Hacker News Reader

Comment by gnicholas | Hacker News Reader

IMO, this was a pretty weak announcement. They spent so long talking about environmental stuff, like getting rid of leather, that it felt like they were trying to pad the presentation to reach a reasonable length. There were a few new things (more optical zoom, slightly smaller bezels), but these were all leaked in advance.

I was also disappointed to hear that the satellite stuff is limited to 2 years. Is it going to be yet another subscription after that?

View on HN

I didn't see the announcement, but I saw this blurb on Engadget:

> The company noted that while leather is popular for things like watch straps, it has a serious impact on the environment, particularly at Apple's scale.

Is that actually true? I remember reading a few years ago that there was actually a big glut of leather: people still eat steak and hamburgers, and without a market for the cow hides then that material is wasted. That is, I thought the leather market was largely a byproduct of the beef market, and that reducing leather usage won't have a measurable impact on reducing the number of slaughtered cows.

It's hard to know for sure. The most common analysis, following the PEFCR standard, takes the carbon impact of cows and then divides it up in a certain ratio between flesh and leather products, then adds the tanning and production steps. Arguably it would be fairer to treat leather as purely a byproduct, which would dramatically reduce the resulting carbon footprint numbers for leather.

Would the price of meat go up without the sale of leather? If so, I think it's more fair to call it a coproduct rather than a byproduct.

Replace killing cows with micro plastic pollution, slap Apple price on it and call it an eco improvement.

In few years full reverse, cleaning up the planet while supporting free range happy lives of cows. Really, who actually buys this in-your-face bullshit? There are proper technical improvements to talk about.

I learned recently that microplastics are primarily from fabrics. Our polyester/synthetic workout clothes shed them in the washer and they end up everywhere. Plastics also generally have a pretty low carbon footprint, ironically.

Apple’s new “FineWoven” products seem to be fabric-like.

Sure, but I doubt many people will be throwing them in the washing machine.

Also tires

https://microplastics.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s435...

I read that somewhere as well, but I can’t find any reputable sources.

Here is a detailed Fortune article from 2019: https://archive.vn/bBzYV

One of the issues is that the tanning process requires the use of toxic chemicals, that are afterward often released to the environment.

Well - they could just tan the leather the old fashioned way and use the cow brains.

https://www.leather-dictionary.com/index.php/Brain_tanning

Yeah, but then what would they make dog food and jello out of?

I'd love to see Apple's slick marketing video about how your new Apple Watch strap was tanned with cow brains.

"we asked ourselves what would a cow think about this?

so to do that we really wanted to get inside a cows brain.

we figure dok now that we're here, let's explode it out onto the platter of dead skin of that same animal to capture it's essence.

so without further adieu

I present to you

iBrainSplatStainedWatchStrap"

Prionic Shield™

USA & europe tanneries are usually pretty regulated and treat their wastewater. Other countries may vary.

you're right, this is greenwashing. I sell into the market sometimes and the hides are basically wasted unless you try hard to line up buyers. plus, if your beef is grass fed for its whole life like ours, it's carbon neutral, as all the carbon that goes into the animal came from the atmosphere. It's true that factory-raised beef is bad for the environment though, as they eat grains that are fertilized from oil via Haber–Bosch. It's also true that tanning uses lots of nasty stuff, but there is vegetable tanning which works well and sourced from nuts and stuff.

I thought the issue was that cows produce a lot of methane which is 20x worse foe trapping heat than CO2?

> plus, if your beef is grass fed for its whole life like ours, it's carbon neutral, as all the carbon that goes into the animal came from the atmosphere

This totally ignores the land use issue. Cattle absolutely decimate natural areas. e.g. significant areas of the midwest/great plain that were prairie with deep roots to store carbon are now pasture. Pasture grass has comparatively shallow roots and limited ability to store carbon.

Hasn't the midwest host large herds of grazing buffalo for millenia? I think the last I read about this stuff, most cattle farmers want their grass to still be the old school deep-rooted stuff, if other grasses take over it is a symptom of overgrazing.

> Hasn't the midwest host large herds of grazing buffalo for millenia?

