Actually, I'm in the middle of writing an e-mail to the Tim address at Apple, saying that if it takes the environment seriously (and I commend them on what they have done so far) they really need to take the next step, be truly 'courageous' and prioritise repairability and expandability in their forthcoming products.
Apple in the last 20 pushed the boundaries in terms of sleek and slim, but I argue those are last century's imperatives. Apple has the clout and profile, that if it took a stand and said 'we are going to make our products a few milimeters thicker, we are going to make them so that they can be upgraded, we realise that this will hit sales and profits, but this is the planet we are talking about', they could probably pull other members of the industry behind them'. Conspicuous non consumption might be the new fashion statement.
Tim from Apple is paying money to its PR department that gives away money to "green" organizations exactly to be able not to do anything that would really matter for our planet (and would hurt Apple income). Imagine Tim from Apple shows up on the stage and tells people that there is no good reason to switch to the new phone model every 2 years. It will not happen.
I have many "progressive", "pro-eco" friends who just can't understand I am still using that old crappy Nexus 5X although I could afford a new, fancier phone (and my cell phone operator would subsidize it partly and nice person from call center would add another 4 GB of free internet to existing 15, as if I could ever use so much using cell phone).
They also cannot understand that I am still driving my 10 years old car instead of leasing/buying a new car which would be more "eco friendly". I am trying to explain them that cars are not growing on trees and producing a new one is not really that environment friendly and that during past 10 years cars were not improved so much in terms of CO2 emission to justify the change (giving recent car makers test scandals it is hard to say if they improved at all. Even if I could buy electric car, which is not really an option in my country due to lack of infrastructure and my usecase - I don't drive in the city, only long travels - still producing a new car emits more CO2 than my car will emit during its remaining lifetime).
Same with driving to work (they buy those new cars for a reason, not to sit in a tram among those sweating people), same with using electric laundry dries (it is so unfashionable to air-dry laundry at home), etc.
People love to talk about being pro-eco and taking actions that make them feel good, but they can't face the truth that their consumption habits change would be infinitely more beneficial.
>I am trying to explain them that cars are not growing on trees and producing a new one is not really that environment friendly and that during past 10 years cars were not improved so much in terms of CO2 emission to justify the change
If anyone else is wondering, I think you're right about this. I've looked into it and there are a few people who've tried to tackle the question of what's better but I find they all have some problem with the assumptions they make, largely because it's just a difficult problem with a lot of variables. Mileage, age of each vehicle, expected life of each vehicle, what emissions can be attributed to production, whether to include emissions of the inefficiencies of recycling one but not the other, etc.
I decided that a new eco-friendly car and a similar old used car were close enough in emissions - i.e. within the same magnitude - that it wasn't worth it if it's your only reason for spending the money on a new car. What's far more effective is reducing mileage done in a car.
The new trend should be, in my eyes, to make electronic hardware similar to that of a good leather jacket or pair of denim jeans. If it tears, you patch it. If it fades, you dye it. That same mentality of repair used to exist, but as design has become obfuscated and electronics micro-sized, there's little you can do as a consumer. Collective thought should have been "Well, if it can't be repaired by the consumer, the onus of responsibility for repairing it therefore lies with the manufacturer for making it so difficult." Instead it seems to have gone the route of "Well, it can't be repaired by the consumer. I guess the only choice is to pay the manufacturer hundreds for repairing it, or dispose of it and buy a new one for near the same price."
If any company is going to go this route though, it's not going to be Apple. It harkens back to the days where Wozniak and Jobs argued whether or not to put slots into the Apple 2, and Jobs won that one of course. His legacy runs strong in the company.
[EDIT] Apologies, Jobs relented in the instance of the Apple 2, mainly because that was Woz's baby. Later models did not allow for playing with the hardware however.
"Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak was a strong believer in hardware expandability, and he endowed the Apple II with luxurious expandability [....] Steve [Jobs] was reportedly against having slots in the Apple II back in the days of yore, and felt even stronger about slots for the Mac. He decreed that the Macintosh would remain perpetually bereft of slots, enclosed in a tightly sealed case, with only the limited expandability of the two serial ports."
"Burrell was afraid the 128Kbyte Mac would seem inadequate [...] He realized that he could support 256Kbit RAM chips simply by routing a few extra lines on the PC board,
[...]
But once again, Steve Jobs objected, because he didn't like the idea of customers mucking with the innards of their computer. He would also rather have them buy a new 512K Mac instead of them buying more RAM from a third-party."
