yeah ... recycling programs that no one is taking advantage of must be apple's fault. and the UK gov't is not known for pissing away mountains of resources, why change the way your house runs when you can point a finger at something else to deflect the public's eye. The UK can do wonders in eliminating their trash problem but instead would rather blow their money on other short-term horse-s*&t.
yeah ... recycling programs that no one is taking advantage of must be apple's fault. and the UK gov't is not known for pissing away mountains of resources, why change the way your house runs when you can point a finger at something else to deflect the public's eye. The UK can do wonders in eliminating their trash problem but instead would rather blow their money on other short-term horse-s*&t.
Remember when only Apple was supplying PSUs with USB ports in them and separate cables while every other major vendor was not only using a connected cable and PSU but were also changing up the connector for seaming or every new generation or product type?
"Tech companies such as Apple have been found to glue and solder together internal components making any repair nearly impossible," says the report summary. "The EAC found that consumers do not have control over the products they own; they cannot take components out to repair themselves and they cannot access manuals on how issues can be fixed."
Repairability is not in itself a public good. Making life and work better is. Less environmental harm is. Use science to figure out what the real tradeoffs are. Making electronic devices more repairable conflicts with how long they last, how small and integrated the tech can be, how well it works, etc. etc.
It's a myth - I worked in the recycling centers. Most of them are wasted due to modular parts, not due to devices that are tightly soldiered which are actually more environmentally friendly.
Their handling of COVID has been a mess since day one.
The public is starting to see that they’re using the UK tax purse to enrich themselves and their mates (the latest multi-million pound medical supply contract has been given to the landlord of a pub frequented by the health secretary).
Car companies and investment banks are abandoning the country because of Brexit, which has been estimated to have already cost more than the total amount the country paid into the EU since the country joined.
And their usual trick of distracting the public by pointing the finger at darker people doesn’t seem to be working because Meghan Markle has left the country and Marcus Rashford (the MBE didn’t shut him up) is a national hero.
So they need a bigger target to stir hatred and distract the public from the mess they’ve made in order to avoid EU laws on tax avoidance which will hurt them and their backers.
There should be set by law how long producers have to support their
products in electronic industry as it is in car industry, at least in
Europe. If it is still valid, they were required to supply repair parts
10 years after end of production. With electronics it is a bit more
difficult I guess and other measures should be taken. When law set well
it could lead to design changes that would prevent obsoleting product
that soon. With iPhone or iPad adding more RAM could be enough and wiser
iOS updates as well.
I would slow down industry a bit probably but we are not in any race.
Technology can not make our lives better, just comfortable. And lazy.
Mac concerning, there would be enough longer OS support ass Macs tend to
last longer. My 2008 MBP died few month ago. Replaced with 2009 model,
with SSD, patched Mojave, works fine. I guess not many ppl throw
expensive Apple gear into bin or deposits. Of course if modern devices
are difficult or impossible to repair or expensive to repair the
article has some merit.
Cheap sh....s that last two years and are not worth of repair are problem.
When I die I'm likely to end up in a plot of earth 6 feet wide by 10 feet long. Which is more surface area than all the garbage I will ever create in my life since the garbage I create is put into a landfill that's 200 feet deep. My share of the garbage in that landfill will come to a few square inches (times 200 feet deep.) But I've never heard a single human being in my entire life complain about all that wasted space that my dead body will occupy for hundreds of years. Where are the environmentalists?
When I die I'm likely to end up in a plot of earth 6 feet wide by 10 feet long. Which is more surface area than all the garbage I will ever create in my life since the garbage I create is put into a landfill that's 200 feet deep. My share of the garbage in that landfill will come to a few square inches (times 200 feet deep.) But I've never heard a single human being in my entire life complain about all that wasted space that my dead body will occupy for hundreds of years. Where are the environmentalists?
When I die I'm likely to end up in a plot of earth 6 feet wide by 10 feet long. Which is more surface area than all the garbage I will ever create in my life since the garbage I create is put into a landfill that's 200 feet deep. My share of the garbage in that landfill will come to a few square inches (times 200 feet deep.) But I've never heard a single human being in my entire life complain about all that wasted space that my dead body will occupy for hundreds of years. Where are the environmentalists?
Are you for real?
Even as a joke this is mind bendingly stupid.
I gave real numbers. Which numbers do you disagree with?
