But the quality is higher today though. Do I need to list all of the mistakes Apple made under Steve Jobs? I feel like that is well understood and documented. And Apple sells more units today than it ever did under Jobs with fewer overall problems. I think this myth of Apple somehow going downhill after Steve needs to be put to rest. We are now 12 years on and Apple is objectively more successful today than it had ever been. Tim has less charisma in presentations. Ok that’s about all we can say has really changed for the worse. And yet he solved that problem too by making Apple less of a cult of personality and brought many different presenters in. None of them compare to Jobs, but at the end of the day, it’s about the products, not the keynotes. And the products are objectively better.
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 CEO Tim Cook Talks the Future of iPhone, Driving an EV, and More in New Interview
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
One could probably make that argument. Fewer people on earth is better for the planet. That said, not having kids is by far the most environmentally friendly thing one can do. Making another life is making another consumer of resources and energy. Not hard to understand. I can drive the worst gas guzzler and leave all the lights on and that’s a drop in the bucket compared to the resources another life will require.
What a perfect assessment - thank you! What a breath of fresh air.
It's almost like the only reason some people purchase Apple products today is because SJ was CEO of Apple 12+ years ago and are still under his cultish spell. And of course to take a swing at TC at every opportunity to feel better reminiscing about the the good ol' days of the past.
Rather than purchasing Apple products for their superior utility, ease of use, performance, reliability, outstanding integration between devices, etc. That's what's important to me.
Compared to .... what, exactly?
The planned obsolescence that has been part of the entire world economy since WWII?
At least with some companies, such as Apple, which still try to make quality products, one can use their products for many years.
All this talk of yearly buying of iPhones overlooks the reality that most people do not do that.
The audience here tend to be very computer-aware, very aware of all sorts of gadgets and devices on which to continually spend money.
But most people in the world are on tight budgets, even those who buy Apple products.
Just because highly visible "influencers", e.g. Marques Brownlee, always seem to have the latest gadgets, we think everyone does.
But everyone doesn't.
If there are a billion Apple devices out there, if everyone replaced them every year then Apple would have to make a billion devices every year. But they don't. Not even close.
I for one am glad that at least Apple is doing more than just sitting around on their asses and doing nothing, as far as implementing sustainability goals.
The perfect really is the enemy of the good.
Isn't there some sumber about the 1% being responsible for almost a quarter of greenhouse gas emissions ?
yes every year new phone albeit not really a lot has changed. what resources does this cost, only for a few. And it gives users the idea that the old phone was nog good enough. Yikes. And then not one phone, but three phones. Every year. That's no progress. This is a FOMO marketing strategy. No climate neutral reassons. I'm very disappointed in Apple.
Im not upset with Apple, or my iPhone. Im just absolutely annoyed by the constant activism of Apple's CEO, while completely switching the focus of what they are supposed to do: develop, innovate and manufacture products that improve our lives.
Im also in favor of using renewable energy. Im also in favor of recycling. Im also in favor of using more efficient manufacturing techniques to reduce waste. Im also in favor of protecting the environment. These things are important and every company should work on these topics, and if you ask me, under a law mandate, rather than voluntarily.
What Im not in favor of is switching completely the focus of a tech company purpose that should innovate and develop exciting products that improve our lives, to semi-ONG style activist organization that manufacture phones and laptop as a secondary activity. This is what Apple looks like under Tim Cock leadership, especially during the last few years. If Apple was so concerned about the environment, that would have started using recycled boxes for their products, but no, they use shinny white boxes to please you the first 5min you buy a new product. If they were so serious about the environment, they would not categorize a modern and perfectly-working 8 year old Mac as obsolete product and stop selling spare parts and doing repairs. If Apple were so serious about the environment, they would have continued using widely available natural leather (which is a waste product coming from the meat industry) for their cases and watch straps, instead of using artificial composite materials that take centuries to degrade in the environment. So there are two options here: either Apple environmental initiatives are pure marketing BS and you are buying this BS as fundamental reality, or Tim Cock and the rest of the top of management team are disconnected from the reality and are truly incompetent to run a tech company.
