so much that my quality of life improved drastically.
The iPhone planned obsolescence after 6 years seems pretty reasonable to me (I did the math and liked the numbers). But regardless of the 6 years or not, next time I'll probably upgrade sooner to have another step function increase in my quality of life.
The market (like myself) seems to demand a 6 or less year life-cycle. At least this way Apple is planning for it, and is striving to remove all negative externalities of obsolescence. Wouldn't this be equally effective, while also being (given market dynamics) more practical?
At first I was annoyed that I needed to replace it, but once I started using my new iPhone, my only regret was not upgrading sooner. I use my phone so much that my quality of life improved drastically.
The iPhone planned obsolescence after 6 years seems pretty reasonable to me (I did the math and liked the numbers). But regardless of the 6 years or not, next time I'll probably upgrade sooner to have another step function increase in my quality of life.
The market (like myself) seems to demand a 6 or less year life-cycle. At least this way Apple is planning for it, and is striving to remove all negative externalities of obsolescence. Wouldn't this be equally effective, while also being (given market dynamics) more practical?
I fear that this will just increase the price of the products. Apple will toss the broken iphone and hand you a new one because they don't want to pay the cost of labor to fix it. Repairing reduces e-waste, competition in repair reduces prices (with obviosu caveats). You can't really get around that.
Not using labor from the country which runs actual concentration camps would be pretty cool, too.
Apple is doing all of this to save about $100 per iPhone: https://www.vox.com/technology/2018/9/13/17851052/apple-ipho...
Do anybody here seriously think that people would not buy if it would cost $100 more?
I don't even think it's that much. Most of the work could be done by robots anywhere in the world. It's not like much of it is being done by hand as it is - the SMD components on the PCB are barely visible to the human eye nowadays. To their credit, they are moving some of their production to India, after India forced them to. Maybe the United States should do the same.
Nearly everything is made in a country which has concentration camps and forced labour for the export market. It's difficult to avoid. Then again, so is carbon intensive manufacture. So I think this is a natural next question. In both cases someone has to lead the way.
I don't see how a company can simultaneously virtue signal about social justice and the environment, and manufacture hundreds of millions of units of its product in a country which emits twice as much per dollar of GDP as the US and uses "forced labor". All while charging eye-watering amounts for its stuff. But maybe it's just me. Explain how this is not a staggering level of hypocrisy, please.
This. We need to organize protests outside of Apple HQ, press needs to get on it. Big banner news papers.
A $1 trillion dollar company is exploiting labor from concentration camps is totally unacceptable.
Even if it wasn’t, still need to put pressure on Apple to bring back manufacturing.
A $1 trillion dollar company is exploiting labor from concentration camps is totally unacceptable.
Even if it wasn’t, still need to put pressure on Apple to bring back manufacturing.
[deleted]
Please let the downvoters explain why they think this opinion deserves downvotes. I thought this was a news and discussion platform.
Because this post is about discussing the environmental impact of Apple's products. If someone wants to talk about the concentration camps, they can do it on any of the other billion posts that are specifically discussing it.
I don't agree. Both captive / slave labour and environmentally harmful manufacturing are par for the course in the modern economy, completely unconscionable to a large number of people, but apparently very difficult to escape. Seems highly relevant.
This post isn't about the modern economy, it's about what Apple is planning to do in order to reduce their carbon footprint. Using your logic, for-profit prisons are relevant to this post since Apple is located in America.
I don't think there is any rule stating that HN discussion need to stay precisely on the topic of the article discussed. In fact, there are many about topics just tangential to the main one.
> Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. That destroys the curiosity this site exists for.
Unless Apple products are being made in the concentration camps, it's not even close to tangential to the topic of environmental sustainability of Apple's supply chain. It's just trying to derail the discussion by bringing up political issues.
Unless Apple products are being made in the concentration camps, it's not even close to tangential to the topic of environmental sustainability of Apple's supply chain. It's just trying to derail the discussion by bringing up political issues.
I'm pretty sure that's exactly the claims being made here:
https://www.csmonitor.com/World/2020/0305/Are-forced-labor-U...
https://qz.com/1811305/nike-apple-linked-to-forced-uighur-la...
https://www.newsweek.com/religious-freedom-watchdog-amazon-n...
https://www.csmonitor.com/World/2020/0305/Are-forced-labor-U...
https://qz.com/1811305/nike-apple-linked-to-forced-uighur-la...
https://www.newsweek.com/religious-freedom-watchdog-amazon-n...