When I die I'm likely to end up in a plot of earth 6 feet wide by 10 feet long. Which is more surface area than all the garbage I will ever create in my life since the garbage I create is put into a landfill that's 200 feet deep. My share of the garbage in that landfill will come to a few square inches (times 200 feet deep.) But I've never heard a single human being in my entire life complain about all that wasted space that my dead body will occupy for hundreds of years. Where are the environmentalists?
Are you for real?
Even as a joke this is mind bendingly stupid.
I gave real numbers. Which numbers do you disagree with?
The numbers aren't the problem, the premise is. If you're actually serious then you're even more of an idiot than I already took you for.
In principle, making devices more repairable and upgradeable will make them more expensive, bigger, heavier and less reliable (due to extra internal connectors, access panels and who knows what); that in turn makes them less desirable. If it is a worthwhile goal then it needs research to mitigate/remove those disadvantages. So the manufacturers must be motivated to fund and execute that research.
Why would the manufacturers spend money creating less desirable products? Without consumer pressure, that will have to be done through legislation, which will also create a level playing field for manufacturers (so no individual manufacturer could decide not to do it and thereby gain an advantage). For a similar example, think catalysts on cars: they are expensive items and the industry initially saw all sorts of undesirable consequences (eg increased fuel consumption). Legislation forced innovation and now we all have them and, I guess, rarely even think about them.
So perhaps governments should stop criticising manufacturers and frame some new regulations to steer them in the desired direction. It might even contribute to saving the planet.
Nobody has to have a “thin and small and as light as possible” mobile phone. This is the real question that several have mentioned already - is making a higher quality, closely integrated device more environmentally beneficial than a larger heavier one that is more repairable but less robust?
That end to end analysis is what needs real investigation. Something only needs repairing if it’s broken, making it better and of higher quality generally means it’s less likely to break. I’m sure I read years ago (when discussing TVs I think, but I believe it applies to electronics generally) that the most areas likely to fail are the connectors between different components. Better repairability, I would think, means a lot more connectors so what is the advantage long term if it increases the chance of the device failing and needing repair?
When I die I'm likely to end up in a plot of earth 6 feet wide by 10 feet long. Which is more surface area than all the garbage I will ever create in my life since the garbage I create is put into a landfill that's 200 feet deep. My share of the garbage in that landfill will come to a few square inches (times 200 feet deep.) But I've never heard a single human being in my entire life complain about all that wasted space that my dead body will occupy for hundreds of years. Where are the environmentalists?
Are you for real?
Even as a joke this is mind bendingly stupid.
I gave real numbers. Which numbers do you disagree with?
The numbers aren't the problem, the premise is. If you're actually serious then you're even more of an idiot than I already took you for.
I suspect you're just trolling though.
Once again, you fail to explain yourself and expect everyone to mind-read your point. I suppose there's no point in asking what "premise" you are talking about because once again you will refuse to explain yourself. And the fact that you resort to name-calling doesn't make me look bad at all. Since you won't believe anything I say there's no point in telling you I wasn't trolling, but I mention that for the more reasonable people who read this.
Remember that story about someone arrested for "stealing" iPhones for repair and resale that Apple wanted melted down? That pretty much is all you need to know about Apple's commitment to the environment.
You are going to be filthy rich. You imply that recycling is possible without melting down the components. I am excited that you have discovered a new revolutionary recycling method where the melting is not required! Please share with the world! Let’s spread your awesome invention! This is awesome. You will become the tycoon.
When I die I'm likely to end up in a plot of earth 6 feet wide by 10 feet long. Which is more surface area than all the garbage I will ever create in my life since the garbage I create is put into a landfill that's 200 feet deep. My share of the garbage in that landfill will come to a few square inches (times 200 feet deep.) But I've never heard a single human being in my entire life complain about all that wasted space that my dead body will occupy for hundreds of years. Where are the environmentalists?
Are you for real?
Even as a joke this is mind bendingly stupid.
I gave real numbers. Which numbers do you disagree with?
The numbers aren't the problem, the premise is. If you're actually serious then you're even more of an idiot than I already took you for.
I suspect you're just trolling though.
Once again, you fail to explain yourself and expect everyone to mind-read your point. I suppose there's no point in asking what "premise" you are talking about because once again you will refuse to explain yourself. And the fact that you resort to name-calling doesn't make me look bad at all. Since you won't believe anything I say there's no point in telling you I wasn't trolling, but I mention that for the more reasonable people who read this.
No time for your whataboutism.
