Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

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

This actually looks pretty good. I’m looking forward to seeing it up close and feeling it. Too bad they still haven’t added a FindMy chip in the wallet, defeating the entire purpose.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_1777.jpeg
    IMG_1777.jpeg
    265.9 KB · Views: 71
Iconoclysm said:
People love to tout the number of birds that die each year to those wind turbines, but never anything more than that. We kill about 360x the number of birds with our cars and trucks every year. If the entire country relied ONLY on wind turbines, we'd still kill 1/180th of the birds our highways kill. And guess what? Cats kill even more than that!

As far as clearing land, that's about the dumbest talking point I've ever heard. Everything we build does that, and we cover this country in asphalt.

Nuclear is definitely the best option right now...but let's not pretend that recycling parts of fossil fuel power plants is any better or easier than solar or wind. Wind is going to be pretty easy, really, the fiberglass stuff is easily reused.
Click to expand...
So your argument is that things that naturally happen (cats killing birds) and things that absolutely will not go away because of their use (cars killing birds) is the same as a ****** technology that works a small percentage of the time and is a very poor alternative to others? Not to mention, I don't think there are too many cats or cars that are killing eagles and the like.

And yes, clearing a ton of land for a very low yielding power output compared to the amount of power you could get out of fossil, coal, or nuclear using that same amount of land. And then these solar farms are often put where people think it's safe because it's land that people don't want to live, like the drive to Vegas from SoCal. And then they end up killing most of the wildlife there that they thought they could try to transplant. Many desert tortoises were killed.

I never said anything about recycling fossil fuel power plants. I don't have a problem with them. The point is that people think that solar and wind are "carbon neutral", which is absolute BS. And whether something is recyclable or not, it's a question of whether it's being done. Which it, for the most part, is not.
 
Arsenikdote said:
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...
Click to expand...

Iconoclysm said:
If you've kept up with the leather industry over the past 100 years, you'd find that the "natural" way of making leather is long gone. Leather is now made with over 100 toxic chemicals and takes decades to decompose. The tanning industry itself is harmful to the environment.

As far as where it comes from, the hide is worth more than all of the meat. So if there's any one item of a cow that would impact less of them being slaughtered, this would be it. There's nothing to buy into here, it's just a common sense move that is forward looking. I don't like Apple more or less for doing it, but I expect it to start happening in far more places after this.
Click to expand...

If the meat vs hide economics are true, then why are only 30% of the hides of slaughtered cows used, with an only a few percent making it into retail leather goods?

Leather processing effect is minimal and is magnified by animal rights organizations because they know that leather production only uses a sliver of harvested animal hides, so they deflect to water and chemical use. Can you think of anything else that might apply to? Growing and distribution plant based foods harms the environment, but few will allow themselves to admit that. Apple also loves to talk about recycling as if aluminum and titanium processing don’t use toxic chemicals anywhere in the production and delivery process. Battery production, especially non replaceable batteries that encourage upgrades aren’t an issue? Building the Apple Campus in the middle of a commuting nightmare?

I respect people’s emotions on such matters, and direct my comments on the hypocrisy and deflection from Apple.. If it makes you feel better, then I’m glad, but it won’t save a single cow.
 
Fumblerooskie said:
If the meat vs hide economics are true, then why are only 30% of the hides of slaughtered cows used, with an only a few percent making it into retail leather goods?

Leather processing effect is minimal and is magnified by animal rights organizations because they know that leather production only uses a sliver of harvested animal hides, so they deflect to water and chemical use. Can you think of anything else that might apply to? Growing and distribution plant based foods harms the environment, but few will allow themselves to admit that. Apple also loves to talk about recycling as if aluminum and titanium processing don’t use toxic chemicals anywhere in the production and delivery process. Battery production, especially non replaceable batteries that encourage upgrades aren’t an issue? Building the Apple Campus in the middle of a commuting nightmare?