I hate this myth. Apple products are very repairable, I got repaired my iPhone numerous times and I know many people who did the same and there's a shop in every corner who can repair iPhones. In poorer countries, Apple products are passed down/up to generations. A 10 years old iPhone would still be repairable and often would be passed to a non-techie relative.
It's a well established fact that Apple products last long, thats why the second hand market is very strong. An iPhone is almost equivalent to cash.
It's a well established fact that Apple products last long, thats why the second hand market is very strong. An iPhone is almost equivalent to cash.
Oh, tell me how you replace a battery, step by step ?
Go to the shop in the corner and get it replaced in few minutes.
Back in the days I replaced my iPhone 4s battery myself but it's not worth my time now days. Nothing complicated, you just need steady hands and sharp eyes but it's better done in the shop because they would have tools to hold it still and they are used to do it - so less chance to screw up. The replacement batteries often come with the special screwdriver that some people pretend to be impossible to get. In case you don't have the screwdriver a pointy knife would do too.
Back in the days I replaced my iPhone 4s battery myself but it's not worth my time now days. Nothing complicated, you just need steady hands and sharp eyes but it's better done in the shop because they would have tools to hold it still and they are used to do it - so less chance to screw up. The replacement batteries often come with the special screwdriver that some people pretend to be impossible to get. In case you don't have the screwdriver a pointy knife would do too.
Here how I replace the battery on my previous phone:
I order a new battery online.
I remove the backplate of my phone.
I swap the old battery with the new one.
For my new phone, it's exactly the same, but in need to remove 6 screws.
No need for steady hands, without screws, my grandma could do it.
I order a new battery online.
I remove the backplate of my phone.
I swap the old battery with the new one.
For my new phone, it's exactly the same, but in need to remove 6 screws.
No need for steady hands, without screws, my grandma could do it.
Good for you but the environmental outcome is the same. Actually, probably on iPhone is better because it's more likely that the shop will dispose the the old battery properly.
Also, what you describe is not about repairability, thats replaceability.
Also, what you describe is not about repairability, thats replaceability.
It's really bad faith:
Repairing something, is, most of the time, swapping the defective part with a functional one.
Most of the people buy a new iPhone, or will ask yo Apple a battery replacement, most of the time, they don't ask to a repair shop.
"Better environmental outcome" you dismiss that, people will buy another iPhone due to this complexity, and this iPhone won't be disposed properly.
Also, the repairs shop are currently fighting apple for the right to repair.
Repairing something, is, most of the time, swapping the defective part with a functional one.
Most of the people buy a new iPhone, or will ask yo Apple a battery replacement, most of the time, they don't ask to a repair shop.
"Better environmental outcome" you dismiss that, people will buy another iPhone due to this complexity, and this iPhone won't be disposed properly.
Also, the repairs shop are currently fighting apple for the right to repair.
Theres's nothing complex at visiting a repair shop to swap your battery. It's a full blown industry of OEMs and small shops.
It's something you would do probably every 2 to 6 years, depending on your budged.
I don't see the reason to pretend that there are hundreds of millions of a year old iPhones in the trash. The reality is that iPhones are very long lasting devices with very strong second hand market and strong repair market, even the broken ones are recycled for their parts.
It's something you would do probably every 2 to 6 years, depending on your budged.
I don't see the reason to pretend that there are hundreds of millions of a year old iPhones in the trash. The reality is that iPhones are very long lasting devices with very strong second hand market and strong repair market, even the broken ones are recycled for their parts.
People doesn't trust repair shops.
Sadly they can't replace the battery without the iPhone showing 'not genuine apple battery'. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwRYcEI-wx8 Apple admit themself that their iPhone are made to last 3 years : https://www.mirror.co.uk/tech/apple-reveals-iphone-lifespan-...
Of course there is a strong second hand market, the iphone cost too much for a lot of people to buy it new.
I notice that you ignore every single arguments that you dislike. You admit yourself that replacing the battery is too hard for a regular person and must pay a repair shop to do it.