Only because humans killed all the megafauna at the end of the last ice age.

The question now is if populating it with millions of cows for us to eat is the right thing to do.

no, cattle grazing on land serves to regenerate the land.

I think this is generally false. Cloven hooved animals regenerate prairie and topsoil if grazed responsibly.

Two things:

- Grazers improve the capacity of grass to carbon capture

- Some land is ONLY able to grow grass. The alternative is desertification, and so livestock is the only option to produce food. edit: unless you bring in fossil fertilizers.

> you're right, this is greenwashing ... plus, if your beef is grass fed for its whole life like ours, it's carbon neutral, as all the carbon that goes into the animal came from the atmosphere

Sounds like you might be doing a bit of greenwashing yourself. The carbon came from the atmosphere, but the cows make methane, which is much worse. Also they spoil the land and water. And also you're not counting the carbon used to actually raise them, like the gas in the equipment and the transport.

Now calculate the use of the agricultural machinery to get the same number of calories from plants. I have no idea how cows "spoil land and water". Have you seen a cow?

No one ever said plant based food is carbon neutral. But it uses way less carbon than cows. And yes, I've seen a cow. Many. They spoil the land by trampling it and the water by having their excrement run off into it.

Oh man… wait ‘til you find out where fish excrement goes. No such thing as unspoiled water by that definition.

A single cow eats many times the calories it is worth before it is ready to be eaten.

Thats not how that works, just like the water cycle there is a carbon cycle.

You can’t produce “more” greenhouse gases in a closed system, the system will ebb and flow; until you dig up megatons of carbon that has been stored for a few hundred millennia and insert it into that system.

(same story with polar ice caps and the water cycle)

The water cycle is actually the perfect analogy. The form of the water is almost as important as the amount. When you take all the water out of the ground and put it on the surface, and then a bunch evaporates, sure, we have the same amount of water. But we're still in big trouble because we don't have usable fresh water.

If you take a bunch of carbon in the grass and convert it to methane gas, sure you have the same amount, but it's a lot worse for the planet.

My current (and if I understood correctly: the current scientific) understanding of the carbon cycle does not indicate that methane is significantly more harmful than other forms of carbon release, mostly due to the fact that it does not have a significant lifetime in the atmosphere.

The issue remains, squarely, on adding to the carbon cycle. The harmful values of methane output is directly correlated with the oil based feed which GP mentions.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7725657/

https://meteor.geol.iastate.edu/gccourse/alumni/chem/carbon/...

Yea the methane thing has always seemed dubious, I looked into it more seriously years ago and came away with the same impression.

The water cycle is a great example because it is filtering the water as it goes, rapidly producing fresh water that rains on the land. Methane, likewise, is a short-lived byproduct of excess animal activity, and in a steady state sustainable mode, we have equality. The problem is the finger of oil on the scale, not the grass-raised beef, just like how excess bovines produce excess methane.

The land with cattle on are the most productive, as they get quite a compliment of natural fertilizer from the cattle. I would say cattle do not spoil the land, but improve it. This can't help but be the case, given the way grass responds to being eaten.

Additionally, once the grazers improve grass life, the water-table improves. The worst lakes in our area are surrounded by fertilized annual crops. Their water is polluted with nitrogen fertilizers and are very poor quality, with blue-green algae blooms, and as a result are not swimmable. My friend lost a dog to such a lake.

The land with active grazers in contrast, is very good at preventing this problem. The best lake for 200km around me is surrounded by grass-fed cattle operations, and there is absolutely no problem with algae blooms.

I think a central problem of our time is that educated elites are detached from reality, not seeing things like what I mention above, and so are acting upon their false perceptions, causing great harms as a result. The Apple announcement today about leather acts to confirm my suspicions about this.

You miss methane

Don't forget about the pesticides, herbicides and fertilizer that is sprayed over crops that gets washed into the water. The Mississippi river and the Gulf of Mexico dead zone is an example. Where i live, cow pasture land mostly is untouched.

Also, cows have feet and digestive systems so it takes more equipment and diesel for harvesting and processing grains.

