Apple FineWoven case review: Not the leather replacement we were hoping for

124»

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 80
    petripetri Posts: 118member
    “It doesn't wrap the sides, but instead gives way to plastic sides.

    Those sides are slightly textured, mimicking that of the FineWoven material. They add a bit of extra grip without extra bulk.

    Probably a minor point but according to ifixit’s teardown (yes really) the sides are also Finewoven.  They’re just coated with a layer of resin to add grippiness - but the “slight texture” you feel is the same finewoven material underneath that.
  • Reply 62 of 80
    macgui said:
    Hreb said:
    Sorry Andrew -- I'm very interested in whether my next Apple watch band should be leather or FineWoven and unfortunately this review strains credibility.  You report snags, lint, stains, scratches, and other durability issues.  But every photo in the review shows a brand-new, nice looking FineWoven case.  It's a physical product, show the photos!  TTIUWP.
    If you want something more real-time, feel free to head into an Apple Store. They change them daily, and they still look terrible after a few hours.
    From normal use? Or from people intentionally trying to stress the material? I guarantee you that if you handed me your leather iPhone case I could put some rather large scratches into it with my fingernails in a matter of seconds. 
    That is a dumbass comparison. This obviously isn't about either case standing up to deliberate abuse. Even if it was, the leather would still be more durable than a fabric case. 
    LOL...deliberate abuse is EXACTLY what people are talking about. Nobody on YouTube is doing a 1,000 repetitions of normally placing the phone into their pocket and taking it out. If someone posts photos of the cases from an Apple Store display and they look like someone ran their fingernails all over them then guess what? Someone DID deliberately run their fingernails over the cases to damage them. 
    edited September 2023 williamlondon
  • Reply 63 of 80
    By the sounds of this forum, it looks like Apple
    has more refining to do. 
    Not really. AI once claimed that the hinge on the MagSafe Duo charger would fail after opening/closing the device a couple hundred times. 

    https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/12/04/review-magsafe-duo-is-almost-everything-you-need-but-has-too-many-compromises

    "AppleInsider partnered with a testing lab in the metro Washington DC area to test the hinge. With one fold made every nine seconds in a lab at 19C, with a fan pointing directly at the device to minimize the impact of heat, the lab found that the hinge started to break down at 180 folds and ultimately failed at 212."

    Did that claim turn out to be true? Nope. 
    williamlondon
  • Reply 64 of 80
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 6,818administrator
    By the sounds of this forum, it looks like Apple
    has more refining to do. 
    Not really. AI once claimed that the hinge on the MagSafe Duo charger would fail after opening/closing the device a couple hundred times. 

    https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/12/04/review-magsafe-duo-is-almost-everything-you-need-but-has-too-many-compromises

    "AppleInsider partnered with a testing lab in the metro Washington DC area to test the hinge. With one fold made every nine seconds in a lab at 19C, with a fan pointing directly at the device to minimize the impact of heat, the lab found that the hinge started to break down at 180 folds and ultimately failed at 212."

    Did that claim turn out to be true? Nope. 
    Dunno, man. Based on the service data we collect, the MagSafe Duo has a very high service call rate for plastic cracks and replacement. More in number than any other Apple accessory for every reason, combined, including first-generation HomePods.

    And we were right about compromises. It didn't fit some of the later phones with larger camera bumps.

    edited September 2023 muthuk_vanalingamOctoMonkeywilliamlondon
  • Reply 65 of 80
    By the sounds of this forum, it looks like Apple
    has more refining to do. 
    Not really. AI once claimed that the hinge on the MagSafe Duo charger would fail after opening/closing the device a couple hundred times. 

    https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/12/04/review-magsafe-duo-is-almost-everything-you-need-but-has-too-many-compromises

    "AppleInsider partnered with a testing lab in the metro Washington DC area to test the hinge. With one fold made every nine seconds in a lab at 19C, with a fan pointing directly at the device to minimize the impact of heat, the lab found that the hinge started to break down at 180 folds and ultimately failed at 212."

