Apple Announces 'FineWoven' Material, Will No Longer Make Leather Accessories

[AppleUser2]

It’s virtue signaling that accomplishes absolutely nothing. Animals, whether you agree or not, are still going to be slaughtered for meat. The hide is a co-product of that, not a primary reason that the leather is harvested. In fact, less than 30% of animal hide is retained, and of that, only 1% makes it into leather products like watch bands.

Much ado about nothing, just like the cringeworthy “Mother Nature” bit, which fomented the farcical idea that Apple is somehow going to be “Carbon Neutral” ever, much less by 2030. The definition of carbon neutral, and the dumb statement that carbon will be completely eliminate is risible. We’d all die if CO2 magically disappeared.

I get it, you like animals, so do I, but Apple eliminating leather is low level pandering at best. Leather cases will still be available, the moo-moos will still be harvested, but with an unmeasurable, completely useless reduction in the use of hides that already are a byproduct of a different use.

Apple’s entire marketing and business model is based on ostentatious consumption. Only the most gullible buy into this nonesense.

Absolute cobblers. If you took the attitude of your first line then nothing, literally nothing would change across humanity...ever. What a load of rubbish.

 

[coredev]

I think this is a really good point. I applaud what they are doing Re clean energy, recycling etc but you are right - nightmare and cost to repair most of their devices.

Just now the iPhone 15 Pro is presented to be easier to repair than previous models.
The microfication of technology is to blame for difficult and expensive repair, not Apple per se.

 

[wlossw]

Isn't it better to reuse the petrochemical based materials that are already in use VS making bands out of net new materials that aren't? Just the harvesting and processing of those materials are going to produce more carbon output than the reuse of existing materials. For net new petrochemical products, yeah we should use alternatives, but that shouldn't REPLACE the reuse of already existing petrochemical items.

Lipstick on a pig is sort of an extreme stance, in my opinion. Why do I think that opinion is throwing the baby out with the bathwater? Everyone has to work within the constructs of our current structures unless they want to live social disconnected (e.g. you participate in structures if you live in or near a city). There is no way they are going to stop capitalism nor our consumption based society. So when in the constructs trying to make those systems less polluting, especially at Apple' scale, is a fairly large impact. Does it completely change our systems? No. But it is tangible and LARGE movements in the right direction.

Could more be done? Yes. Could we change our society to better harmonize and be better stewards of our fragile planet? Yes. Does that mean that Apple changing their processes is meaningless? No.

Do you remember the 3 R's? Reduce, Reuse, Recycle.

All the attention to the third and least important R have completely overshadowed the actual point of that as an idea. Recycling the things we can't reduce and reuse.

As a matter of fact corporate interests have been rigourously pushing Recycling to distract and also to shift our attitudes away from the more important lifestyle changes: Reduce and Reuse.

This is more of the same.

 

[Arsenikdote]

Methane emissions are terrible for our collective future. That's not to mention the amount of water and land required to sustain cattle that takes away from other species. The reasons you've listed show a preference for an industry that is fundamentally destructive. So, suggesting that a solution needs to be economical is ignorant of the costs associated with maintaining the status quo.

In no way are cows beneficial for the environment. It's silly to think that stopping the use of most leather is a net positive, but fine leather is a different story. The leather byproduct of cattle slaughter isn't used in the luxury products.

Opinions on the meat industry aside, the process of making a cowhide into usable leather has an impact on the planet. At scale that impact is obviously larger and Apple is going to decrease their part in that.

Back to the meat industry, I am not sure why you are conflating the two. People's consumption (and thereby production) of meat will not change because Apple stopped using leather.

 

[Arsenikdote]

Do you remember the 3 R's? Reduce, Reuse, Recycle.

All the attention to the third and least important R have completely overshadowed the actual point of that as an idea. Recycling the things we can't reduce and reuse.

As a matter of fact corporate interests have been rigourously pushing Recycling to distract and also to shift our attitudes away from the more important lifestyle changes: Reduce and Reuse.

This is more of the same.

I think you are trying to make a single point to the detriment of the larger picture. I believe in "Yes, and" philosophies over "Yeah, but"

 

[darhorn]

Was looking for a Apple Wallet replacement, I assumed it would be available in Finewoven

 

[macpanzer]

FineWoven ... sounds like a fine word from a NewSpeak dictionary.
/s

 

[jimbobb24]

So, you're not interested in evolving further. Got it.

If you have a way to EVOLVE physically into a post-human I am all about it!

 

[Iconoclysm]

Since all of the cows have to die in order to create this “methane free” world, we might as well use the byproducts of the ones that have to perish.

Yeah, if that didn't involve 120 chemicals, one of which is killing tanning industry villages all over the world...

 

[Iconoclysm]

I care. And pretty sure I am not alone in this.
But you are right, there need to be less cows,
and taking leather production for one rather
large corporation off the table is a great step
in this direction.

I said that "tongue in cheek". I don't like animals dying but I'm not going to get worked up over one kind.