I never said commercial farming was any better. I was just saying calling the cows carbon-neutral was equally greenwashing.

They don't kill cows to make leather. The cows are raised for meat and milk. Actually, NOT using leather is worse for the environment because now you have leather which has no use and you're creating pleather or whatever replacement.

I know this? I think you replied to the wrong comment.

I think what you are doing is definitely better than some of the specific agriculture feedstocks for cows that increase the enteric emissions of cows to make them grow quickly. That said it isn't carbon neutral - the digestive systems of cows produce methane from food. Methane is between 24- 29 times more impactful then carbon for global warming.

Cows still have a signifiant impact on especially as a function of how large the industry has become.

And to your point - wasting hides is also not great. Would be great if we were less wasteful in general.

I suspect that because of conservation of energy, methane is a highly reactive over the short term, but ultimately an insignificant element in the big picture IF you ignore the massive oil inputs humans are adding to the system. That is to say, methane on its own is not a reason to discourage digging up oil to make grain, which is used to feed cattle.

I'd go as far as saying that leather accessories are actually even better for environment since they easily outlast any fabric or silicone ones. It's really just shameless greenwashing from Apple, nothing more.

> I'd go as far as saying

Citing is much preferred to saying.

> since they easily outlast any fabric or silicone ones

perhaps not as true when they are phone accessories. ;-)

There are interesting second-order effects. For example, this will tend to make wholesale leather less expensive, for producers of third-party bands and other small items (I assume that large items use a different type of leather, since they require larger swathes).

I'm surprised they're pricing these new fabric bands at $99. If they sold these alongside leather bands, would they sell at that price? Seems like they're trying to position them as a replacement for a premium product, but without any proof that they are worthy of the lofty price.

The braided solo loops have the same price ($99), it was not exclusively for leather bands.

Yikes! I guess that's why I buy more AAPL stock than Apple Watches.

Leather itself is a driver of deforestation and not just a secondary byproduct.

Why alternatives to leather matter:

Nowhere to hide: how the fashion industry is linked to amazon rainforest destruction [0]

[0] https://www.stand.earth/publication/forest-conservation/amaz...

Also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29433500

FYI your link is bad, should be https://stand.earth/resources/nowhere-to-hide-how-the-fashio... .

I read that article, but I disagree that the conclusion is "Leather itself is a driver of deforestation and not just a secondary byproduct."

That is, what I'd like to know is whether all those cows in Brazil would still exist even without a leather marker, but just for their beef. The linked research sort of tries to make that argument, but it doesn't really provide any convincing evidence.

On one hand they talk about getting rid of leather, then they talk about getting something with a "suede" feeling. I hope we aren't replacing leather with microplastics-infused future garbage.

Of course that's what's happening. How else would Apple reduce its microplastic footprint come 2035, if they didn't stealthily increase it in 2023? Perhaps they'll cut down on microplastic pollution with a return to 'natural' materials. I wonder if leather might fit the bill?

Artificial leather is mostly fungus based these days

There exist leather alternatives that use no plastic. ;P

I wonder how much worse accidental UI interactions will be due to smaller bezels. I alredy despise phones that I have to pick up _really_ carefully not to engage some completely unwanted gesture.

The best part about smaller bezels is that you can always buy a protective case that adds more bezel. Inversely, large bezels never get smaller.

Cases make phones bulkier, sometimes significantly so. No thanks.

So you like the smaller bezels then?

Yep, I see pretty much zero reason to go with the 15 Pro, other than to avoid the terrible colors of the 15. The Pro Max gets the better camera, but the smaller Pro seems like a lousy deal — especially if the smaller bezels result in more accidental touches.

Woah, fairly confusing. Looks like the base Pro gets the same "pro camera" according to this: https://www.apple.com/iphone/compare/ But the zoom options are different so it's clearly not the same.

They also talked confusingly about optical-quality zoom, or some such thing, on the lower end phones. They made it sound like you can either take a 48MP photo or a zoomed 24MP photo. Sounds like digital zoom to me...

Look at the optical zoom options. Granted, it’s not obvious that the Max has 5x while the base Pro only has 3x.

