And this isn't just Apple, most brands are going the same route. Meanwhile world its sinking in garbage, but shareholders are happy I guess.
A part that 90% of people probably already own 10 of? Sounds like 10% more packaging and 90% less e-waste?
I mean I get the whole "non repairable is bad" argument but Apple stuff has great lifespan and good resale value, thereby being reused instead of junked when upgrading. And they accept devices for recycling, don't they?
Of course it could be better, but there are legitimate ways of looking at these things that aren't as unambiguously "Hypocritical" as you are asserting.
If you don't like glued on or soldered on parts, then don't buy a computer that has them. There's still a ton of options that have the features that you want. Why be bothered when manufacturers are making things that other people want?
No, not everyone has those parts since they purposedly changed the way the part works. I mean, look at Apple, chargers used to be USB Type-A -> Lightning and they the included cable from USB Type-C -> Lightning.
Move also made no sense since these chargers usually may not even outlast the person's device. In the end of the day you're causing more waste.
And yes, they do accept devices for recycling, what they do with them its unknown.
If you have a bunch of old USB A charger chances are you also have a suitable cable. Really it makes less sense giving people yet another USB A cable, considering the Mac lineup is now all USB C and so you don’t have to buy a cable to charge from/connect to your Mac.
Trying to account for what the original BoM would have been with one in the box is an impossible effort and not very useful. At the end of the day all you need to do is decide if the value provided by the product matches the price the company sells it at. If not, don't buy it. For me the brick adds no extra value so I don't have to account for it.
If I needed the brick and the extra $19 pushed me over the edge to not worth it then I would consider another phone.
Capitalism doesn't give you any extra points for being sustainable. If anything, it can interfere or be in direct opposition to making profits. You win at capitalism by making profits. A non-sustainable competitor will eat you, if you start worrying about the environment too much. So greenwashing is the way to go for most companies, in order to avoid boycotts, and people are ready to believe it because these problems are complex and people don't want to think that the stuff they buy are hurting the environment. This is a very foreseeable result, given the incentives.
Don't hate the player, hate the game. Demand change from the politicians.
The efficacy of different kinds of action is highly dependent on the existing structures, of course. That's not to say that nothing can be done, it's just a matter of choosing the right tool for the job and gathering up people to join the cause.
You can vote, run for office, participate in demonstrations, strikes or any kind of direct action. The possibilities are endless. No single method guarantees success for a movement and nobody knows what will happen in advance, but in general the bigger the mass of people participating, the higher the likelihood of success. But sitting on your ass and blaming companies is guaranteed to fail, if meaningful change to the system is what you want.
No, that is a stupid saying and people need to stop using. Unethical actions are unethical even if the "game" allows for it.
>> Demand change from the politicians.
No again, the solution to this problem is not some authoritarian government response, or even (which is implied by your indirect blame of capitalism for all the problems in the world) socialist economic model
>Capitalism doesn't give you any extra points for being sustainable.
Capitalism does not care about about sustainability or non-sustainable , non-sustainable companies are NOT givin a "competitive advantage" by capitalism.
In reality is current government regulations like provide non-sustainable companies with that advantage in the form of liability shields, and various other government programs written by big business for big business to ensure the status quo
You appeal to government authority is as misplaced as your blame of capitalism for all the problems
Yeah, but nobody cares what you think is unethical. If the game allows unethical moves to be made, they will be made, because people play to win. And you can cry and complain all you want, but people strive to play optimally, and unless you change the rules of the game, people will continue to play in ways that upset you if it suits them to.
> non-sustainable companies are NOT givin a "competitive advantage" by capitalism.
Yes they are. Or rather, companies that care one way or another are at a disadvantage relative to companies who will make the optimal choice independent of whether or not it is sustainable. If we want to encourage sustainability, we have to use legislation to re-align incentives such that sustainability is the optimal choice. Otherwise, corporations will continue to be unsustainable whenever it suits them.
> government programs written by big business for big business to ensure the status quo
xD
Dominant corporations don't need the government to help them stay on top. All they need is for the government to get out of the way. When you have money, you can use it to influence the market to make more money. That's how advertising works. That's how vertical integration and walled gardens like Apple's app store work. That's how mergers and corporate consolidation work. Money is power, and market share is power. The state is the only thing powerful enough to compete with corporations, which is why corporations spend so much money lobbying the government to de-regulate and back down.
Nobody says what Apple is doing is ethical, at least I sure didn't. The point is, the problem runs deeper than one company. The system has an incentive structure where companies benefit by doing as Apple does. It's like blaming a ball for rolling down a hill. If you don't want the ball to roll, go play on a level field.
>You appeal to government authority
You make this sound like I'm for some kind of dictatorship.
I firmly believe in a government democratically elected by the people. Even if the system is capitalist in nature, it should always be subservient to the will of the people. The governments should be tied to the will and interest of the people. Especially in the US it seems that the government acts for the corporate special interests. In that case, the solution is more democracy, not less.
>non-sustainable companies are NOT givin a "competitive advantage" by capitalism
So why are all the big companies ruining our climate then? What's the explanation? Random chance?
After using Android since around 2010 getting a midrange iPhone around 18 or so months ago was almost a revelation for me, so no, it is clearly not all marketing spin.
(Why? Even on a Note II or S7 Edge something as trivial as opening the camera would have me waiting. On my iPhone XR pressing the camera button brings up the camera more or less instantaneously. And there are also a number of small conveniences that are hard to really pinpoint like actually understanding when it is in my pocket and then not turn on and burn out my battery.)
Battery lasts all day (and it's 4 years old). Doesn't turn on when it's in my pocket.
These anecdotal "I switched to x and its waaay better" things always reek of bias.
That a 2017 phone is slower than a 2018 phone is obvious - plus you'd need to reset the s7 to factory defaults for fair(er) comparison.
I do support on iPhones (not an Apple employee) and I've never experienced the the vaunted "this is so much better" moment.
That said, if there was a decent Linux phone, I’d hop on it, warts and all. Pinephone or Librem are getting close.
To be fair, transitioning from any phone around the S7 era to an iPhone XR bought in 2020 would probably give you the same feeling of revelation.
The longest I've held on to a phone was the iPhone 7 Plus for ~4 years, but even after 2 and a 1/2 years it was starting to show it's age. By the time I got rid of it, a charge would last me a little over half a day from moderate use.
Maybe it was a bad time for Apple, but it was almost traumatic for me. They really did just use marketing to sell phones.
