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 Urges Action on Climate Change at United Nations Summit
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You are gonna pay for it either way. With SOC's and onboard storage that decision has been made anyhow, you'll need rough it a couple extra days/weeks/months till you have the cash on hand if you are of the mindset that you need longevity.The two years remark for in context of another member's response I was replying to.
Yes, that is precisely my point. It is possible I do not have 200-400 Dollars extra right now to purchase the configuration that lasts me 5-8 years, but I could need a computer right away. So I am going to have to settle on the lower configuration or do something and get the configuration I would need in a little while.
You have all the information you need to make that kind of decision.
Actually there doesn't need to be an option for both, you just want there to be an option for both.
Maybe Apple should ONLY offer one high end config and take that decision out of the equation altogether for you?
The replaceable hardware ship sailed 8 years ago and it ain't coming back anytime soon outside of their pro desktop lineup if ever.
Thats a cost issue, not an environmental issue.
Virtually everything on the board is recyclable and a massive amount of additional material is used if everything is replaceable.
And while I agree its a complete PITA if something does go wrong, there is a lower failure rate when items are soldered together than held in with various clips and connectors unless there is something initially wrong with some the components e.g. bad batch of ram, bad caps etc.
Environment-consciousness comes in many forms. With Apple, this particular consciousness and courage about MagSafe power adapters (with new and improved/ path-breaking 47% increase in power consumption to deliver the same amount of battery charge) comes in the form of the environment surrounding their bank account and financials. They want to make it as green as possible.
We need to have a balance somewhere. The 2016 notebook lineup needed an entire top case replacement just to replace any component from Touch Bar to keyboard to battery, and maybe even trackpad, if I recall correctly. How is that environment-friendly for the planet and cost-effective for the consumer?
You need to stop bringing customer cost into the argument - its got absolutely nothing to do with the environmental issues whatsoever.
In the case that those components do need to be replaced though, Apple will recycle/re-purpose the old parts. They have the equipment and facilities to do so while its being repaired.
It's potentially more damaging to the environment to have thousands of computer components thrown into landfill by DIY'ers after replacing various bits and bobs rather than being stripped by manufacturers at the time of repair.
Reliability due to locking things down helps cut down the need to repair, replace or recycle. Simplifying the design to fewer components also helps - it might sound trivial, but there was 40 odd screws on the older keyboards each one made of stainless steel.
By not using screws on a couple million units could add up to a lot more green than making it serviceable for those 1/10000 folk who need to have some major work done on theirs.
Last edited:
Good and interesting discussion, there is no right and solid answer to these issues.
Absolutely. Healthy discussions are the lifeblood of forums. Or anything progressive, for that matter.
The issue is that a few companies make history altering products and have the resources to go to the expensive renewables.
They have achieved it and now would love to force everyone to go with renewables. What if from the start Apple would have been forced to use only renewable energy? Their innovation would have been stifled.
Big Business loves big government.
They have achieved it and now would love to force everyone to go with renewables. What if from the start Apple would have been forced to use only renewable energy? Their innovation would have been stifled.
Big Business loves big government.
Well there is one right and solid answer and that’s “I don’t need some mega rich CEO telling me I should live a more humble life style to save the planet when his company is trashing said planet and is using slave labor.”
A megarich CEO who is already living a humble life style and is going to give away his money is...
- Not telling you anything, he's making a general statement
- His company is not trashing the planet any more than any other company, and maybe even less
- His company is not using slave labor...Foxconn workers are paid better to scale relative to where they work. Or are you equating those types of jobs with minimum wage jobs in the US?
There’s a lot of ignorance in this comment section...
1) Apple takes into account all carbon emissions caused by their corporate facilities, their assembly partners, their parts manufacturing partners, all the shipping involved with moving parts and finished products, and even those caused by the use of their products (charging). They account for everything, so when they say carbon neutral by 2030, they don’t mean just corporate stuff (they’ve already done that) they mean EVERYTHING.
2) all these people talking about apple’s e-waste problem don’t realize that E-waste and climate change are unrelated. E-waste is a serious pollution issue, but it has nothing to do with the production of any greenhouse gasses that drive climate change.
1) Apple takes into account all carbon emissions caused by their corporate facilities, their assembly partners, their parts manufacturing partners, all the shipping involved with moving parts and finished products, and even those caused by the use of their products (charging). They account for everything, so when they say carbon neutral by 2030, they don’t mean just corporate stuff (they’ve already done that) they mean EVERYTHING.
2) all these people talking about apple’s e-waste problem don’t realize that E-waste and climate change are unrelated. E-waste is a serious pollution issue, but it has nothing to do with the production of any greenhouse gasses that drive climate change.
Your claim that items that are not soldered are more prone to failure is false. Furthermore, it is more expensive to repair computers with all soldered components, they are NOT upgradable which shorten their usable lives, and if a single component fails you almost need to trash the computer since repairing it will cost close to buying a new one.
Given the pros and the cons, having not soldered components and upgradable computers seems much better both for consumers and for the environment. Apple just does not do it because of financial reasons (customers will not be upgrading as often) and pure greed.
That’s true to some extent but you also have to remember that profit is what lifted billions out of poverty and made everyone’s lives better. Without profit, you essentially have forced equality like socialism which has benefited no one... except the leaders.
"Seems to you". Have you seen the physical size of a stick of ram and socket vs SOC, that alone should tell you that once it continues to work as intended - less landfill and less carbon footprint during manufacture. The size of a modern non-upgradeable logic board is far smaller than a socketed one with less individual parts.
Take for example. the biggest intermittent point of failure in all my older Macs was bad or unseated socketed ram. I haven't even come across that issue with the soldered stuff.
Guess what happened to all my bad or "upgraded" components through the years? .. It sits in a box , I try to sell it and if I don't, after a while I get sick of looking at it and it goes in the garbage during a spring clean. Non recycled chunks of silicon, copper and gold. I've done the same with old computers (bad me).
As I said before, longevity does not, in my opinion always equate to better value, or better for the environment and certainly makes the tech bigger.
Would you be happier that Apple increased the base price of the MBA to $1499, made it bigger and you are then stuck with a slower machine for a couple years longer in order to facilitate their loss of sales ? If you want to bring costs into the equation, that's where the rabbit hole would lead.
Slower performance for longer in a bigger chassis. Yay!, but at least you were able to upgrade the memory to keep it "modern"
Last edited:
Your response does not make sense whatsoever.
I owned Macs since SE30 and I NEVER had a single issue with a bad or unseated RAM. So just because you had a problem with an unseated RAM because you do not know how to install it, means that all computers are better with soldered stuff.
How is it better for the environment to discard 2 sticks of RAM or to discard an ENTIRE COMPUTER??
AGAIN you do not make sense whatsoever since in MANY occasions I extended the live of my computers just by added extra RAM and by replacing the internal HD.
Having all soldered stuff if definitely NOT better. IT would be if you want to change the tires in your car, you need to change the entire car. It is complete nonsense.
The ONLY reason not to have upgradable RAM or Internal drives is so Apple can overcharge the obscenely-ridiculous RAM and SSD prices (Sometimes over 200-300% market). It is NOT better to have all soldered components for the environment whatsoever, since if one single part fails you need to throw away the entire Logic board- computer.