I have recently been led to believe that people eat so much beef that so a ton of potential cow hide goes to waste instead of being turned into leather because there isn't enough demand for leather (compared to beef).

Is this true or false?

If it's true - then how is leather bad for the environment?

I don't eat beef - but it's interesting to me how many people eat hamburgers and then look at someone with a leather bag like they're the devil.

As with a lot of things environmental - this seems purely idealist and not realist.

They are imagining it like an elephant killed just for its tusks. For some leather goods made from certain animals this might be true, but today almost all parts of the animal usually have a buyer and end up getting used in some way, even if it's just ground up into dogfood.

Instead of supposing something, how about you take Google for a stroll and figure out the (very interesting) answer to this yourself. Spoiler: leather actually has a profoundly grave impact, and it’s not just a „free“ by-product of meat.

Googling can also tell you the opposite. YMMV.

The main answer I get is that leather is a by-product of meat, but some claim it is a co-product.

I love the "This is our best $PRODUCT yet", duh is there a company making worse products every iteration?

Ford

I believe you mean GM, which is getting rid of CarPlay and Android Auto.

Ford https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MUkFsuilVD0&t=2s

A car manufacturer forcing you to buy a particular model of car stereo used to be a textbook example of anti-competitive bundling.

There's a lot of instances of brands being bought just to slowly milk into the ground by the new owners

Microsoft

There are a lot of days I'd be strongly tempted to answer that with "Google", but that's unfair since they usually just kill the product rather than actively making it worse.

Google search is now worse than it was 6 years ago.

I swear sammy fucks up the battery every other year on purpose just so they can say it's bigger next year.

> is there a company making worse products every iteration?

Very many companies that built a brand around quality before being quietly sold to a private equity firm are doing just that, to maximize profits for as long as they can while the brand still has a good reputation.

It can be really obvious if you’ve owned a quality product for many years and then go to replace it, only to see that the current rendition is effectively a cheap knockoff.

Also many hardware startups will launch with amazing build quality and then push out a cost cutting v2 product.

They also said that with a straight face when they removed the headphone jack.

and guess what? People use bluetooth headphones these days and much perfer them to the rats nest of cables that used to be cheap earbuds.

People have had the option to use bluetooth headphones since 1999. Removing the headphone jack from iPhones wasn't some revolution. Apple simple took away a choice.

I personally know a lot of people who didn't realize wireless headphones were a thing pre-Airpods. They seriously thought Apple created that market with the first wireless headphones.

I imagine a lot of people didn't know or think about wireless headphones until Apple made it a thing.

Bluetooth audio was awful for a long time, and not a serious replacement for wired headphones until very recently. It's clear that companies remove the jack to simplify manufacturing and cut costs, but at least BT headphones are usable nowadays. So as much as I disliked the trend when Apple started it, I'm not as annoyed by it anymore. Save for the hassle of BT pairing, which can sometimes be wonky, but this isn't an issue on Apple devices, AFAIK.

It's "courage" :D

There are many examples in the software space.

They mean it is their flagship product , performance is not the only innovation companies do , it could be cost or something else.

Apple wouldn’t say the same at a SE release event

Others have already brought up Google.

I'll mention GM, since they are taking CarPlay and Android Auto out of their new vehicles so they can charge a subscription fee for worse versions of the same features your phone already provides for free.

Weakest announcement in years. The watch was also devoid of any new features. This is borderline 'should have been a press release' territory.

Apple struggling to cope their products have reached maturity heh

IMO, it's not mature if the battery life is one day. The product it is seeking to replace (a "watch") can last for years on a single battery. Most people wouldn't mind charging once every week or two, but a "watch" that has to be charged every day is not a mature product in my book. It's especially embarrassing because Garmin and various Chinese companies (Amazfit) have sleeker watches that run for weeks.

Apple could sell a lot more watches if they upped their battery life game. I guess they want a watch that can do a zillion things, one day at a time. I prefer a watch that can do a few things, for a couple weeks at a time.

> Apple could sell a lot more watches if they upped their battery life game.

This would certainly require a display tech change. What do you have in mind?