 

[jimbobb24]

Yeah but why let facts get in the way of the hordes of leather loving meat eaters on this forum. As I said above, thankfully Apple have decided so doesn't matter what we think. Thankfully (in UK anyway) leather in retreat across the board (cars, clothes etc).

"The facts". There are zero facts in existence which say meat eating is "bad" or leather is "bad". Because those are all subjective trade offs. You can say...meat eating increases methane gas which if it was the only variable in a multivariable system with thousands of variables would lead to X. X might cost y or z to mitigate? Is that an acceptable trade off? It's all trade offs. So while you have looked at the data and attached value to certain predicted outcomes those facts dont naturally lead to your preferred outcomes because other people prefer different tradeoffs. Assuming your "facts" naturally lead to your conclusion except in the narrowest simplistic outcomes (which are trivially uninteresting to society) usually means you dont understand enough of the context to understand why others see other tradeoffs.

 

[Siliconguy]

When can we quit cows?

Why would we? They convert plants we can not eat (grass) into high grade protein. If you want to argue that we should limit ourselves to grass fed cows, that is a different argument, and a better one.

Disclamer; I grew up on a farm, cows are not objects of affection, and chickens are even less so. I also hunt. Animal worship is not my thing.

 

[AppleUser2]

"The facts". There are zero facts in existence which say meat eating is "bad" or leather is "bad". Because those are all subjective trade offs. You can say...meat eating increases methane gas which if it was the only variable in a multivariable system with thousands of variables would lead to X. X might cost y or z to mitigate? Is that an acceptable trade off? It's all trade offs. So while you have looked at the data and attached value to certain predicted outcomes those facts dont naturally lead to your preferred outcomes because other people prefer different tradeoffs. Assuming your "facts" naturally lead to your conclusion except in the narrowest simplistic outcomes (which are trivially uninteresting to society) usually means you dont understand enough of the context to understand why others see other tradeoffs.

Thanks - lovely being taught. As I have said in previous posts, your words mean literally nothing...nor do mine. Apple have decided and for me they have made the right decision. No amount of professor teaching from you will change that....thankfully. Well done Apple (and many other manufacturers).

 

[vipergts2207]

Some people say that whale meat is quite delicious as well.
Yet there is wide consensus that slaughtering whales is not acceptable.

Many whale species are endangered. Last I checked, cows are not.

 

[vipergts2207]

Thanks - lovely being taught. As I have said in previous posts, your words mean literally nothing...nor do mine. Apple have decided and for me they have made the right decision. No amount of professor teaching from you will change that....thankfully. Well done Apple (and many other manufacturers).

Luckily a phone case’s material is relatively unimportant to me. You bet I optioned the leather interior in my Hellcat though.

 

[AppleUser2]

Luckily a phone case’s material is relatively unimportant to me. You bet I optioned the leather interior in my Hellcat though.

I actually found this quite funny (I blame the red wine)....😂

 

[miq]

I already hate the name ‘FineWoven’

 

[jjpiv]

Methinks that perhaps you need to do some reading about evolution. Even Neanderthals survived on meat 300,000 years ago. Evolution involves genetic mutation, not choice, and takes tens of thousands of years, e.g., "you're not interested in evolving" has nothing to do with it. We might evolve to needing to eat even more meat to survive. There is no choice or virtue signal that will influence genetic mutation or evolution as a whole.

It was a cheap joke. And thanks for the Cliffs Notes on evolution, I'm well aware. The point the joke was intended to make is how we can decide to consume resources that will supply us with the nutrients we need that can also be prepared in delicious ways. Justifying completely unsustainable behavior because of how we've evolved is among the least intelligent ways to consider our place in the world, and also not at all surprising. Humans are typically incapable of systematic thinking and most often spend time gauging cause and effect, with little to no extrapolation. I'd love to engage in a high-minded discussion about how to be more thoughtful and act as a better representative of our species. Unfortunately, that doesn't really seem like an interaction many in this forum want to have, as evidenced by the frequency of responses that can be distilled to "meat is good."

 

[jjpiv]

If you have a way to EVOLVE physically into a post-human I am all about it!

Will keep you updated. I'm looking for a way out of this meat sack and into something more efficient asap. 😊

 

[jjpiv]

The people flying to Davos in private jets and telling us to eat bugs and live in “15-minute cities” hardly practice what they preach.

Nuclear power is far better at reducing carbon emissions than eliminating leather. Wind power usually relies on oil and gas as a backup. It is disappointing that Apple isn’t pushing the envelope in more creative ways to improve the environment.

I agree! I want them to do more. I'm also grateful they're doing *something*.

I've been researching thorium reactors for a while. It's disappointing how that tech is being held back because of the belief it isn't worth the investment. Thorium holds a legitimately unique place in terms of power generation and difficulty with being weaponized. It really seems like the a path we need to be exploring more, but the appetite for immediate returns is undermining its progress.

