Greenpeace Combats Planned Obsolescence in New Repairability Campaign, iPad and MacBook Score Low

[ApfelKuchen]

I'd like to take "upgradability" off the table. That's not Greenpeace's business, but it is for iFixIt.

You don't buy a car or truck with an expectation of upgrading the engine four years later - you buy the size engine you need when you get the vehicle. If you need greater passenger capacity later on, you don't keep the chassis and change the body from sedan to minivan.

Upgradability is an expectation that is fairly unique to computers. Upgrade a refrigerator or stove? Upgrade the power amp in an integrated A/V receiver, or the display in a TV or monitor?

The "I'll buy less RAM now, and upgrade it later, when RAM prices drop" can actually be wasteful - if you have 2 RAM slots, upgrading from 8GB to 16GB means you'll have a pair of 4GB modules to dispose of (not much of a resale market for those things). Why should Greenpeace support that? Same for HDD/Flash. Apple's "buy what you expect to need over the time you plan to own the device" approach may be hard on the wallet, but it's not wasteful.

"Expected useful lifespan" includes many factors - changes to the customer's needs and requirements, changes to the technology, durability/quality of manufacture, and expected lifespan of components.

In general, the same factors that make electronics products harder to repair extend the useful life of the products. The repair vs. replace decision can be affected by difficulty/cost of repair, but there's a fairly large percentage of the population that simply uses their stuff until it breaks. For them, greater durability means less waste. Now, difficulty/cost of repair may also dissuade some people from repairs. It would be interesting to see some solid research on this aspect of human behavior.

 

[Marx55]

Apple has a problem: price. Apple could reduce 50% the price of all products and boost sales tremendously worldwide.

Additionally, in the case of Mac they use many times soldered components (RAM, SSD and GPU), so that you cannot upgrade the machine later on (programmed obsolescence and big anti-ecological impact on planet Earth!) or with proprietary connectors, so that you are forced to purchase from Apple.

And Apple charges 2 to 3 times more for the very same product as compared to sites like Amazon when you buy just one item (whereas Apple purchases millions, so they could give even better price than Amazon.

Do not get me wrong. I love Apple products and in particular the Mac. But the situation is clearly unfair.

 

[idunn]

Cook noted that, "improving the repairability of electronic products is technically achievable and brands should be prioritizing this in their product design."

One wonders. A significant portion of Apple's business plan is planned obsolescence. For Greenpeace or Mr. Cook to think otherwise or that such a business model is all that 'green' is absurd.

Apple could make the case that the iPad or MacBook are as svelte and in a sense relatively inexpensive precisely because of the bulk in access points and connections paired out. That granted. Or that particularly with such devices as the iPhone most of their customers would not be happy with anything but the latest version. So why make that easily repairable which in most cases will be soon discarded anyway?

But that argument only carries so far. The MacBook Pro is a perfect example of a device many customers feel has, if anything, become too light at the expense of ports, a proper keyboard, the ability to easily swap out Ram and the HDD, not to mention being more easily repaired. One need look no further back than 2012 for the last best example of a MacBook Pro which met all these criteria well.

Or at the far upper end the example of the Mac Pro which professionals expected to be easily upgradeable, and was until this last iteration. The trash can Apple has presumable learned a lesson from and apparently returning soon to a design more akin to all previous models which were designed not to be soon obsolete.

One could go on but the point is obvious that Apple has long since discovered that it can make far more profit as a consumer corporation making disposable items, versus those that can last far longer because by design they will.

It is not a question of money, or in what one as a customer should pay, because that presently asked for these devices would more than cover the additional expense to make them easily repairable. At one time and not that long ago that is principally what Apple did.

In short, there is a better balance to be had in any of this. One wouldn't expect or wish Apple to forego new technology which will in some cases and all eventually make obsolete that they've already paid a pretty penny for. But at the same time not to follow the example of so many other companies today which do not build products designed to last. That Apple should have enough respect for its customers to insure that bought today can and will remain in good working order for as long as possible, until trend or technology has inevitably superseded it.

 

[mudflap]

I'm liberal AF but Greenpeace needs to slow their roll.

 

[Brian Clifford]

What's better:
1) A highly repairable product that ends up in a landfill in 3 years ---OR---
2) A highly non-repairable product that ends up in a landfill in 5 years?

It is easy to argue with these findings since they are very one dimensional.

Dimension 2:
...'product that ends up in a landfill in 3 years'.
Maybe, if it's cheap enough.

...'product that ends up in a landfill in 5 years?'
Maybe, if it's no more than a mid-priced, average performance device.

And now for a third dimension, and also an "augmented dimension 4" so to speak...

Dimension 3: I've never heard of electronics being "repaired" before. You mean with the ol' DIY screwdriver, pliers, and tube of glue?? Forget about "repairs". How about a product with replaceable OEM components adequately covered by a manufacturer's expensive optional warranty?