Your grave has nothing to do with the subject of environmental waste. "Surface area" is not something environmentalists are particularly focused on, particularly when you're talking about things that are buried. Organic waste is a vastly different proposition than industrial and commercial waste. Cemeteries are generally quite lush with vegetation.
There are a few starters for the litany of reasons why your post was utterly stupid, and a ridiculous attempt to troll the thread. Stop this shit.
Remember that story about someone arrested for "stealing" iPhones for repair and resale that Apple wanted melted down? That pretty much is all you need to know about Apple's commitment to the environment.
That someone wasn't "stealing" iPhones, they were STEALING iPhones. They were taking something that didn't belong to them. No scare quotes. That's pretty much all we need to know about your commitment to truthfulness and accuracy.
When I die I'm likely to end up in a plot of earth 6 feet wide by 10 feet long. Which is more surface area than all the garbage I will ever create in my life since the garbage I create is put into a landfill that's 200 feet deep. My share of the garbage in that landfill will come to a few square inches (times 200 feet deep.) But I've never heard a single human being in my entire life complain about all that wasted space that my dead body will occupy for hundreds of years. Where are the environmentalists?
Are you for real?
Even as a joke this is mind bendingly stupid.
I gave real numbers. Which numbers do you disagree with?
The numbers aren't the problem, the premise is. If you're actually serious then you're even more of an idiot than I already took you for.
I suspect you're just trolling though.
Once again, you fail to explain yourself and expect everyone to mind-read your point. I suppose there's no point in asking what "premise" you are talking about because once again you will refuse to explain yourself. And the fact that you resort to name-calling doesn't make me look bad at all. Since you won't believe anything I say there's no point in telling you I wasn't trolling, but I mention that for the more reasonable people who read this.
No time for your whataboutism.
Your grave has nothing to do with the subject of environmental waste. "Surface area" is not something environmentalists are particularly focused on, particularly when you're talking about things that are buried. Organic waste is a vastly different proposition than industrial and commercial waste. Cemeteries are generally quite lush with vegetation.
There are a few starters for the litany of reasons why your post was utterly stupid, and a ridiculous attempt to troll the thread. Stop this shit.
Now you are actually trying to make a point, and I congratulate you for saying something useful for a change. I'm almost impressed. But if you read the original article, the article was focussed on the amount of space that the waste was taking up:
The Environmental Audit Committee notes that the UK creates the "second highest" amount of electronic waste in the world. It also says that the country may be illegally exporting around 40% of its e-waste to overseas. "A lot of it goes to landfill, incineration or is dumped overseas," it says.
I guess you didn't read that part of the article. But this is what my post was addressing, the stated concern in the original article. And I guess you also don't follow the news much, because landfill debates are some of the hottest topics in the two countries that I'm most familiar with. It's such a hot topic that they've introduced recycling bins and pickup in order to reduce the amount of material that goes into landfills, just like the original article was talking about. My point was that the amount of waste we create doesn't take up as much space as our own bodies when we die. It was completely relevant to the points made in this article. But it doesn't suit your agenda so you have to resort to name calling.
When I die I'm likely to end up in a plot of earth 6 feet wide by 10 feet long. Which is more surface area than all the garbage I will ever create in my life since the garbage I create is put into a landfill that's 200 feet deep. My share of the garbage in that landfill will come to a few square inches (times 200 feet deep.) But I've never heard a single human being in my entire life complain about all that wasted space that my dead body will occupy for hundreds of years. Where are the environmentalists?
Are you for real?
Even as a joke this is mind bendingly stupid.
I gave real numbers. Which numbers do you disagree with?
The numbers aren't the problem, the premise is. If you're actually serious then you're even more of an idiot than I already took you for.
I suspect you're just trolling though.
Once again, you fail to explain yourself and expect everyone to mind-read your point. I suppose there's no point in asking what "premise" you are talking about because once again you will refuse to explain yourself. And the fact that you resort to name-calling doesn't make me look bad at all. Since you won't believe anything I say there's no point in telling you I wasn't trolling, but I mention that for the more reasonable people who read this.
No time for your whataboutism.
Your grave has nothing to do with the subject of environmental waste. "Surface area" is not something environmentalists are particularly focused on, particularly when you're talking about things that are buried. Organic waste is a vastly different proposition than industrial and commercial waste. Cemeteries are generally quite lush with vegetation.
There are a few starters for the litany of reasons why your post was utterly stupid, and a ridiculous attempt to troll the thread. Stop this shit.
