Hacker News Reader

Comment by moksly | Hacker News Reader

As silly as that firing is, I wonder if Apple has really changed that much in those 13 years. I like that they are trying to produce hardware as sustainable as possible, but if they were really interested in going green, then they probably shouldn’t be trying to sell you a new iPhone every year. I mention this, because it’s another example of how silly they kind of are when you look at it.

I think you have to go waaaay back to the garage days to find an Apple that wasn’t the Coca Cola of computers/phones/tablets/iPods.

Not sure where you’re going to find a major company that isn’t kind of rotten. Most of them just have worse PR.

View on HN

> produce hardware as sustainable as possible

Thy don't.

It's not just that they wouldn't try to sell you a new device every year but they also would either provide or allow sustainable repairs.

Apple mainly replaces whole components, like the whole motherboard. But many of the damages which causes a motherboard repair with Apple can be fixed by "just" replacing some broken capacitors or some simple chip (simple as in not the GPU/CPU/RAM). Which might sound hard but is very doable/learnable e.g. look at some of Louis Rossmanns videos.

There are also frequently problems with Macs one the line of "if this fails this other thinks will fail too and you have to buy a new laptop instead of just living without xxx".

I think all their efforts about sustainable production are PR and trying to avoid/preclude regulations.

Apple at least has a good track record of making newer iOS wirk on hold devices... I think they go back ~5 years? Same cannot be said for most Android devices.

The excuse that Google shit stinks more so you should enjoy Apple shit.

Apple won't sell you a screen,keyboard or chip to fix your hardware, I am waiting to explain to me how this is very green

"everything stinks" may be true but isn't useful.

Not everything, look at other laptops and desktop computers. You have Android and iOS that stick because of this 2 players not competing(they are happy with current market share and Google and Apple are pushing now on other fronts).

With desktop computers we can still replace parts without having to ask approval from someone, we can still install whatever we want and this is because there are more then 2 laptop or desktop suppliers. Also it is not about form factor, yes it is easy to replace parts on a desktop PC but for Apple phones they refuse to give you screens or batteries and they bully people that refurbish parts from broken devices and try to hide repair documentation and software(this is opposite of green)

Apple phone are super simple to physically brake accidentally.

My definition of premium includes "it's robust so I don't have to worry", their definition of premium excludes robustness.

My definition of premium includes straight forward sustainable repairs theirs includes hampering anyone who tries to provide such (they don't).

> I think they go back ~5 years?

From introduction, maybe, from sale, definitely not. Apple sold the iPhone 6 until 53 weeks before iOS 13.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPhone_6

iOS 12.x has continued to get security releases, as recently as 12.4.8 a month ago (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IOS_12#Updates). If you bought a 2014 iPhone 6 in 2018 it's still being maintained today in 2020.

How are they trying to sell you a new phone every year when they just announced that iOS 14 supports all phones made since 2015?

Apple of 13 years ago had just released the iPhone (or was about to release it), so it was a pretty different company.

Steve Jobs fought with Steve Wozniak about whether the Apple II should have user-accessible parts. Anti-user-access is in the company's DNA.

Is there more information about Steve Jobs actively being replaceable parts for business reasons? My impression is that it's one of the first things to compromise on for cleanliness, but there is not directly a design culture against it. The Powermac G4 seems like it was easy to service.

Of course it's very easy to imagine that bad serviceability is encouraged by some managers.

It goes way back. He didn't want an App store. They had to prove publishers would pay an unconscionable 30% before he allowed it.

He didn't want anybody to be able to open a Mac and add memory, or a network card, or anything. Macs had Torx screws, back when nobody had Torx screwdrivers, and they needed have an unusually long shaft, or extension.

I don't think Jobs was so much opposed to geeks tinkering with their toys, rather he wanted a computer perceived as a solution providing tool for everyone, not as a problem in itself usable only by engineers.

Apple tried to own the software distribution channel back in the 70's (like they do with the app store). I didn't work out, but I don't think they were ever terribly happy with needing to produce general-purpose computers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com