Apple commits to be 100% carbon neutral for supply chain and products by 2030
apple.com
apple.com
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.
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.
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!
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/
I'm not sure why this surprises people.
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.
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.
My iPhone SE 2016 is >4 years though, so I'm doing above average on that one at least.
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.
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).
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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" 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.
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.
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.
This means that planned obsolescence and being impossible to repair for the user would have no effect on the environment.
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.
Being carbon neutral isn't sufficient to undo the damage that we have done. We need to become carbon negative.
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...
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?
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.
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.
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.
One can always do more - that’s an easy and always applying criticism. Let’s applaud when people do something good.
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.
They aren't. See page 18.
https://www.apple.com/environment/pdf/Apple_Environmental_Pr...
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’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-...
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.
> 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.
My primary concern with all of these things is that they are liable to get "double counted." Apple protects a forest in State X and uses it as a license to release more carbon into the air; meanwhile, State X's governor uses the forest as an example of the state's conservation efforts, even as the carbon savings of those efforts are being zero'd out by Apple.
I don't think I'm as cynical as some other comments in this thread. I'm really glad Apple is making these efforts, and I'd like to see other companies do the same. However, I don't feel like we're anywhere near the point where I can throw away a perfectly good iPhone guilt-free.
In other words, I want to see Apple get rid of their "must shred" agreements with recyclers[1], and to support repairability efforts more broadly.
[1] https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/yp73jw/apple-recycling-ip...
(Sent from my 2012 MacBook Air running latest macOS)
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2020/01/16/microsoft-will-b...
To reach that they mention actively investing and deploying carbon removal systems.
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.
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.
Based on past evidence this is not likely to be a set and forget arrangement for Apple.
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.
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.
They missed the first point
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.
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...
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.
also no child slaves in Africa to mine minerals and in China to assemble parts
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...
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Also, what you describe is not about repairability, thats replaceability.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Repairable should mean just repairing what's broken not everything.
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...