Comment by musictubes | Hacker News Reader

Comment by musictubes | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Unpopular opinion here but Apple’s approach to environmental stuff is more right than wrong. The biggest environmental impact of devices are in the manufacturing and disposel of them. At Apple’s scale all of the things they do add up. Their use of recycled materials, elimination of certain more toxic materials, and even just making lighter products and packaging all help. At a minimum, those efforts are better than not having them and seem to be more than any other manufacturer is willing to do. Apple has set a goal to have a closed production loop, using only materials that they have recycled from older ones. That’s really ambitious and I doubt they’ll get there 100% but once again, what other company is even trying that?

Usually the only thing people can point to for Apple not being as green as they’d like is the repairability of the products. I’m willing to bet that whatever additional waste that is created by that is more than offset by having devices that last longer. Devices that require fewer repairs and have good software support allows either you, or whoever gets your old devices, to keep using the same device for longer. Every device has a lifecycle, making it as long as possible is the best way to avoid environmental impacts.

They're doing a horrible job. You're right that the biggest environmental impact is manufacturing and disposal. But keeping a device running longer is better than manufacturing a new one from recycled parts . The way Apple handles storage and memory means ENTIRE devices need to be replaced when a new larger SSD or a few more gigs of memory are all that's really needed to keep a device in service for a few years longer. Not to mention stuff like just being able to actually replace the keyboard in any reasonable fashion, etc.

There's really very very little reason for all the Macs at least to not have M.2 slots besides letting Apple save pennies on SSD controller costs and convincing users to spring for overpriced upgrades. Even the iPad could probably use an M.2 SSD! The Surface Pros do!

If it takes 2% more materials to make the components upgradeable, but only 1% of users will do it over the device's lifetime, then that's a net loss for the environment.

I don't like it either and I'm not sure I agree, but that's probably their logic.

I think their logic is it makes 2% more profit not to do it.

Oh certainly, their two greatest motivations to build things that way are:

1. Make devices thinner and sleeker

2. Capture value from power users who would otherwise buy the base model and upgrade it themselves

But that's probably how they justify it as not environmentally harmful.

They need not be mutually exclusive conclusions.

Apples devices are in the field longer than most OEMs, especially mobile devices you realize?

They don’t just trash it when you trade it, they resell as used.

And if you look at resellers on places like eBay they tend to sell upgraded models with increased amounts of storage and RAM if they can.

What does that have to do with it? They’ll sell whatever stock they have - most people end up ordering upgraded models so the field split is skewed.

You’re reaching acting like Apple is purposefully creating environmental damage when they do by far more than any other OEM on this planet to minimize their impact. They should be praised for doing anything at all in the face of no competition motivation, not judged for “you can do more!!! >:(“.

They absolutely haven't. It's laughable to suggest they've done the most when they've started trends like gluing down batteries, riveting keyboards, etc. Using slightly more recycled parts in the chassis and removing power adapters from the box does not make up for making devices less repairable.

Apple is known to shred devices.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2024-04-18/apple-iph...

https://www.vice.com/en/article/yp73jw/apple-recycling-iphon...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/10/07/apple-g...

I agree their devices last "long" but if they were upgradable they would last much longer.

> The way Apple handles storage and memory means ENTIRE devices need to be replaced when a new larger SSD or a few more gigs of memory are all that's really needed to keep a device in service for a few years longer.

Most iPads are vastly overpowered and last for a long time. If someone needs more power/storage, then one usually passes them to the next person which might use it for many more years.

My old iPad Air 2 from 2024 is still used.

> Even the iPad could probably use an M.2 SSD!

Most users don't need that. I'm using fixed storage in my Macs (and iPads) for years. I've attached additional storage to USB-C for many years without problems.

> Most iPads are vastly overpowered and last for a long time.

Which is why it's a shame they have poor repairability

> My old iPad Air 2 from 2024 is still used.

That doesn't really make a case for the device's longevity :-)

True, the thing is from 2014.

Ah, that sounds quite a bit better!

My original iPad Pro from 2015 is still used and is still perfect for not just everything I want to do with it but always has no issue with new stuff... except, Apple finally decided that it won't get OS upgrades, and so the few bits of software on it that I use are going to rot -- even the web browser these days doesn't work long as people no longer believe in progressive enhancement... the few-year old version of iOS on my iPhone would just render blank white pages for major websites, which is what finally forced me to upgrade: the device has devolved to not much more than a dumb phone -- and so this iPad, with its glorious large screen, will soon be trash.

