Considering how much global e-waste and environmental damage, companies like Apple(and others of their size) are responsible for with their products, destroying a few objects for an ad is like spitting in the ocean in the scheme of things.
People complaining about the waste generated from this ad, are really missing the big picture, and is one of the reason companies like Apple mostly focus on posturing the image of climate friendliness and environmental sustainability, rather than actually enforcing it across their entire supply chain where it actually makes the big difference.
"Sure, the minerals in our devices are mined by kids in Congo with chemicals dangerous for the environment, and assembled by workers in sweatshop factories with suicide nets, but our posh donut-shaped HQ in Cupertino runs on 100% renewables and serves only vegan food with soy lattes, that's how environmentally conscious we are here at Hooli." </gavin_belson.jpg>
^Because this greenwashing is what people buy into from advertising.
Reminds me when Formula 1 switched form V10 engines to hybrid V6 to be more "environmentally friendly", when actually, the gas burned by those V10 engines during races only accounted for <0,2% of the total emissions, being far offset by the massive emissions of transporting that entire circus around the planet bouncing across continents all year round, yet nobody addressed that, just the engines for some cheap greenwashing.
They'd allow you to upgrade the RAM in your MacBook instead having to replace the ENTIRE machine!
I do hold them accountable for the non-upgradable SSDs, which are not needed to be soldered to achieve their full speed, and slim PCB connectors for PCI-E speed connections do exist.
Are they still fusing displays into lids on the "pro" level MacBook?
Apple's response if regulators push for that: "Sure, that'll be 1600$ for the board please. (on an 1800$ new machine). Oh, and BTW, the board is paired to your iCloud account so you can't then re-sell it on the used market, for your own protection of course. You're welcome."
What about LPCAMM2? https://www.theverge.com/2024/5/7/24151369/lpcamm2-laptop-me...
I also remember how upgradable GPUs in laptops using MMX slots were pushed by Dell and a couple of others a few times 10-15 years ago, but abandoned each time.
I hope this catches on though, but like I said, I'm skeptical.
It's like when I read arguments such as "Aramco most polluting company in the planet by CO2" or "eating a burger pollutes more than driving an SUV for 100 miles"...
Apple, Aramco, your local butcher are merely serving your needs. Aramco ain't forcing you to buy 5L V8 trucks, and you're butcher ain't forcing you to eat beef rather than poultry or vegetables.
Apple releasing new products is just a normal tech company serving the need of users to have the latests shiny gadget, shareholders to see equity and employees and contractors having jobs.
What do I mean? While in principal I agree that many companies should do a lot more to limit their pollution, at the end of the day this pollution is a direct consequence of us average Joes neverending consumerism.
If average Joe doesn't give a damn about using public transport or using a used hybrid or to adapt his lifestyle to be less polluting, legislators and companies are gonna adapt to people not giving a damn besides whining on Twitter.
Marlboro wasn't forcing you to smoke either, yet too many people did against their own health and own best judgement, so we had to get government regulators to rule them in to protect people form damaging themselves and others with their own desires.
Just because consumers want something, doesn't mean it's what's best for them and that the capitalist free market should just be free to unregulatedly deliver whatever consumers want, at the expense of societal health or the environment, because then that's just "privatizing profits while socializing losses" with extra steps.
We also had governments regulate car emissions to save our air quality which meant engines had to be much more efficient and less environmentally damaging. All for the greater good, and few people complained about the cleaner smog- and tobacco- free air despite loosing a few HP on their engines and Marlboro selling fewer fags.
What makes you think e-waste should be exempt from such regulations?
However the subliminal advertising of big companies causing manipulation of weak human minds is what drives the never ending consumerism. Take away the ads, and the buying of crap will drop significantly.
Thankfully last year’s model still works and is supported for several years. Nothing prevents you from ignoring the new models and act as if they didn’t exist.
Auto manufacturers release many new models every year and most people do not buy them all. Nor do they wish that appliance manufacturers stopped releasing new models so they could keep their fridge for longer.
Generations of vehicles seem to be sold for at least half a decade, with maybe slight facelifts but largely functionally unchanged. My 20 year old truck, perhaps barring some safety features, also does basically the same job as a newer truck and drives down the same roads and so on. Thankfully the auto manufacturers haven't yet found a way to make your car or truck obsolescent in 3-5 years.
As far as appliances I swear to god I know I and a large number of other people would absolutely kill for an older Kenmore washer and dryer as they basically run forever and are easier to service. We keep jamming useless crap on everything (of course my refrigerator needs an embedded screen and internet of shit connection, so that it can spy on me and generally be another worthless shiny doodad that's going to break) while making things simultaneously harder to service. My 15 year old fridge does the exact same thing as the newer shitheap Samsung fridges they sell at big box retailers but without needing to be replaced every 5 years. Barring some marginal advances in refrigerant and insulation, some of the old stuff legitimately is better.
I understand your point but the greater irony of the expression is that, at scale, our spitting (flushing, dumping, spewing) into the ocean has created an ecological disaster.
Yeah I think the biggest lesson from this is that people don't understand the amount of resources it takes to build an iPad.
Another example: Apple removing the stickers because they're plastic. A tiny tiny bit of plastic. Probably 0.001% of the plastic used in the production of an Apple device but people think it's significant because they can see it, and all the other plastic is hidden behind closed doors.
Also if it was CG Apple would have immediately said that.
You can actually see that they repositioned the ball between the side shot of it rolling and the front shot of it getting squashed, which you wouldn't need to do it if was CG.
You think they got a real ball to roll out to the edge and filmed that live? Ridiculous.
I would be surprised if any of it was real.
The Corridor Crew YouTube channel taught me that CGI is everywhere and I don't have a clue. Highly suggest checking out some of their videos.
But there's also the bigger factor that, if Apple didn't destroy a bunch of stuff, why haven't they said so? It seems to me that if this ad was entirely CGI, Apple would admit that to minimize the backlash.
Therefore, unless Apple says something (or someone does some very convincing analysis), I'm inclined to believe this ad was done primarily with practical effects. That's just where the evidence is pointing right now.
CGI modeling of a shattering string instrument that looks realistic would be an insane amount of work, and insanely expensive.
This was definitely mostly practical. The squished emoji ball at the end might have been CGI, but not most of this.
If you look through it you can see the top of the guitar is even cut off at the neck, either as a prop or digitally.
Movie magic, guys!
No it would not. It would still be as disgusting as it is now.
For me the disgust was purely in waste of perfectly good items. Those instruments could have provided a whole music department for a struggling school or youth center. The paint could have even been used to brighten the place up.
But No, Apple just squashed it all to show off.
For me it is in your face ruthless "fuck you and what you do, submit to us" nature of the ad. We are different people.
An ad that was likely done in a single take, let’s be real, doesn’t matter at all in the big picture.
I've turned away from favorite bands in the past whenever I'd find out they habitually destroyed musical instruments on stage.
...but really, it's not punk rockers slamming their guitars on the stage and destroying them; they can't afford to.
I suppose that it's destruction of the material to advance the immaterial (the performance itself) but it's still self indulgent and wasteful.
Which is a little on the nose for the way artists are feeling right now...
What exactly makes things any harder for artists than it has ever been? Was there some glorious moment in the past when people didn’t look down at the average poets for being lazy and useless?
Sure, laud the best of the best, but you know for a fact that you’ve thought it a bad decision for someone you know who isn’t gifted with genius level talent to pursue a career in the arts.
It has never been easy.
Frankly, if AI makes a pop song or if Lana Del Ray’s producers make a pop song, it really is no different to me. No one is going to replace the folk singer because the audience is already selecting for the poet, not the product. Who cares what frat bros are chugging beer to?
Is part of the response to this ad the subconscious realization that one doesn’t make or actively appreciate organic art to begin with?
When was the last time most of us went to an open mic? Or bought a painting from a local artist?
Just because you managed to use "tool of art" as a literal phrase doesn't make your point more clear. Why should I care if a couple of these pieces are destroyed. Presumably they didn't destroy anything of historical, cultural, personal, or scarce significance. Are you sure you're not making an argument based only in emotions?
You do not have to. To me the feeling was kind of visceral. I usually do not have habit of analyzing my feelings. But ok, I'll try. It feels like an ugly imbecile walking into art museum, crushing everything around and saying: what a useless piece of shit, here, use this brick instead.