    Did that claim turn out to be true? Nope. 
    Dunno, man. Based on the service data we collect, the MagSafe Duo has a very high service call rate for plastic cracks and replacement. More in number than any other Apple accessory for every reason, combined, including first-generation HomePods.
    I'm noticing that you're not specifying the hinge there.  ;) 
    williamlondon
  • Reply 66 of 80
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 6,818administrator
    By the sounds of this forum, it looks like Apple
    has more refining to do. 
    Not really. AI once claimed that the hinge on the MagSafe Duo charger would fail after opening/closing the device a couple hundred times. 

    https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/12/04/review-magsafe-duo-is-almost-everything-you-need-but-has-too-many-compromises

    "AppleInsider partnered with a testing lab in the metro Washington DC area to test the hinge. With one fold made every nine seconds in a lab at 19C, with a fan pointing directly at the device to minimize the impact of heat, the lab found that the hinge started to break down at 180 folds and ultimately failed at 212."

    Did that claim turn out to be true? Nope. 
    Dunno, man. Based on the service data we collect, the MagSafe Duo has a very high service call rate for plastic cracks and replacement. More in number than any other Apple accessory for every reason, combined, including first-generation HomePods.
    I'm noticing that you're not specifying the hinge there.  ;) 
    I would if I could. The category of failure we're provided isn't granular enough, but fatigue is the most likely mode of failure here.
    williamlondon
  • Reply 67 of 80
    By the sounds of this forum, it looks like Apple
    has more refining to do. 
    Not really. AI once claimed that the hinge on the MagSafe Duo charger would fail after opening/closing the device a couple hundred times. 

    https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/12/04/review-magsafe-duo-is-almost-everything-you-need-but-has-too-many-compromises

    "AppleInsider partnered with a testing lab in the metro Washington DC area to test the hinge. With one fold made every nine seconds in a lab at 19C, with a fan pointing directly at the device to minimize the impact of heat, the lab found that the hinge started to break down at 180 folds and ultimately failed at 212."

    Did that claim turn out to be true? Nope. 
    Dunno, man. Based on the service data we collect, the MagSafe Duo has a very high service call rate for plastic cracks and replacement. More in number than any other Apple accessory for every reason, combined, including first-generation HomePods.
    I'm noticing that you're not specifying the hinge there.  ;) 
    I would if I could. The category of failure we're provided isn't granular enough, but fatigue is the most likely mode of failure here.
    A hinge that failed after two hundred uses wouldn't just result in a "high service call rate". And you're not even providing the rate. 
    williamlondon
  • Reply 68 of 80
    gatorguy said:
    Xed said:
    sbdude said:
    Xed said:
    doggone said:
    longfang said:
    williamh said:
    I saw the finewoven case at the Pentagon City Apple Store on Friday and it seemed not that high quality and overpriced.  I'd prefer the silicone case to finewoven.  

    Honestly asking, what is the environmental issue with the leather case?   The leather cases are reusing the wrapping from my beef, it's not like cows are produced to use for iPhone cases and the meat is an afterthought is it?   Is the process of making the leather and using it worse than just composting the cow hides?  What is it?  I know my tone might seem snarky but seriously isn't there just an enormous amount of cowhide out there?  Wouldn't an iPhone case be better than tossing it?
    The chemicals and water used during the tanning process would probably be a big part of it.
    I agree, leather is a by product of the food industry.  It also is a natural product and ages extremely well.  I've had the Apple leather case for 2 years and it is only now starting to break up at the edges after a lot of abuse.
    I will be looking for a leather case from another provider.  Any suggestions?  I saw someone mention Nomad
    That isn't quote correct. The hide is a byproduct of the food industry, but the tanning process to make leather is a different story and I don't know of a single mass producer that has used so-called "natural" methods for tanning these days. Even if we did use some old-timey "natural" methods, like scraping oak bark for its tannins, that has a cost. What is the ratio of cut oak trees for its various uses in lumber to the amount of bark obtained? Is there a chemical option that can be created that would do a better job at a lower cost? What other ingredients and byproducts are created to create leather? How much of the tanned leather is wasted (something I've noticed happens so that the material is consistent for the entire piece needed)?

    I can't say whether leather produced at an industrial scale is or isn't better for the environment than reusing discarded plastics, but I can't say it's better simply because one initial aspect of it is a byproduct of another industry or that someone calls it "natural". There's a lot of date to crunch to get an informed answer.

    There are any number of leather purveyors that don't use arsenic, cobalt, or other chemicals in tanning. Check Bridge of Weir. The leather used in BMW i4s and Polestar 2s use natural tanning. So the argument begins to fall flat at scale.
    1) You need to supply scale numbers to show that the options you mention are comparable.