Sadly they can't replace the battery without the iPhone showing 'not genuine apple battery'. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwRYcEI-wx8 Apple admit themself that their iPhone are made to last 3 years : https://www.mirror.co.uk/tech/apple-reveals-iphone-lifespan-...
Of course there is a strong second hand market, the iphone cost too much for a lot of people to buy it new.
I notice that you ignore every single arguments that you dislike. You admit yourself that replacing the battery is too hard for a regular person and must pay a repair shop to do it.
Well, Apple obviously screwed up on this 3 years thing then as they last much longer.
Or maybe expected product usage is not the same as building not to last beyond that but you want to interpret it like that despite the evidence.
You should quit watching the repairs shop guy, he is not the most godd faith persons as he built career on bitching about Apple.
Or maybe expected product usage is not the same as building not to last beyond that but you want to interpret it like that despite the evidence.
You should quit watching the repairs shop guy, he is not the most godd faith persons as he built career on bitching about Apple.
I’m not going to step by step this, but a battery replacement is about the easiest thing you can do to an iPhone. There’s some fiddly bits with small screws and ribbon cables, but it’s not actually difficult. I’ve also done screens, speaker assemblies, and microphone assemblies which are all much the same level. The only thing which will properly kill an iPhone in an irreparable way is it to drown the main circuit board, and with recent models being waterproof to some extent even that isn’t so much of a problem.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2B1ZxR9xpwQ
https://www.ifixit.com/Guide/OnePlus+2+Battery+Replacement/5...
"About the easiest thing you can do to an iPhone". Did you forget about the "not genuine battery" too on iphone 11 and + ? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwRYcEI-wx8
https://www.ifixit.com/Guide/OnePlus+2+Battery+Replacement/5...
"About the easiest thing you can do to an iPhone". Did you forget about the "not genuine battery" too on iphone 11 and + ? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwRYcEI-wx8
You type “replace iPhone battery video” into Google? Then after watching, should you feel comfortable eBay have plenty of well reviewed kits including the screwdrivers.
My wife's macbook ssd died the other day. 'Repairable' in this case meant replacing the entire motherboard for a cost of almost a new machine.
Repairable should mean just repairing what's broken not everything.
Repairable should mean just repairing what's broken not everything.
Maybe they'll also consider not using planned obsolescence and stop sourcing "blood gold"? There was a whole documentary on the latter but the former is the real big offender.
We need to protest Apple to make products locally in California/Texas or in EU where sustainability can be traced [1], suppliers can be held accountable and there is no kowtow to the CCP.
Sustainability is just one of the fringe benefits - labor is getting more expensive in China and Apple has risen because of cheap labor. Apple needs to bring back manufacturing to the West. It will invigorate local supply chains from screw makers to PCB manufacturers, glass cutting, CNC, etc.
It would be a dream to buy an iPhone proudly made sustainably in US+EU.
Why are we barking at NBA and flat out ignoring Apple? Where are protests outside of Apple HQ? Where is the press on this!!!?
[1] https://9to5mac.com/2020/03/02/apple-suppliers-implicated-in...
Sustainability is just one of the fringe benefits - labor is getting more expensive in China and Apple has risen because of cheap labor. Apple needs to bring back manufacturing to the West. It will invigorate local supply chains from screw makers to PCB manufacturers, glass cutting, CNC, etc.
It would be a dream to buy an iPhone proudly made sustainably in US+EU.
Why are we barking at NBA and flat out ignoring Apple? Where are protests outside of Apple HQ? Where is the press on this!!!?
[1] https://9to5mac.com/2020/03/02/apple-suppliers-implicated-in...
Why does Tim Apple get away with being so close to Donald Duck with private meetings and such to preserve Apple's business with China? I find it curious that the media hasn't bothered to take swipes at something so obviously in conflict with Apple's stated mission and ethos.
Replacing the battery in my 2006 MacBook Pro took all of 15 seconds.
If the lifetime of a battery powered device is expected to be much longer than the lifetime of the battery, then the battery needs to be easily user replaceable. Otherwise, the manufacturer has zero credibility on the environment.
Don't even get me started on vendor OS lockdown and its effect on the environment. They're intentionally making devices disposable.