So you think a company has zero responsibility towards the environment? Maybe you should live next to a factory that releases toxines in the air and waterways. Let’s see how long it would take for you to become a tree hugger.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Announces New Clean Energy Initiatives Across Europe and China
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yes, but "protect the environment" and "make a profit" are very much in tension.
Yeah sure, and don’t breath. It’s much better if you don’t produce anything, and let customers buy those things from other companies (potentially less green). Becoming “greener” via stagnation is never going to happen.
This is "creative accounting". I was at the event when IBM announced this. They got some follow up questions that never got covered. The main thing was the statement: "Mac users tend to help each other out instead of calling support, we've saved millions on support staff!".
So, a great deal of the "lowest TCO" was actually due to IBM downsizing support. What they didn't take into account was the fact that they now had highly skilled (and paid) engineers doing support staff work instead of engineering work.
False assumption. People don’t trade in their iPhones every year over “minimal upgrades”. New iPhones are for people who have devices several years old. Old iPhones aren’t thrown away. They’re handed down to family members or sold to someone else.
I buy a new iPhone every year only for development purposes. I list my old one for sale and they ALWAYS sell within a day or two tops. Why? Because people know iPhones last a long time so they aren’t worried about buying a used iPhone and having it stop working.
Apple has earned that reputation by making devices that keep working such that the used marketplace for iPhones is a thriving industry. So much so that there are numerous companies willing to buy your used iPhone so they can resell it for profit.
After they finally quit they usually get recycled.
Contrast this with the Android phone market. People always talk about Samsung or Google flagships but the reality is they only represent a tiny portion of the Android market. Most Android devices sold are budget phones that last a year or two tops and then get discarded for a new one. Why? Because nobody’s going to pay money to repair a $100 phone or change the battery when they can buy a new one instead.
This is why Android sells around 1.4 billion phones EVERY YEAR yet their installed base doesn’t change in size.
There’s your real electronic environmental disaster.
And you are also ignoring the reason for using socketed components - repairability allowing users to keep their devices in service for even longer. Instead of buying a new laptop when your SSD dies you just swap out the drive.
It is much less carbon/energy intensive to swap in a new drive than it is to swap in a whole computer at every step of the way - resource extraction, manufacturing, packaging, shipping.
They do just fine.
My comment about solder is 100% factual based on years in this industry (electronic module testing/design with BMW).
Just because you don't like it doesn’t make it false.
The main problem with Apple's green initiative is that they do not let any independent bodies examine their work. None of Apple's products are independently assesed. This is a HUGE problem in government procurement, at least in EU where this is mandatory.
EPEAT, TCO Certified, none of it. Because Apple knows best how to spin their initiatives, if independently scrutinized, they might fall short. Can't have that.
EPEAT, TCO Certified, none of it. Because Apple knows best how to spin their initiatives, if independently scrutinized, they might fall short. Can't have that.
My wife used a Pixel 3 until last year (so six years), and while it wasn't getting OS updates anymore, it was still getting browser updates, along with email app, wallet, photos app, and a few others, so it could still be used. Once iPhones go out of support, the browser loses support , and then certificates start expiring..which also kills support for secure apps like banking. The Pixel was still working fine, but Spectrum didn't support it on their cell service, which she uses, so she bought a new pixel.
Apple could do better by at least separating the browser and essential apps from the OS, so once one is done, the phone isn't. Essentially ending the life of a phone at the end of it's support period is pretty crappy.
Last edited:
Apple is a (outsourced) manufacturer, predominantly in China, its products are non essential and are manufactured from components made all over the world and shipped all over the world. This is in no way environmentally friendly regardless of wether they use recycled this or that, if it makes you feel better about being a consumer that’s up to you.
I get every new iPhone every year, get a new (now EV) every 2 to 3 years, travel by plane a few times a year…….the most environmentally friendly thing I could possibly do is jump off a cliff and no longer be a consumer……but I’m not inclined to do that.
I don’t drive an EV for environmental reasons, I just prefer the way they drive.
Nothing human beings have done since the Industrial Revolution has been environmentally friendly and no amount of (around 2% in the UK) recycling or smaller boxes with no charger is going to change that, well it helped Apples margins.
Global warming will continue to gallop away as the vast majority of people are greedy and self interested, you can’t change that about human beings.
The only way for this planet to repair is a virus that wipes out all human life really, we are a plague on this planet.
Rant over.
But imagine a world where you don’t have to, for example an environmental utopia, say… if EU goes out of the blue and released a resolution that prohibits all manufacturers to release phones as often as they do. It probably will never happen but still. This will make companies obliged to make their current devices work as fast as possible, no (suspected?) planned obsolescence of any kind, fully serviceable parts, software that has manufacturer’s guarantee.
Due to camera market shrinking this strategy was adopted by camera makers - they are perfectly fine with recycling old sensors, up-badging and selling older products, because they are already good enough.
Currently we have upgrades for upgrade’s sake: processors are no longer much different and consume same amount of power, slightly more RAM, same camera sensors and drip-feeding tactic in general.
If new iPhone was once in 3 years imagine how good the new model would feel, it would have been a good motivation for companies to actually compete.