    2) Again, the use of "natural' doesn't saying anything except check a box for a marketing buzzword. How do they tan? What is the current overall and longterm environmental cost of using leather from start to finish v reclaimed materials?
    Seriously? If BMW can do it with much more leather needed for a car interior, why would it be impossible for Apple to source cases?

    BTW, look into how Horween leather is tanned. Phone cases using their leather should definitely be more friendly to the environment. 
    These cases are made of 67% recycled materials. That alone makes them more environmentally friendly than any leather. 

    Also, using BMW as the example of scale is misleading. 
    They sell around 2.5 million vehicles a year most of which are their entry level models that don’t use leather interiors. The remainder are sold with various types leather. The two models you mentioned are EVs. I couldn’t find a world wide sales number for them but in the US they sold 15k EVs last year. This is not an example of scale. 
    edited September 2023 williamlondon
  • Reply 69 of 80
    Jim_MAY said:
    The carbon-neutral products are not up to Apple standards. I've returned my Nike watch. The Nike sports band was horrible. Nothing like the previous bands. No durability either way. I'd be replacing this every 3 to 4 months with everyday use. 

    Where is the benefit of being carbon neutral when you have to replace the item every few months? 
    Well in all fairness, who ever said there was a benefit? I mean a real-world, tangible benefit. It's never been about anything other than virtue signaling.
    williamlondonOctoMonkey
  • Reply 70 of 80
    I think this cases sums up Tim Cook's Apple in a big way. 
    Actually I think you comment says more about *you* than anything you imagine it says.
  • Reply 71 of 80
    macguimacgui Posts: 2,344member
    macgui said:
    Hreb said:
    Sorry Andrew -- I'm very interested in whether my next Apple watch band should be leather or FineWoven and unfortunately this review strains credibility.  You report snags, lint, stains, scratches, and other durability issues.  But every photo in the review shows a brand-new, nice looking FineWoven case.  It's a physical product, show the photos!  TTIUWP.
    If you want something more real-time, feel free to head into an Apple Store. They change them daily, and they still look terrible after a few hours.
    From normal use? Or from people intentionally trying to stress the material? I guarantee you that if you handed me your leather iPhone case I could put some rather large scratches into it with my fingernails in a matter of seconds. 
    That is a dumbass comparison. This obviously isn't about either case standing up to deliberate abuse. Even if it was, the leather would still be more durable than a fabric case. 
    LOL...deliberate abuse is EXACTLY what people are talking about. Nobody on YouTube is doing a 1,000 repetitions of normally placing the phone into their pocket and taking it out. If someone posts photos of the cases from an Apple Store display and they look like someone ran their fingernails all over them then guess what? Someone DID deliberately run their fingernails over the cases to damage them. 
    You're moving goal posts. Deliberate abuse is NOT what this article is talking about. You changed that for whatever reason. The article is EXACTLY talking about normal wear and tear and long term reliability compared to leather.

    So IF someone posts SOME photo(s) of deliberate abuse, it's STILL irrelevant to the article. We haven't seen what these cases look like with customers handling them all day long. That someone else somewhere else is talking about deliberate damage doesn't matter unless the discussion isn't about long term durability but the ability to resist vandalism. You're the one who tried to derail the focus.
    gatorguy
  • Reply 72 of 80
    Seems like Apple never took into consideration how many times a day people handle their phones and the fact that people keep their phone in their pocket as well as putting it down on rough surfaces
     these fine woven cases are not meant for the everyday wear and tear that iPhones go through 
    IMHO  this is a test by  Apple
    to see if people will tolerate sub par accessories  

    Don’t waste your time or money buying a fine woven cases

    williamlondon
  • Reply 73 of 80
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 15,271moderator
    The Verge posted a video about scratching the finewoven case:



    If people are careful with it, it won't get scratched much but the reason for using a case is to not have to worry about it and people with long nails can be scratching it picking it up and holding it. Apple can always use a different strength fabric. The following fabric cases probably wouldn't show scratches as much:

    https://www.youtube.com/shorts/nzpU6WK7ISk

    They can also use glass instead of fabric as a sustainable material with soft sides for grip:



    https://www.youtube.com/shorts/d4BS7sH1rqI

    Frosted glass, tinted glass, glass with paint or fabric under it, glass with custom laser etching.

    https://www.youtube.com/shorts/JicpDgvMMNU

    They can make it pretty thin so it doesn't have to be heavy and it will be durable and offer enough protection for the phone while also not interfering with wireless charging, wifi, bluetooth:


  • Reply 74 of 80
    MplsPMplsP Posts: 3,890member
    gatorguy said:
    Xed said:
    sbdude said:
    Xed said:
    doggone said:
    longfang said:
    williamh said:
    I saw the finewoven case at the Pentagon City Apple Store on Friday and it seemed not that high quality and overpriced.  I'd prefer the silicone case to finewoven.  

