The fundamental problem, which is out of sight out of mind from the consumer, is how much energy is required to produce and move assemblies around. See also the automotive industry, where the "green" thing to do is drive and maintain older vehicles for a long time.
And to be honest, this doesn't bother me that much, but if I'm not on the take as an engineer I have no particular qualms punching through the bullshit smokescreens as a customer of a company that takes my money. The attention and empathy fatigue of the bullshit does take away from things that do matter such as national versus international manufacturing.
Visually, sure. Under the hood? Wrong.
>The business model is built on a revolving demand cycle that is unrelated to long term thinking, maintainability, efficiency, nor sustainability.
Sorry you need to qualify this statement. An iPhone 6S is still completely usable and almost certain to be in a functional condition assuming it has been looked after correctly. That's a 8-9 year old phone. Meanwhile my 2001 phone was hopelessly outdated e-waste in 2007.
Kicking off with a logical fallacy, strong start.
>There is "change", sure - the chip is now every so slightly faster, it can do "AI things", it can take slightly better photos, etc.
Just say you're technologically uninformed.
>But any comparison of these changes with the previous model for an average use case
Kathy using Instagram while she waits in line at the supermarket is not a useful point of comparison when we're comparing iterative improvements, keep up.
>Apple could have easily skipped releasing a new model this year, packaged exactly the same hardware and released the iPhone 16 the next year and fundamentally nothing would've changed.
What an absolutely ridiculous statement.
>But the shareholders won't like that, will they?
Low IQ statement.