If I could install an alternative third-party web browser -- though it would have to be one by someone who also understood the importance of supporting the old OS -- or if I could pitch in and help maintain the operating system myself, even using binary patches if required (look into who I am if you laugh here, and then stop laughing: we can do quite a lot without source code) I would be able to keep using it, but only Apple can save it now, and they have absolutely zero in incentive to do so.

Yes, but android devices still have objectively inferior software support lifecycles. They have objectively inferior parts-supply lifecycles too, Android tablets and android phones do not offer an m.2 port either, or swappable memory, or whatever the silly ask is this week.

iPhones are literally compared against objective perfection while all their competitors are worse on every single repair-lifecycle outcome. More iOS devices are used for longer than most android devices in the real world, and your n=1 cherry-picked example of your android tablet from 2008 isn’t really a useful or meaningful rebuttal.

I don't understand where this 2008 Android tablet storyline came from? I didn't mention Android, nor did I mention 2008, nor do I believe that there existed an Android tablet of any form in 2008?... I certainly owned some early Android Honeycomb tablets, but neither they--nor my iPads from that era, by the way--are still usefully in service. I honestly do not at all understand what you are replying to :(.

I am just saying that Apple has gone out of their way to lock me out of being able to maintain this perfectly good, old iPad Pro. This is interesting as, frankly, the iPad hasn't really aged as a platform now in almost a decade, seemingly as almost no one is making software for it which needs new hardware (...likely in no small part due to Apple's restrictions on the otherwise very-general device, but the reasons don't matter much).

And yeah, sure: I happily agree that Android devices tend to be worse on many of these fronts... but, they also kind of don't matter, as effectively no one buys Android tablets and frankly no one wants to buy an Android tablet ;P which is a fact I don't see changing in the near future. Insisting that I should redirect my frustrations with Apple onto some no-name Android tablet maker is a big distraction from trying to make a difference in the world.

I’m confused by your confusion - not only is it the topic of this thread, it’s also literally the comment you were replying to.

> Most iPads are vastly overpowered and last for a long time. If someone needs more power/storage, then one usually passes them to the next person which might use it for many more years.

like again, this is in the context of tablets. Can you show a current-production model of an expandable, upgradable alternative from a vendor like google or Samsung or similar?

If not, I think it’s pretty clearly just wishful thinking and double-standards. Apple doesn’t need to solve the whole right-to-repair problem by themselves to go above and beyond the very low bar set by the market alternative vendors. Android’s lifecycle is abysmal for repairability and waste in practice - they are even more disposable devices than the iPad, with shorter software lifecycles and shorter parts lifecycles and much lower volume/worse parts commonality.

The wishful ability to install a custom rom and some Amazon knockoff parts doesn’t actually make that a significant factor within the actual realized lifecycle of these devices.

Does Samsung and apple market their products as eco friendly though? If they do, it went entirely over my head, but I'm usually not really paying attention to their marketing material either.

But let's address your argument itself by applying it to two other companies to see if it holds up: would you consider a "sustainable/green" marketing campaign done by BP, the oil company to be disingenuous, even if they're better then Shell?

I would consider such marketing by them downright offensive and thats why the comparison to android devices seem pretty useless to me, honestly.

In comparison to pretty much all android devices, Apples are better from an environmental perspective. I mean most android devices had an EOL cycle of roughly 2 years until 2023 iirc... But that doesnt change the fact that apple is hardly doing anything either, which makes their marketing claims disingenuous (at least to me).

They don't "last for a long time". I have an ipad that is barely five years old and no longer receives OS updates. You can't even install apps on it (like Netflix, or Youtube) because the OS is "unsupported."

Apple is running a HaaS (Hardware as-a Service) and your subscription is somewhere between two to three years.

> I have an ipad that is barely five years old and no longer receives OS updates. You can't even install apps on it (like Netflix, or Youtube) because the OS is "unsupported."

I’m currentLy using a 2016 iPad Pro (so 8 years running) and I use it for both Netflix and YouTube. It’s also still getting updates. Next year will be the first where it seems to have security updates only as well.

Edit: I also just booted up an even older iPhone 5 and both apps work

> seem to be more than any other manufacturer is willing to do

I would agree if you change "any" to "most". Here are some examples of "any" manufacturers that are willing to do more:

- For tablets and phones: https://www.shift.eco/en/impact/

- For laptops: https://frame.work/sustainability

- For phones: https://www.fairphone.com/en/story/

Until Apple makes their devices with user replaceable batteries all their environmental efforts are falling short. Making consumable part -- a battery -- an integrated component that requires special tools and training to replace is environmental crime in name of planned obsolesce. Everything else Apple does are second-order effects.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com