Good for the bottom line Bad for the environment Let's see what Apple's real motivation is
In answer to several people who didn’t seem to understand what I was getting at with my first post:
REDUCE, Reuse, Recycle The most important one of the three is Reduce. Reduce the amount you use. Reduce the frequency you replace things. Reduce the amount of old discards you make. No matter how completely Apple recycles old devices. No matter how efficient they make the process, it’s ALWAYS going to be better for the environment for people to use things longer. Certainly recycle them when they no longer function, but use them until they don’t
I realize the general public may have a negative view of the “product as a service” model Apple is said to be striving for, however this business model is the best possible chance we have for saving our planet and reducing the amount of new materials that need to be mined and then just thrown away in the form of e-waste. Every manufacture should be required to take their old products back and recycle as much of the material as possible. Creating this closed loop system can be read about in the book “Cradle to Cradle” which explains this system and how for decades these companies have been making billions while we the public are forced to deal with their waste from cheaply made throw away products. I wish apple would talk about this policy more and explain to the public how valuable a tool this can be for fighting climate change.
It does nothing if the kind, simply because turnover increases. Sure you get rid of old, more polluting stuff quicker to start with, but you also end up regularly getting rid of not so old less polluting stuff quicker too. That has costs that cannot be discounted.
What it does do is enrich to corporate/politically connected elite who end up owning everything and the great mass of the unwashed who own nothing but the risk of losing everything if they have the temerity to step out of line.
The sort of thing that leads to Morlocks and Eoli.
I just hope Apple will not turn into another Adobe. Forcing customers to rent than own. I used photoshop and Lightroom once in awhile, it makes no sense to me to only use it 3 times a year while I have to pay for whole year. If I only rent it when i need it, I will be locked out the access to my own file. It makes no sense.
But I know Apple is not that stupid to only offer rental. And an iPhone or Mac is not like a image app that you will use it once in awhile. Pretty much everyone use it everyday for many times.
Rest assured, there is no universe where Apple forces you to rent your gear. Monthly fees for services, and purchase prices for hardware will always exist.
Agree on SaaS, where devs want you to rent the software. For enterprise that's fine, but as a consumer I don't do it for the reasons you've stated. I rarely need the latest % greatest at all times. Devs always extoll how nice it is recurring billing is for their budget planning -- yeah well duh, every business on earth wants that...but that doesn't mean it's aligned with the customer's needs. The dev shop Panic seems to get it best -- when you buy their new titles you own them outright, but updates ends after 12 months, then you can pay a reduced fee for each year, or let it lapse and keep what you have. Nothing's perfect but this seems like a reasonable compromise.
Leasing is what my father called 'The Never, Never'. You never stop paying and you never own what you paid for.
IANAL etc but if Apple want to paint a big target for the Anti-trust hawks in the state capitals and DC (As well as in the EU etc) then this is it.
Let others do this but don't risk them coming after you with some really, really hefty fines and breakup orders.
Even stop advertising. Then customers will be making their own choices.
Every of these 3 paragraphs is such nonsense.
But that’s OK. I understand why you are believing it. You grew up in this environment. And you continue to think in the same patterns you heard from somebody else.
(And I heard this thought from some one as well. So I am not that much different).
I just hope Apple will not turn into another Adobe. Forcing customers to rent than own. I used photoshop and Lightroom once in awhile, it makes no sense to me to only use it 3 times a year while I have to pay for whole year. If I only rent it when i need it, I will be locked out the access to my own file. It makes no sense.
But I know Apple is not that stupid to only offer rental. And an iPhone or Mac is not like a image app that you will use it once in awhile. Pretty much everyone use it everyday for many times.
Rest assured, there is no universe where Apple forces you to rent your gear. Monthly fees for services, and purchase prices for hardware will always exist.
Agree on SaaS, where devs want you to rent the software. For enterprise that's fine, but as a consumer I don't do it for the reasons you've stated. I rarely need the latest % greatest at all times. Devs always extoll how nice it is recurring billing is for their budget planning -- yeah well duh, every business on earth wants that...but that doesn't mean it's aligned with the customer's needs. The dev shop Panic seems to get it best -- when you buy their new titles you own them outright, but updates ends after 12 months, then you can pay a reduced fee for each year, or let it lapse and keep what you have. Nothing's perfect but this seems like a reasonable compromise.
A few of our prosoftware vendors are the same. Buy new with 12months access to updates and a few bonus cloud-based software features. The subscription gets you yearly feature release and continued access to cloud services. Stop paying software still works as well as it did last day even occasionally you'll get a late service pack like the Big Sur one they released for last 3 versions.
So subscription fee and same again towards new hardware each year keeps you current but no hit to productivity if you have a lean year.
These aren’t “consumer trends”. This is an abusive model forced upon customers given no other choice, or lured in by a failure to do the math. Businesses excused it as an expense. None of this is “consumer choice”.
I will NEVER subscribe. If it becomes the only path forward with some Apple product, I will stop at which ever version was the last one not demanding subscription.
Comments
REDUCE, Reuse, Recycle
The most important one of the three is Reduce. Reduce the amount you use. Reduce the frequency you replace things. Reduce the amount of old discards you make.
No matter how completely Apple recycles old devices. No matter how efficient they make the process, it’s ALWAYS going to be better for the environment for people to use things longer. Certainly recycle them when they no longer function, but use them until they don’t
What it does do is enrich to corporate/politically connected elite who end up owning everything and the great mass of the unwashed who own nothing but the risk of losing everything if they have the temerity to step out of line.
Agree on SaaS, where devs want you to rent the software. For enterprise that's fine, but as a consumer I don't do it for the reasons you've stated. I rarely need the latest % greatest at all times. Devs always extoll how nice it is recurring billing is for their budget planning -- yeah well duh, every business on earth wants that...but that doesn't mean it's aligned with the customer's needs. The dev shop Panic seems to get it best -- when you buy their new titles you own them outright, but updates ends after 12 months, then you can pay a reduced fee for each year, or let it lapse and keep what you have. Nothing's perfect but this seems like a reasonable compromise.
I will NEVER subscribe. If it becomes the only path forward with some Apple product, I will stop at which ever version was the last one not demanding subscription.