It happens only because people still consider iPhone a “luxury” product or “status symbol”, thus many buy 2nd hand (which isn’t good for company either since they do not earn additional money with old phones).
Yeah, I agree. A sad reality. Though these phones probably have their own market, they are meant to be used by people from developing countries. And these same phones also have non-replaceable batteries, and bad battery is main reason for throttling.
Bigger companies like Apple, Samsung and Google need to learn and make their devices top of the game, if Apple’s “E” line was better than it is then people would have probably bought it instead of generic Android device.
Batteries btw are actually dirt cheap to manufacture, those are companies who inflate the price. Ideally those batteries could cost 25-40$, and have around 5$ cost to manufacture including rare materials
How well do you think a $2500 iPhone will sell? There is no such thing as clean energy, it's a myth. Solar creates massive amounts of carbon to produce. Same with batteries. Hydroelectric requires millions of tons of concrete. Wind is insanely expensive for little return.
Once Apple stops iOS versions for an older device they still continue supporting a previous version of iOS. So you might get 6-7 years of full iOS updates plus another 2-4 years of security updates.
The Android myth is that Google Pkay Servuces updates are good. They aren’t. They’re extremely limited in what they can repair and most Android vulnerabilities are STILL fixed through actual Android updates. Which means when you stop getting new Android versions you’re suddenly open to all sorts of exploits that never get fixed. So enjoy your App updates while the kernel remains vulnerable.
This is an old chart I need to update but shows how long devices get support. Go back 10 years and see what Android devices got for support. Nothing like Apple.
Attachments
I stand by what I said, the browser, wallet app, email and other built-in apps need to be separated from the OS. There is zero reason to fully integrate them other than to lock them in with OS updates, and therefor push people to a new OS or new iPhone.
We'll see what happens with the Macs on the Mx processors... on the Intel side, you could install windows or Linux and continue to use them indefinitely once they lost macOS support. Meanwhile, I have a Dell desktop from 2012 running Windows 11, and it does absolutely anything and everything I need a Windows machine to do.
Funny how some people only see this as a publicity matter, while apparently ignoring the actual facts of what is being done. If Apple never issued a press release at all, their efforts in this arena would still make a difference. People just seem to hate being reminded that others are concerned about things like clean energy.
To be sure, Apple didn't spin up any projects over the past couple of weeks; all they've really done is produce some publicity (ahem... or spin) about some of their existing projects. The projects themselves have been ongoing for several years; the only thing new is the recent bad publicity revolving around one of those projects, and its associated ad campaign. Thus, as I said earlier... the timing of this press release is not coincidental; rather, it's a strategic response to the recent bad press.
You may want to check Apple's annual environmental progress report. Link here (it's a pdf), there are independent analyses quoted and included.
Apple did pull out of EPEAT several years ago, then returned, then pulled out and now their products are certified, here's a list of computers, displays & iPads (all gold tier) and here's their list of iPhones, from the 14s to the 17s, all gold tier as well. Oddly, a Google search seems to show dated information, stating that Apple's products are not EPEAT certified, when EPEAT's own site clearly shows they are. Seems like AI slop Google search results.
You're right: correlation is not causation... but the timing itself is my evidence, and correlation can imply a potential causation when the circumstances are suspiciously coincidental -- which I would argue, they are. To gather further evidence either way, one of us would have to have a source who actually works for Apple.
In an entirely unrelated conversation... did you know that the "correlation is not causation" fallacy was historically used by the tobacco industry to reject evidence linking smoking to lung cancer?
Sometimes, only citing a fallacy as a counterargument can itself be a fallacy -- in the case of the "correlation" fallacy, that would be called the "dismissing correlation" fallacy.
If you choose to live next to a factory, that's on you.
Some people fall for the marketing hook, line and sinker. Glad to see that all the products, services and life you live is based on the presumption and assumption of “clean” and/or “green” energy.
At least you're consistently ignoring what's actually being done just so you can only address press releases.
And thanks for sharing your assumed knowledge about all the products, services and the life I live. Unless... do I have a stalker? 😬
Hilarious. You seem to miss the point of the phrase "correlation is not causation" by saying that timing is evidence. That is the opposite of the meaning of the phrase.
In other words, timing is not evidence. Thanks for the history lesson, and for confirming that you don't have a source for your statement.
Do tell, is the production of raw materials, manufacturing of solar panels, wind turbines, the transportation or anything in-between “clean and green”? Chances are highly unlikely, which makes these efforts just “green washing” like the EU mentions and marketing.
TBH no average customer is making the decision to buy Apple products based on any green report card, most care about the cost and to be fair if Apple stopped this green marketing the products would be more affordable that is hoping that Timmy doesn’t pad those margins with the savings.
Here is another good one for your, most cities have some form of recycling collection and program but most of it goes into the landfill and those refining facilities don’t exist and are cost prohibitive, in any case it’s a farce. Even those wooden one use utensils don’t biodegrade without a commercial biodegrader and most cities dont have it but it sure makes people poorer to spend more more on that ah it makes my moral compass feel justified.
Last edited: