Who is really living in a fantasyland? Does anyone really believe Apple is carbon neutral?
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.
Greenpeace Criticizes Apple's 'Daisy' Recycling Robot, Says Focus Should be on 'Repairable and Upgradeable Product Design'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Greenpeace don't have the knowledge in the market. They must realise that upgrading products results in additional transport costs, R&D costs, legacy issues, reliability issues and so much more all of which impact the environment. To make a reliable long lived product like an iPhone you HAVE to forgo repairing and upgrading. It actually benefits the user and the environment.
Let's do everything the greenies and whiners want and double the retail price.
Oh wait, they want to reduce the margin from 35% to 5% to achieve their goals. No thanks.
Oh wait, they want to reduce the margin from 35% to 5% to achieve their goals. No thanks.
They're already here, it's simply a matter of relative perspective/timeline.
Everything was once something else and someday will be.
Wow, so many posts just missed the point. Greenpeace is absolutely right. The problem is that because Apple designs products that are very difficult to repair, exceedingly expensive (and seemingly exclusively) Apple repair, or Apple outright refuses to repair. That means more likely devices are to be junked or recycled. Recycling uses energy as does manufacturing replacements.
Instead of making devices that make no economic sense to repair, make designs that are easier (and less expensive) to repair. Few examples: don’t rivet keyboard to top-case in notebooks, don’t glue battery to top case, don’t link modular components that are disabled if one component needs to be replaced, don’t solder modular parts to boards.
Just this last week the RAM went bad in my father’s babied new MacBook Pro. In the trash it goes because what should have been a simple job is now a $500 repair. Even if recycled, that represents a LOT of wasted energy. I am finding ever more difficult to recommend ANY Apple products. I want to like Apple again but their design and practices are exceedingly anti-consumer and wasteful.
Instead of making devices that make no economic sense to repair, make designs that are easier (and less expensive) to repair. Few examples: don’t rivet keyboard to top-case in notebooks, don’t glue battery to top case, don’t link modular components that are disabled if one component needs to be replaced, don’t solder modular parts to boards.
Just this last week the RAM went bad in my father’s babied new MacBook Pro. In the trash it goes because what should have been a simple job is now a $500 repair. Even if recycled, that represents a LOT of wasted energy. I am finding ever more difficult to recommend ANY Apple products. I want to like Apple again but their design and practices are exceedingly anti-consumer and wasteful.
100% agree. And in addition to being less wasteful, repairability and upgradeability are much more pro-consumer as well.
I agree with Greenpeace on this. Apple has produced finely crafted, easily repairable products—it could and should once again.
'Efforts' to provide parts and service 5 years after cessation of manufacturing isn't stellar when we are not discussing products but models of same, often changed on an annual basis. Nor does this account for changes in software which oft effectively, and intentionally, obsolete a product sooner than a customer would like.
At the possible loss of some short term profit Apple should refocus on the core wishes and needs of its customers.
'Efforts' to provide parts and service 5 years after cessation of manufacturing isn't stellar when we are not discussing products but models of same, often changed on an annual basis. Nor does this account for changes in software which oft effectively, and intentionally, obsolete a product sooner than a customer would like.
At the possible loss of some short term profit Apple should refocus on the core wishes and needs of its customers.
But only for those smart enough or who care enough to look past the advertising.
[doublepost=1524173358][/doublepost]
Any engineer knows this is bunk. The issue is cost, not complexity. For example, sealing a case with screws instead of glue is not making the product more complex. This is not about having every little part in a socket, its about being able to open the device without having to glue it back to gather and about being able to buy replacement parts on whatever granularity Apple decides. Making an iPhone repairable has nothing to do with which parts are soldered in or whether there are connectors or soldered cables.
This is always laughable. We are told we need to get the latest and most eco-friendly automobiles because sustaining older cars is "bad for the environment" while applying the same logic to personal technology is the opposite. It is even more ridiculous considering how fast technology changes.
There will come a point in time when nearly the entire phone (device) is printed on a single wafer or medium. Do I want to force Apple to allow me to use tools that humans invented 1,000 years ago to "upgrade" or repair it? Greenpeace's mission is the same as many other dinosaur political lobbyists; market yourself as ahead of the curve, create outrage, and rake in cash to keep employing people perpetually. Greenpeace would complain about tech being unfriendly to the environment if it actually grew on a tree.
How about Greenpeace makes themselves more transparent and upgradable?
There will come a point in time when nearly the entire phone (device) is printed on a single wafer or medium. Do I want to force Apple to allow me to use tools that humans invented 1,000 years ago to "upgrade" or repair it? Greenpeace's mission is the same as many other dinosaur political lobbyists; market yourself as ahead of the curve, create outrage, and rake in cash to keep employing people perpetually. Greenpeace would complain about tech being unfriendly to the environment if it actually grew on a tree.