I respect people’s emotions on such matters, and direct my comments on the hypocrisy and deflection from Apple.. If it makes you feel better, then I’m glad, but it won’t save a single cow.
Click to expand...
You quoted me saying it has an impact and at the scale of Apple the impact is larger. Are you disagreeing with that or agreeing? I don't understand from your post?

Also when you say "the [affect] is minimal" do you have information you can share for why you think this? From my understanding, the leather industry does not produce a negligible amount of harm. And it is not just animal groups interested in this. From 1995 to 2019 the number of scientific publications on the topic of pollution within the leader industry, in the Scopus database, counted at 1116 papers (66%) related to environmental issues of tanning step, 388 papers (23%) related to beamhouse, 141 papers (8%) related to post-tanning and 44 papers (3%) related to finishing.

It doesn't take much searching within the scientific community to find people, organizations, even governments with concern especially as the global leather refining industry has grown to over $1B to support the almost $500B leather goods industry.

So while I agree that often times companies/people/politics will distract from larger issues with things that sound good, it also doesn't mean that the distraction is bad or that solutions don't exist and are having an impact. I would rather be a "Yes, and..." person than a "Yeah, but..." person.
 
kriebe said:
So your argument is that things that naturally happen (cats killing birds) and things that absolutely will not go away because of their use (cars killing birds) is the same as a ****** technology that works a small percentage of the time and is a very poor alternative to others? Not to mention, I don't think there are too many cats or cars that are killing eagles and the like.

And yes, clearing a ton of land for a very low yielding power output compared to the amount of power you could get out of fossil, coal, or nuclear using that same amount of land. And then these solar farms are often put where people think it's safe because it's land that people don't want to live, like the drive to Vegas from SoCal. And then they end up killing most of the wildlife there that they thought they could try to transplant. Many desert tortoises were killed.

I never said anything about recycling fossil fuel power plants. I don't have a problem with them. The point is that people think that solar and wind are "carbon neutral", which is absolute BS. And whether something is recyclable or not, it's a question of whether it's being done. Which it, for the most part, is not.
Click to expand...
Nope, my argument is that there are plenty of birds to go around and ANYTHING we build will kill them. We aren't running out of land and wind turbines work in the water too. I don't think we should subsidize them but it's the market that should decide whether they are worth it or not. Europe has enough of them that they seem to think they are useful.

Really don't give a crap about the ignorance of tree huggers. Calling these RENEWABLE resources is true. The devices that capture them may or may not make up for the huge amount of carbon released burning fuel - which is what would make them CARBON neutral. They may still cause land pollution but it isn't the same thing.
 
jjpiv said:
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.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. The finest leathers in the world like Badalassi Carlo of Italy or Tochigi of Japan are still byproducts of meat slaughter.
 
Non leather accessories manufactured in China or India with power/electricity from coal-fired power plants. Apple's climate-friendly 0-emissions vision is a charade!
 
  • Like
Reactions: hoodafoo
svish said:
Looks ok. Have to see whether they are durable
Click to expand...
The description doesn't appear to imply that it will be particularly durable.

The FineWoven material may show wear over time. Interaction with MagSafe accessories will leave slight imprints. If you are concerned about this, we suggest you use an iPhone 15 Pro Silicone Case or Clear Case.
 
ScholarsInk said:
Incorrect. The finest leathers in the world like Badalassi Carlo of Italy or Tochigi of Japan are still byproducts of meat slaughter.
Click to expand...
Not from the research I’ve done, but the sources I referenced could be incorrect. 🤷‍♂️
 
Does anyone know what this material is actually made out of? "68 percent post-consumer content" doesn't really say what the actual material is.

1. What about the remaining 32%?

2. What is the "content" in the 68%?

Nothing in that definition says this still couldn't be leather, albeit 68% would have to be "post-consumer" leather.
 
jjpiv said:
That’s some solid logic you’re wielding. 😒 Just because you enjoy something, that doesn’t legitimize it’s use or consumption.
Click to expand...
Logic? Millions of people like cows. Dairy, meat, cheese, ice cream, collagen, clothes... the list goes on. Maybe you hate ice cream?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back