I find the Amazfit display to be very nice, and it lasts 2 weeks on a charge. I have no idea why Apple is stuck at daily charging for the AW9. I could pay $800 to get an AWU, and then use it in low-power mode for up to 5 days, but that seems absurd. The Amazfit GTR 4 is 1/4 the price and the battery lasts 3x as long (as low-power mode AWU)

> why Apple is stuck at daily charging

Daily charging is for normal use, including > 2k nits in sun, with always on display. Low power mode gets around 3 days (all sizes I've tried).

But, you point still stands high, especially since it's also using AMOLED! I naively assume the Amazfit is using a much lower power processor. I've played 3d games, at what looks like 60fps, on my Apple watch. I...don't understand why I should be able to do that.

> I've played 3d games, at what looks like 60fps, on my Apple watch. I...don't understand why I should be able to do that.

Exactly — it feels like Apple is going with a high-power device that gives modest battery life, when what I want is a lower-power device with extended battery life.

How would you propose they improve battery life without sacrifcing any of the existing feature set?

Take a cue from Amazfit, whose watches last weeks on a charge.

1) Wireless reverse charge from phone - you go take a shower remove phone from your pocket and remove your watch and put on your phone - 10 min shower + 5 min shaving should be enough to charge to 100% as some android phones with 100W fast charging

2) wireless charging via some smart apple watch bands with chargers coils inside macbook on the left side and right side of touchpad - so that every time I type on macbook it charges my apple watch

3) eink technology while Not in use

But where would the marketing budget be deployed? I enjoy seeing how they produce the event but the content this year wasn't interesting enough to keep my attention

Re watch: I discovered that the pinch gesture was already on my series 8 watch under quick actions.

> They spent so long talking about environmental stuff, like getting rid of leather

which reminds me, i need to buy extra leather cases.

in any case, this is what happens when you've got nothing to present.

They won't fit new iPhones, IIUC. Third parties will still make them, but they won't be available as rapidly as Apple's cases.

I'm curious how much they're charging for this 'premium' new FineWoven material, which they pitch as a replacement for leather. Will they price it the same? Will people be willing to pay that much?

> They won't fit new iPhones

no, i'll be buying them for my current iphone.

How many leather cases do you go through per phone? I think they just said they're not making any new leather products, not immediately killing all existing ones. I'm sure the sales channels will eventually dry up though.

> How many leather cases do you go through per phone?

one every 3 to 6 months, depends on how long i'm travelling for (as that's when i usually drop/scratch/etc my case the most).

You should take better care of your things. A leather case every 3 months is unbelievably wasteful. This type of careless behavior is killing our planet.

I appreciate that you rephrased this from your original comment, which was incredibly dismissive.

But this is still condescending and hyperbolic. I'm as surprised as the next guy that anyone would go through multiple iPhone cases per year, but I don't know anything about him, his family/habits/clumsiness, so I would not make such judgmental remarks.

And from a practical perspective, you will win zero converts by telling strangers on the internet that they are "killing our planet".

I don’t personally use leather, but I have been lead to believe that it is the longest-lasting and most repairable material. Are those people just lying to justify their purchasing habits?

Interesting. I still have my iPhone6 leather case (been meaning to throw it out) - it's a bit worn around the edges but it still holds and isn't gummy.

Currently I find otterbox cases are fantastic grip/slide ratio that I prefer to my old leather case.

The new-er leather cases are no where near the quality of the X, Xs series leather cases. My 5 year old Xs leather case was like a baseball glove from my youth. These newer ones, like the one on my iPhone 14 just doesn't wear the same.

I haven't had a case since the 6, which was nice. I could imagine that as time went on and volume went up, they had to source lousier leather. The cynic in me also wonders if they didn't keep their leather products as nice so that people wouldn't miss it as much after it's replaced by FakeLeather, or whatever they're calling it.

I m stunned that a company like Apple sold leather cases for a premium price with a quality that you can only call trash.

Every 10 dollar knockoff from AliExpress had better quality than this.

Not selling these anymore is not a big loss.