Now you are actually trying to make a point, and I congratulate you for saying something useful for a change. I'm almost impressed. But if you read the original article, the article was focussed on the amount of space that the waste was taking up:
The Environmental Audit Committee notes that the UK creates the "second highest" amount of electronic waste in the world. It also says that the country may be illegally exporting around 40% of its e-waste to overseas. "A lot of it goes to landfill, incineration or is dumped overseas," it says.
I guess you didn't read that part of the article. But this is what my post was addressing, the stated concern in the original article. And I guess you also don't follow the news much, because landfill debates are some of the hottest topics in the two countries that I'm most familiar with. It's such a hot topic that they've introduced recycling bins and pickup in order to reduce the amount of material that goes into landfills, just like the original article was talking about. My point was that the amount of waste we create doesn't take up as much space as our own bodies when we die. It was completely relevant to the points made in this article. But it doesn't suit your agenda so you have to resort to name calling.
You haven't addressed a single one of my reasons for dismissing you, and the overall point stands, you're distracting from the topic by posting barely related, irrelevant and laughable nonsense. Grave plots ffs. And "the amount of waste we create doesn't take up as much space as our own bodies when we die" besides being irrelevant is patently untrue, since space is three dimensional.
You're a troll, and will be treated as such. Shut up.
It’s not Apple or Amazon’s fault it’s American wasteful culture responsible for tsunami electronic waste! Americans don’t care they throw away electronics by the pound, because they can buy new every year without any repercussions!
It’s not Apple or Amazon’s fault it’s American wasteful culture responsible for tsunami electronic waste! Americans don’t care they throw away electronics by the pound, because they can buy new every year without any repercussions!
So the EU and UK laws are because of American waste.
Comments
I would slow down industry a bit probably but we are not in any race. Technology can not make our lives better, just comfortable. And lazy.
Mac concerning, there would be enough longer OS support ass Macs tend to last longer. My 2008 MBP died few month ago. Replaced with 2009 model, with SSD, patched Mojave, works fine. I guess not many ppl throw expensive Apple gear into bin or deposits. Of course if modern devices are difficult or impossible to repair or expensive to repair the article has some merit.
Cheap sh....s that last two years and are not worth of repair are problem.
Even as a joke this is mind bendingly stupid.
I suspect you're just trolling though.
Why would the manufacturers spend money creating less desirable products? Without consumer pressure, that will have to be done through legislation, which will also create a level playing field for manufacturers (so no individual manufacturer could decide not to do it and thereby gain an advantage). For a similar example, think catalysts on cars: they are expensive items and the industry initially saw all sorts of undesirable consequences (eg increased fuel consumption). Legislation forced innovation and now we all have them and, I guess, rarely even think about them.
So perhaps governments should stop criticising manufacturers and frame some new regulations to steer them in the desired direction. It might even contribute to saving the planet.
That end to end analysis is what needs real investigation. Something only needs repairing if it’s broken, making it better and of higher quality generally means it’s less likely to break. I’m sure I read years ago (when discussing TVs I think, but I believe it applies to electronics generally) that the most areas likely to fail are the connectors between different components. Better repairability, I would think, means a lot more connectors so what is the advantage long term if it increases the chance of the device failing and needing repair?
i don’t know, but I think it needs looking into.
You imply that recycling is possible without melting down the components.
I am excited that you have discovered a new revolutionary recycling method where the melting is not required! Please share with the world! Let’s spread your awesome invention! This is awesome. You will become the tycoon.
Your grave has nothing to do with the subject of environmental waste.
"Surface area" is not something environmentalists are particularly focused on, particularly when you're talking about things that are buried.
Organic waste is a vastly different proposition than industrial and commercial waste.
Cemeteries are generally quite lush with vegetation.
There are a few starters for the litany of reasons why your post was utterly stupid, and a ridiculous attempt to troll the thread. Stop this shit.
I guess you didn't read that part of the article. But this is what my post was addressing, the stated concern in the original article. And I guess you also don't follow the news much, because landfill debates are some of the hottest topics in the two countries that I'm most familiar with. It's such a hot topic that they've introduced recycling bins and pickup in order to reduce the amount of material that goes into landfills, just like the original article was talking about. My point was that the amount of waste we create doesn't take up as much space as our own bodies when we die. It was completely relevant to the points made in this article. But it doesn't suit your agenda so you have to resort to name calling.
You're a troll, and will be treated as such. Shut up.