The people who are full of hate are the ones who constantly see "hate" around them.
It's not driven by Tim Cook, it's driven by investors like BlackRock and Vanguard. If big investors pull out of Apple due to the ESG score being too low, the stock price will plummet.
I am completely against his uses of his private jet which is anything but carbon friendly but on your topic of Chris Martin... you do know how long it takes to drive from Glasgow to London and back again if there are no accidents, motorway works (or even closures)? Train? Yes for sure. Still several hours on a limited fast train with few stops but when was the last time you saw an international band taking the train between gigs? But really he should have just stayed up there in a nice hotel keeping staff employed for a few days. That is, unless, it was a week between performances.
Trust me, I live in London and my daughter is thinking about going to a Uni on Cornwall, which is almost as far away as Glasgow. Over 6 hours each way by car and a b*tch to get to (and way more expensive as well as 8-10+ hours) on public transport. I know because we went there for the open day this last weekend.
I can understand why the board would want or insist that the CEO of the world's most valuable company fly by private jet and not go with the masses as they would see it as a major security risk. Sounds like some serious carbon offsetting!!!
But when it comes to bands travelling the world or even F1 they really should make every effort to plan their tours / seasons in a way that requires the least milage throughout the entire tour / reason.
If you think that quality (hardware, software, design, services - any sector of Apple's business) is higher I feel you are delusional.
Switching the focus? That's a real knee slapper!
You may not be aware that some companies, and especially Apple with its roughly 1 Billion active customers, can both innovate AND try to act responsibly with respect to the environment. That's kind of like some people being able to walk and chew gum at the same time.
The good news is that you have options. If Apple's quest of trying to be environmentally responsible gives you a major case of the shakes, simply vote with your wallet and give your currency to a tech company that is environmentally irresponsible. And find true happiness sending TC a strong message in the process.
I do indeed. I make the journey quite regularly to visit my sister in Glasgow. I'm sure Chris would have been fine in the back of an executive car or as you say staying overnight in Glasgow. There are plenty of swanky hotels. If he's going to fly to places domestically, that's up to him. He's got the money, his choice. But don't start lecturing fans about climate change and playing our part.
I love how condescending the trade-in page is. When it walks you through the process, if you offer it basically anything but a brand new Apple product, it tells you it belongs in the recycling.
You just described a Public Benefit Corporation (PBC).
However, Apple is not a PBC. Apple exists for the benefit of its owners (stockholders.)
You're seeking stimulus. You are demanding that Apple stimulate you.
I don't want Apple to stimulate me. I just shop for products that do what I need them to do to accomplish the tasks I want (or have) to do.
Why riding bicycle is the MOST environmentally friendly? Why you think he is so boring comforted to jobs? Why Vision Pro has nothing for innovation just iteration? Why his focus on the plastics over the quality of the software his company is putting out just a dismal failure? Why they really need to step it up? Why? Why?
I trade in my old phone every time I upgrade to a new one. Apple will either resell the phone, as I try to return them in great condition. Or, at the least recycle the parts to make a new phone. My new phones are half the price of MSRP with trade in so it makes sense for me to do it.
I don't see anyone throwing away a perfectly good iPhone. And every business wants you to purchase new stuff they make. This isn't just an Apple thing.
If you believe so…
I mean, if you think it is an “incremental improvement”. Did you consider the entire cycle of the Ev? From production to e-wasting it? Cause you might be surprised!
I never said that. I know driving a traditional car is bad for the environment. I just know that making EVs and charging them from my house is as well. Neither is the solution we need. Not currently, anyway.
It’s not a belief, it’s just facts based on nearly every objective source. Have you considered the supply chain for ICE vehicles? Oil refining, transport, etc? For the entire life of the vehicle.