Small (anec)data point, but I got invited last week by my local Apple Store to attend the event there and upgrade on the day. Never had that happen before, and have a history (that Apple surely knows) of buying 6 months after launch and then holding for 4-7 years. I get the impression — admittedly having not watched the event — that Apple feel the need to work hard and drum up interest for this release.

But it isn't even shipping for ten more days! Anybody who accepted that invite must be going home disappointed.

Super weird. I've had iPhones since day 1, but never gotten such an invite. They must know that demand will be weak. I was thinking I'd upgrade my 13 mini, but after seeing this lineup I may stay on the sidelines for now. I expect there will be some sales coming in a couple months, at least through carriers.

I bought a 13mini yesterday based on rumors that it would be discontinued today.

Was waiting to see if they had a new mini, and obviously they do not so glad I grabbed it.

Xs, 13, 14, 15, it’s all the same to me except a mini feels so much easier to handle.

I recently switched from android to the iphone ecosystem; I had a 3a and then a 4a, and recently updated to a 7a, but it never really clicked with me -- just too big.

Got a 13 mini; I kinda don't like a bunch of aspects of the iphone ecosystem, but the mini form factor is really perfect.

Very much too bad that it's now dead.

I liked my 11 Pro before the mini, but if I'm going to go back to a non-mini phone I'll have to toss some of my jeans, whose pockets are too small for non-mini phones. I do find typing on the 11 Pro to be easier than on the mini, since the keyboard is wider. But I love to swipe-type on the mini.

I was waiting for a price drop today, and instead they just stopped selling it entirely. I wish I'd heard those same rumors. :(

You can probably find it for awhile "in the channels", i.e. 3rd party retailers like cell-phone stores for a little bit longer until their stock is depleted.

I was quite surprised by the phone call to be honest. Certainly changes the dynamic that I'm used to around Apple products.

Apple should have kept the S model name suffix. These half-upgrades underwhelm when the devices are marketed as fully new models.

> but these were all leaked in advance.

Does being leaked in advance have anything to do with their presentation? "Oh that was leaked, I guess we shouldn't bother mentioning it".

Not strictly speaking, but in this case there were hardly and exciting leaks. Some people care about USB-C (I don’t), and some people care about the new zoom levels (I do, but not enough to buy an enormous phone).

If they actually cared about the environment they would have spent that time describing how easy they made it to replace the screen and battery on every announced device.

In their defense, iPhones haven’t changed much, and IMO that’s a good thing. I still use an iPhone SE and haven’t experienced any issues. I have a much older iPhone which i stopped using a couple years ago but it was the same, and I suspect it might still even support the latest OS and apps

This satellite thing... carriers around the world gonna love it when Apple decides its time to leave them out from the equation and will use Musk's satellites.

Don’t believe satellites have enough bandwidth for dense urban areas

Was it only weak because you knew about the new things in advance? The switch to USBC seems pretty significant. As well as the 3mm chip in the pro models.

The move to USB-C is a big deal for some people, but it’s hardly a headline feature for a new phone. The new manufacturing technique is nice, but only if it translates into tangible benefits for the user (which were not apparent from the presentation).

It’s just another way of increasing margins and justifying it with platitudes about environmentalism. Corporations co-opting things for profit.

It’s why you can’t get a paper bag at many grocery stores today. Those bags cost them a lot of money that’s now going into their pockets while you are forced to buy bag after bag (because who always has a bag on them?!) that only becomes a net positive after thousands of uses. Which it never will come close to.

The sales and marketing people are running the company now

All software teams are busy porting apps to Vision Pro

And no folding iPhone :(

The only iPhone I'm actually looking forward to. I'm sure they'll produce one, but will take a few years still.

I really liked the Mother Nature part. It may be greenwashing but it’s encouraging to see the world’s biggest company taking these steps.

Planting forests, installing solar grids, carbon neutral offices, that all costs the company, it’s not cost savings disguised as green actions. Sure it has marketing value, but that’s hard to measure.

Smaller plastic free packaging and shipping by sea on the other hand could be made to save money without care for the environment. Being able to market it as green is just an added bonus.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com