 

[jjpiv]

Opinions on the meat industry aside, the process of making a cowhide into usable leather has an impact on the planet. At scale that impact is obviously larger and Apple is going to decrease their part in that.

Back to the meat industry, I am not sure why you are conflating the two. People's consumption (and thereby production) of meat will not change because Apple stopped using leather.

First of all, I agree with their choice to cease production of leather cases and bands.

To address you first point, I was speaking with respect to how hides are burned if they're not used in other products. So, leather products can serve as a way to prevent their literal ignition otherwise.

Concerning your second point, I know meat consumption habits won't change because Apple stopped the manufacture of leather watch bands and cases. The way Apple's choice will have an impact is 1. in terms of optics and 2. because they almost certainly use fine leather. Since fine leather isn't a byproduct of beef production, the demand for that material will go down. To what extent? It's difficult to say, as I don't know the sales volume of the products where leather was used.

 

[GalileoSeven]

It’s virtue signaling that accomplishes absolutely nothing. Animals, whether you agree or not, are still going to be slaughtered for meat. The hide is a co-product of that, not a primary reason that the leather is harvested. In fact, less than 30% of animal hide is retained, and of that, only 1% makes it into leather products like watch bands.

Much ado about nothing, just like the cringeworthy “Mother Nature” bit, which fomented the farcical idea that Apple is somehow going to be “Carbon Neutral” ever, much less by 2030. The definition of carbon neutral, and the dumb statement that carbon will be completely eliminate is risible. We’d all die if CO2 magically disappeared.

I get it, you like animals, so do I, but Apple eliminating leather is low level pandering at best. Leather cases will still be available, the moo-moos will still be harvested, but with an unmeasurable, completely useless reduction in the use of hides that already are a byproduct of a different use.

Apple’s entire marketing and business model is based on ostentatious consumption. Only the most gullible buy into this nonesense.

Exactly.

From what I've read, leather cases from other brands like Nomad et al are often more highly regarded than the ones Apple offered anyways.

 

[gaximus]

So we just throw away the unused skin of the cows now, the older cultures knew not to waste any part of the animal.

 

[Arsenikdote]

First of all, I agree with their choice to cease production of leather cases and bands.

To address you first point, I was speaking with respect to how hides are burned if they're not used in other products. So, leather products can serve as a way to prevent their literal ignition otherwise.

Concerning your second point, I know meat consumption habits won't change because Apple stopped the manufacture of leather watch bands and cases. The way Apple's choice will have an impact is 1. in terms of optics and 2. because they almost certainly use fine leather. Since fine leather isn't a byproduct of beef production, the demand for that material will go down. To what extent? It's difficult to say, as I don't know the sales volume of the products where leather was used.

We both agree them no longer using leather is good for the planet

I think a comparison would have to be done on whether the chemicals used in processing, and then the subsequent impact on the landfill that leather has (since it takes immensely longer to decompose once treated) is more or less than just disposing of the leather when the cow is killed. I would guess disposing of the organic material at that stage would be better than the alternative. I would hope that we don't waste something just because producing leather goods has bad optics. But I also don't think that we should ignore that making leather has it's own set of impacts that would be dramatically minimized if not processed.


I haven't personally worked in the industry, but I had a friend who worked for a larger name brand. They used a LOT of leather from meat farms. Maybe Hermes doesn't use leather from there, but I know a lot of popular brands do. You can get quite high quality leather from that source, so I am not sure what qualifies as "fine leather" but I know from direct second hand knowledge that many of the top users of leather (shoes, clothing, purses, etc...) use leather from animal farms. You really have to charge quite a premium on your leather if you are going to source it via other methods. It is also why non-meat leather is so much more expensive. You have to raise an animal for that purpose which drives the price up substantially.

I read someplace that cow leather is a co-product with meat. It is an interesting thought that it is not a byproduct, but rather a co-product. The interplay between the two things is probably a lot more complex than I am giving it credit for, so I will also say that regardless of how I am thinking about it right now, I HOPE that it has a net decrease on animals farms.

BTW, if anyone thinks that I am someone who equates a cow to a person, I do not. I eat meat and I eat cows. I co-raise them with my parents and we butcher and eat them. I also make my diet mostly non-protein as that is more sustainable at scale for the planet and I have found it quite great for my health. More importantly, I only support healthy practices for farming whether the crops are plants or animals. Anything done at scale to maximize profits will end up being bad for you and for the planet, period, end of story.

 

[StuBeck]

"Sustainability" is a buzzword that makes people feel good. If Apple was truly serious about it, they'd make their devices repairable and maintainable. They'll make the body of their computers out of material that will last well over 100 years, but the internals that will last perhaps 20 years, but that they'll only provide software support for 10.

I'd also add that if they wanted to be more environmentally friendly, they'd release an Apple Watch without a band. Its the exact same reason they used for not including a charger with the iPhone, but I'm assuming they don't want to show how little the bands actually cause them by decreasing the price by only $5.