Dimension 4: If I choose to purchase a product at probably the most expensive price point, I expect to get a lot more than 3 or 5 years out of it as many satisfied Apple users happily claim to have experienced.

But, thanks for your contribution anyway.

 

[SBlue1]

"while consumers keep them for just a few years before tossing them away."

Toss away multi-hundred dollar electronics? Nope. They get sold, and re-used for another cycle. Maybe sold, and re-used again. Eventually they make their way back to Apple, and get recycled.

But the resale value of an easily repairable and upgradable laptop is way bigger. I used to beef up my old Macs with more RAM and bigger HDDs and recently SSDs and sell for a good price. Apple had a good resale value. Now if I ever have to buy the current not upgradable MacBook Pro I will not be able to spec it up in order to use it longer and get a better price.

 

[147798]

PERSONALLY -- I like this report, because I'd like a more upgradeable unit
REALISTICALLY -- doesn't Apple have programs to recycle their used devices? Is that taken into account in the ratings? I'm guessing no.

 

[MrX8503]

This is misleading because of a few things:

1. Many people resell their Apple devices
2. Many people go to Apple for repairs
3. Apple products last a very long time. How long did people use their iPad 2s for?
4. You can send your devices to Apple for recycling

 

[TimUSCA]

Why give these idiots a voice? They make wild claims just to stay in headlines. This is a perfect example.

 

[alexgowers]

Repairability in devices with system on a chip etc is pointless. I don't get why it's even important if someone will pay you for a device at end of life and is recycled into new devices?

The repairability is mostly limited by the tiny tiny boards and soldering. All these hi tech devices are impossible to repair without very high end microscopes etc. Sealing them seems like a perfectly good trade off for water-resistance and to prevent damage to delicate boards.

 

[pmjoe]

As much I appreciate what they're trying to do, planned obsolescence has nothing to do with repairability. They should be looking at things like upgradability, expansion ports, etc.

 

[Zarniwoop]

No one forced you to upgrade. It is no secret that upgraded software carries an increased demand of hardware. As a consumer, it would behoove you to study about the products you consume.

Apple does not warn users; "this update will slow your device a lot. It will actually make you want to but a new device. Which is its purpose."

They jammed iPhone 2G, iPhone 3G... etc with the last revision. iPad 3 was in the continuum. How could a user know beforehand, that updating from v7 --> v8 will make the user experience suffer a lot. Apple knew it even though they're very cautious about the user experience. It was planned obsolescence.

 

[fokmik]

If apple watch will become a track for glucose and these things that we heard on rumours, the holy grail, then apple watch will become a "must have" device, like a phone

 

[superliu]

No one ever replace components on a laptop or phone! Apple products (although not upgradeable) tend to last the longest for me. I buy Dell or HP, and the laptop is a piece of trash after 2-3 years, even if I upgrade the RAM. Their laptops falls apart after a couple of years.

I got my MacBook for more than 3 years, and it's still like new.

Look at how things are build in the first place, a good product doesn't need repairing or upgrading longer.

 

[ApostolisApo]

I'm no expert on the subject matter, but I can't help thinking that small components being replaceable is very likely to result in small components being put in the trash, whereas entire units being recycled seems more likely to result in less so.

But I'm sure many, more knowledgable people will disagree. Personally I don't really care. I just like nice stuff.

Disagree.

 

[imnotthewalrus]

Apple does not warn users; "this update will slow your device a lot. It will actually make you want to but a new device. Which is its purpose."

They jammed iPhone 2G, iPhone 3G... etc with the last revision. iPad 3 was in the continuum. How could a user know beforehand, that updating from v7 --> v8 will make the user experience suffer a lot. Apple knew it even though they're very cautious about the user experience. It was planned obsolescence.

You've been on MR since 2009, years before the iPad 3. By then it should have been common sense to see what others were saying before upgrading.

 

[s1m]

And no word about the software. Every obsolete iToy has been crippled with an software update, and therefore became pain to use. I was a happy iPad 3 user with 7.1 version, but after 8.xx and especially 9.xx it became so slow that it wasn't pleasant to use anymore. And if you didn't backup your device with the older iOS, there's no way back. That is planned obsolescence.

Why did you update a old product that wasn't working well on one software release to a later software release knowing it wouldn't be a good experience?

 

[H2SO4]

Whats the purpose of this, its not going to change how Apple or Microsoft builds their products, it'll just show other manufactures that its ok to produce them this way. It also doesn't help me as a consumer, I'm still going to buy what I want, and if I was the type of consumer that repairability was a deciding factor, then I would be the type of consumer to do my own research into the device.

And as far as recyclability goes, Apple has a whole system for recycling their products and is one of the best for environment.

