Hacker News Reader

Comment by saagarjha | Hacker News Reader

> Considering that batteries still only last about a day and Apple led this shift to non-user-swappable batteries they still deserve some blame for landfill culture.

Sure, but it seems like this makes phones thinner and lighter and consumers want that. It "sucks" that Apple gave them that option and they went for it, but I don't consider this to be inherently malicious.

> Even if at cost the extreme sophistication and complexity of such tools reinforces the point that these devices aren't really built for repair. They're built for eye appeal first and foremost.

…these are the tools that Apple uses to repair your phone?

View on HN

> Sure, but it seems like this makes phones thinner and lighter and consumers want that

Or Apple devices are also a tech fashion statement, so their loyal consumers will put up with everything Apple changes. iPhones could show off their sleek design if they weren't designed to need a case. People definitely wanted bigger screens and batteries for years, and Apple was very reluctant until the iPhone 10. I'm sure many iPhone users miss the fingerprint reader, but they won't get it, and they will still buy the next model because the slight and gratuitous design differences make it obvious you're using an old iPhone.

>Or Apple devices are also a tech fashion statement, so their loyal consumers will put up with everything Apple changes.

This argument is tired; it doesn't explain why every other manufacturer on the planet has also gone down this route. It's just an argument that helps nerds feel good (those other guys aren't real techies, like me, they only care about fashion).

Leading fashion brands have network effects and it can create something like Stockholm syndrome to those who buy into it. Other manufacturers often follow leading brands for prestige, or because people become accustomed, not always because the direction is objectively better when accounting for costs to future generations.

No, it's because Apple phones have margin. They make money. Their competitors desperately want to make money.

They make their money selling phones wholesale into retailing supply chains. One of the rules of those supply chains is that the OEM eats the costs of early returns.

So they removed every widget that they possibly could and then glued everything down so that it could not possibly come loose, be dropped, wedged etc. during the warranty period.

Battery doors, headphone jacks, you name it. All gone.

End customers don't seem to care. Phones with swappable batteries, headphone jacks, etc. exist. They don't sell well in high margin markets.

Why are there so many imitation Louis Vuitton bags? If Apple makes a fashion phone with an hourglass shape, and they make money, others will copy it. just as Apple copied bigger screens and batteries, but labeled it as "Pro" or "Max" so following a trend felt new.

Intent is less important when we're burning the world for blue bubbles, cheaper waterproofing, and a few millimeters thinner.

If iphones had to be priced with externalities included (via regulation) I suspect they'd get user replaceable batteries shortly there after.

I suspect that of all the things burning the world, it's mostly oil and cars. iPhones are unusually useful, but they're not unusually resource intensive.

Just because something is worse doesn't mean we should ignore the problems of the first.

If you've ever heard someone talk about frying fish, and how they have bigger ones that need frying, they're probably speaking metaphorically.

Some things are mutually exclusive. User serviceable phones and more sustainable transportation are not.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com