Exactly that. I misremembered the Apple 2 incident - but from that point onwards, Jobs vehemently fought any type of expansions or customization on any of his future models.
>be truly 'courageous' and prioritise repairability and expandability in their forthcoming products.
I don't mind if they are not expandable or repairable, if they were design to last, heavily tested for reliability, then I am fine. It should be so reliable to the point Apple is willing to offer 2 years standard warranty to Mac products for the same price, with AppleCare going up to 4 years.
The problem is I am seeing lots and lots of small details that simply ignores reliabilit. And they are not fixing it, such the the Thunderbolt high voltage placement right next to the CPU pin with no separation, cables failing for no reason. Keyboard etc.
And if these were fixed in each iteration of MacBook Pro, we wouldn't have much problem. Except the same problem in 2016 exists as in the 2019 model as well.
And these quality issues were apparent with many newer Apple products. iPad Pro bending when you Open it in box. AirPod 2 with rough finishes that cut your ears, ( and Apple even refuse to exchange it ).
There is a reason why Repair Shops for Apple products are thriving, its because they fail and lots of people are repairing them instead of going to Apple store where their Staff simply suggest a price that you might as well buy a new one.
local man writes email, changes tech giant's course of operation
seriously tho, the way i see is to boycott companies hindering repairs, and plaster the repair manifesto everywhere
EDIT: political rant below
the issue at hand is that these companies actions are dictated by their boards of investors, most of them members of the so-called 1%. and for some philanthropist exceptions those people only care about acquisition of wealth. they do not care about environmental damage, as they live in a different world than all of us, they do not have to go to work to secure their basic needs.
their very lifestyle is not threatened by global warming, social injustice or wars.
when the sea level rises they still will be residing in climate-controlled mansions, but at that time build of island further away from equator,
they will still have access to best medical treatment,
they will still have best food on their plates, even if the produce on those plates will cost 10'000$ a serving they will still have the funds.
they will still roam the seas on their super-sized yachts
>Actually, I'm in the middle of writing an e-mail to the Tim address at Apple, saying that if it takes the environment seriously (and I commend them on what they have done so far) they really need to take the next step, be truly 'courageous' and prioritise repairability and expandability in their forthcoming products.
That's not how capitalism works.
Between green and more profit, it will always pick more profit.
The green "recycling" etc is just ecology theater. Recycling = tons of parts just ending up in China (under "recycle" programs where they're paid to get western trash), where most of it is discarded and thrown away anyway.
> Between green and more profit, it will always pick more profit.
Absolutely. If your customers start choosing you rather than your competitors due to your green credentials, then in can lead to more profit.
In exactly the same way that Apple is gambling that security will lead to more profit, despite the fact that selling customer data is clearly a profitable short term opportunity.
>Absolutely. If your customers start choosing you rather than your competitors due to your green credentials, then in can lead to more profit.
Yeah, that's not gonna happen either. That will be the last concern of the majority of consumers...
And of course companies need to sabotage their sales (tell customers "just keep upgrading your existing model, buy less, etc") to get those actual (not ecology-theater) green credentials, which no company and no competitors are gonna do either.
This isn't totally true. China began refusing most (all?) of foreign recycling a couple of years ago. Now much of the recycling stream just goes to the local dump instead of China's.
>Actually, I'm in the middle of writing an e-mail to the Tim address at Apple
He won't read it. His PR team will respond instead.
>if it takes the environment seriously (and I commend them on what they have done so far)
They don't it's just PR. The stuff that they should do if they took the environment seriously are offloaded to companies like Foxconn which don't care about their public image.
>be truly 'courageous' and prioritise repairability and expandability in their forthcoming products.
They won't do that unless they get to a point that they just can't increase their margins or expand to other countries anymore. They even further invested into locking their computers on a semiconductor level( t2 chip).
>Apple has the clout and profile, that if it took a stand and said 'we are going to make our products a few milimeters thicker, we are going to make them so that they can be upgraded, we realise that this will hit sales and profits, but this is the planet we are talking about', they could probably pull other members of the industry behind them'.
That doesn't make them money. They didn't become the biggest tech company by not focusing on making money.
Apple in the last 20 pushed the boundaries in terms of sleek and slim, but I argue those are last century's imperatives. Apple has the clout and profile, that if it took a stand and said 'we are going to make our products a few milimeters thicker, we are going to make them so that they can be upgraded, we realise that this will hit sales and profits, but this is the planet we are talking about', they could probably pull other members of the industry behind them'. Conspicuous non consumption might be the new fashion statement.