The best, I repeat BEST way for the environment is to use less. NOT use and recycle.

 

[Zarniwoop]

Why did you update a old product that wasn't working well on one software release to a later software release knowing it wouldn't be a good experience?

It worked well with v7.1. Fluid ui. V.8 started the downhill, but it was the security updates that kind of forced me to upgrade... you know the NSA holes?

Anyway, my point was that this was planned from Apple's side. I as a user shouldn't be worried about it. Security updates only would be a great way to give support for old devices. But if the security update comes with a death pill, Apple is just showing the finger to those who don't bring them money regularly.

 

[gnasher729]

Unfortunately it's the same for all Android phones now too as they are all unibody water resistant.

So water resistant means harder to repair, less need to repair, longer working life, worse rating by Greenpeace.

 

[LordVic]

The best, I repeat BEST way for the environment is to use less. NOT use and recycle.

YES!

There's a reason that the "Three R's" are listed as 1. Reduce 2. Reuse 3. Recycle.

this order is intentional as it outlines the best order for "green" and helping the environment. Reducing usage in the first place is the best solution as it prevents unnecessary waste and effort and energy from being needed in the first place.

Followed by Reusing. Reusing is better than Recycling, because no additional carbon footprint is required. the device continues to be in use, just maybe repurposed. This is however 2nd, to rEducing, Because to "reuse" it, usually implies something else was purchased, so you're still creating waste.

Recycle is last because believe it or not, it has a fairly decent carbon footprint. Repurposing metals, plastics and other materials is costly, and some of the processes have high energy requirements (such as high temp furnaces for metals, or chemicals for others like plastics and wood pulp).

We can all do better by remembering that Recycling is the least we can do to help the environment. We need to, as a society step back a little and move away from the pure consumerism culture we have today where everything has to be new and replaced every few months or years.

For the average consumer

TV should be able to last 10 years.
Computers should be able to last 5+
Phones should get more than 2 years.

we are all guilty of replacing things frequently because it's "cool", and that rampant consumer culture might very well be the cause of irrevocable harm.

 

[GoldenJoe]

A lesson for Apple. No amount of pandering satisfies the left.

 

[Thunderhawks]

And no word about the software. Every obsolete iToy has been crippled with an software update, and therefore became pain to use. I was a happy iPad 3 user with 7.1 version, but after 8.xx and especially 9.xx it became so slow that it wasn't pleasant to use anymore. And if you didn't backup your device with the older iOS, there's no way back. That is planned obsolescence.

It is not planned at all, as advances in all technologies of ever faster devices, cars and products happen.

Would you say the Volkswagen beetle was produced with planned obsolescence in say 1958?
A mixer using more power than what they use now due to more efficiency.
You can take any product and follow its improvement path to see that nothing I planned to become obsolete.

When CDs replace vinyl records, then mp3s replaced CDs, was that all planned obsolescence by the music labels?

At least Apple tries to recycle as much as possible.

I'd say the companies turning out real $&$^%$ low quality products which don't hold up like Black and Decker and others should be chastised.

In the end it's all about the money. Y=Try to get a part for an ORAL-B electric toothbrush, other than the battery. There are so many throw away products created every day that I find the Greenpeace and iFixit stance is missing the point.

If something cannot be fixed = too much money it ends in the trash, if one can even get parts for it. See tons of air conditioners at my local scarp yard and bought 3 Gas which all stopped working. Traced it down to a small logic board inside. Probably at most a $ 10 piece. Try to buy that. Good luck.

Then you have the technically untalented who can't fix a thing.

That endless cycle between deciding if it's even WORTH to repair or should be thrown in the trash is never ending!

Like somebody else posted use less and recycle is the better way.

 

[gnasher729]

You do know that the definition of keeping products in service means being able to repaired and keep them functioning and usable! If they cannot be serviced then then will no longer be in service!

Well, no. You don't need repairable if the product keeps working. And Greenpeace confuses repairable and repairable by iFixit.

 

[LordVic]

Well you can dismiss their entire premise immediately based on the statement:

"while consumers keep them for just a few years before tossing them away."

Toss away multi-hundred dollar electronics? Nope. They get sold, and re-used for another cycle. Maybe sold, and re-used again. Eventually they make their way back to Apple, and get recycled.

NO they are not designed to be repairable to live forever. They are designed to be recycled, so that every single component can go back into circulation.

Stupid people.

While I wish it were more prevalent, the amount of technological devices in landfills is staggering. If you have a nearby electronics dump, I recommend going and looking just how many are dumped there alone. Nevermind thrown directly into garbage bins and waste.

The local electronics waste disposal here is one of those large cargo containers that is almost always at 100% full when I go. And it's regularly carted away.

More people need to resell their devices, or find a way of reusing them. Will help the problem immensely