How about Greenpeace makes themselves more transparent and upgradable?
Oh how I wish Greenpeace would become irrelevant one day, this would mean we saved our planet.
This is a really stupid comment. They are right and aren’t just going to agree with you and your chosen corporation just to keep you happy.
Heck, I've been saying this for years. Somebody needs to design a cell phone line where the inside components can be swapped out and replaced, once they become obsolete. There is no need to keep wasting all the materials, scrapping them, and starting the process all over again, over and over and over, year after year after year.
Come up with one phone base design, and focus on swap-ability and internal upgradeability. Whether you leave it up to the consumers to do the replacing, or make it so that only an Apple tech can do it for them.
Soon, out landfills will be full of old dead carcasses of obsolete cell phones. Streets will be lined with the debris of cell phone carnage. Toilets will be backed up from all the silicone components.
Poor old Wall-e will be living a "prophesized" nightmare - FOR REAL!!!
Come up with one phone base design, and focus on swap-ability and internal upgradeability. Whether you leave it up to the consumers to do the replacing, or make it so that only an Apple tech can do it for them.
Soon, out landfills will be full of old dead carcasses of obsolete cell phones. Streets will be lined with the debris of cell phone carnage. Toilets will be backed up from all the silicone components.
Poor old Wall-e will be living a "prophesized" nightmare - FOR REAL!!!
I was going to construct a complex argument but decided it wouldn’t be worth it. You are just wrong. Apple used to produce upgradable kit and they should again. You can call people names. I could easily refer to you as an idiot for example but that doesn’t help things.
No they don’t. Despite advances in technology over the years many items are still not cost effective to repair. So they get recycled instead.
Should hard drives be made so they can be opened up, have internal parts replaced then sealed up to extend their life? Should SSDs be made so the flash chips can be desoldered and replaced when they go bad? This can be extended to just about any modern consumer electronic device. It’s simply not cost-effective to repair most devices.
The thing about Greenpeace is they’re more concerned with politics and image than going after the real polluters (which is why they single out Apple). They should actually be complaining about Samsung:
- They sell more phones in a year than Apple.
- Their phones are more difficult to repair than iPhones (especially their flagships).
- They lack a retail presence that offers customers walk-in repairs or drop-off recycling to capture devices.
- Most of the phones they sell are low-end $50 disposable phones. The kind people keep for a year and then throw away and replace with a new one when it quits working.
But Samsung doesn’t make as good a target as Apple.
Repairability can bring about its own concerns. What does an individual do with old, failed components that they replace? I bet it’s hard to find a place to take such components. In my area, they do an electronics recycling event like once a year. Now would a repair center recycle components since they work in large volumes? I bet so.
I don’t doubt there are ways to make things better, but I think sometimes the other solutions might be more harmful to the environment because individuals are much harder to regulate or predict than businesses. In my opinion, the sealed iPhone that must be serviced by an authorized repair center is likely far better for the environment. Being inconvenient for the user is a consequence. And there’s a reason most Android makers don’t have replaceable parts either—they’ve likely found that few customers care to do so.
I don’t doubt there are ways to make things better, but I think sometimes the other solutions might be more harmful to the environment because individuals are much harder to regulate or predict than businesses. In my opinion, the sealed iPhone that must be serviced by an authorized repair center is likely far better for the environment. Being inconvenient for the user is a consequence. And there’s a reason most Android makers don’t have replaceable parts either—they’ve likely found that few customers care to do so.
Wow, I never thought I would see the day where I agree with Greenpeace. Really, why can't we have a basic shell of a phone where the camera, screen, battery, memory and even the main board are all user replaceable? Yes, the phone might have to be 1mm thicker to accommodate this, but I think we can all agree that would be a small price to pay to be able to keep the phone and replace the components as needed. With this type of a setup the phone could last decades instead of years.
Of course this doesn't just apply to phones, but their computers as well.
Of course this doesn't just apply to phones, but their computers as well.
Upgradable is so old skewl. All-in one is so Apple and miniaturising and making consumer level is just the trend. The trend is your friend.
Endorse it, enjoy it, adopt it.
Simple, let Apple recycle those components, they could even provide a prepaid box to ship it back to them.
Additionally, most Goodwill donation centers accept all ewaste.
I'm sure they have things I agree with. Just overall my attitude is mind you own business. That's why I don't care about what Greenpeace thinks.
Longevity?
Apple will replace an out of warranty battery for a fixed price.
You can get current OS updates for a 4 year old phone.
Beyond four years technology has moved on.
Try to get OS update for an Android phone after two years....
Upgrade? How?
SMH!
Apple will replace an out of warranty battery for a fixed price.
You can get current OS updates for a 4 year old phone.
Beyond four years technology has moved on.
Try to get OS update for an Android phone after two years....
Upgrade? How?
SMH!