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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