    Honestly asking, what is the environmental issue with the leather case?   The leather cases are reusing the wrapping from my beef, it's not like cows are produced to use for iPhone cases and the meat is an afterthought is it?   Is the process of making the leather and using it worse than just composting the cow hides?  What is it?  I know my tone might seem snarky but seriously isn't there just an enormous amount of cowhide out there?  Wouldn't an iPhone case be better than tossing it?
    The chemicals and water used during the tanning process would probably be a big part of it.
    I agree, leather is a by product of the food industry.  It also is a natural product and ages extremely well.  I've had the Apple leather case for 2 years and it is only now starting to break up at the edges after a lot of abuse.
    I will be looking for a leather case from another provider.  Any suggestions?  I saw someone mention Nomad
    That isn't quote correct. The hide is a byproduct of the food industry, but the tanning process to make leather is a different story and I don't know of a single mass producer that has used so-called "natural" methods for tanning these days. Even if we did use some old-timey "natural" methods, like scraping oak bark for its tannins, that has a cost. What is the ratio of cut oak trees for its various uses in lumber to the amount of bark obtained? Is there a chemical option that can be created that would do a better job at a lower cost? What other ingredients and byproducts are created to create leather? How much of the tanned leather is wasted (something I've noticed happens so that the material is consistent for the entire piece needed)?

    I can't say whether leather produced at an industrial scale is or isn't better for the environment than reusing discarded plastics, but I can't say it's better simply because one initial aspect of it is a byproduct of another industry or that someone calls it "natural". There's a lot of date to crunch to get an informed answer.

    There are any number of leather purveyors that don't use arsenic, cobalt, or other chemicals in tanning. Check Bridge of Weir. The leather used in BMW i4s and Polestar 2s use natural tanning. So the argument begins to fall flat at scale.
    1) You need to supply scale numbers to show that the options you mention are comparable.

    2) Again, the use of "natural' doesn't saying anything except check a box for a marketing buzzword. How do they tan? What is the current overall and longterm environmental cost of using leather from start to finish v reclaimed materials?
    Seriously? If BMW can do it with much more leather needed for a car interior, why would it be impossible for Apple to source cases?

    BTW, look into how Horween leather is tanned. Phone cases using their leather should definitely be more friendly to the environment. 
    These cases are made of 67% recycled materials. That alone makes them more environmentally friendly than any leather. 

    Also, using BMW as the example of scale is misleading. 
    They sell around 2.5 million vehicles a year most of which are their entry level models that don’t use leather interiors. The remainder are sold with various types leather. The two models you mentioned are EVs. I couldn’t find a world wide sales number for them but in the US they sold 15k EVs last year. This is not an example of scale. 
    Are they more environmentally friendly, though? Leather is renewable and although the fabric is recycled we don’t know the cost of doing so. 

    As far as BMW goes, the comparison isn’t about pure numbers - how many phone cases can you make from the leather in a single car?
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 75 of 80
    XedXed Posts: 2,465member
    MplsP said:
    gatorguy said:
    Xed said:
    sbdude said:
    Xed said:
    doggone said:
    longfang said:
    williamh said:
    I saw the finewoven case at the Pentagon City Apple Store on Friday and it seemed not that high quality and overpriced.  I'd prefer the silicone case to finewoven.  

    Honestly asking, what is the environmental issue with the leather case?   The leather cases are reusing the wrapping from my beef, it's not like cows are produced to use for iPhone cases and the meat is an afterthought is it?   Is the process of making the leather and using it worse than just composting the cow hides?  What is it?  I know my tone might seem snarky but seriously isn't there just an enormous amount of cowhide out there?  Wouldn't an iPhone case be better than tossing it?
    The chemicals and water used during the tanning process would probably be a big part of it.
    I agree, leather is a by product of the food industry.  It also is a natural product and ages extremely well.  I've had the Apple leather case for 2 years and it is only now starting to break up at the edges after a lot of abuse.
    I will be looking for a leather case from another provider.  Any suggestions?  I saw someone mention Nomad
    That isn't quote correct. The hide is a byproduct of the food industry, but the tanning process to make leather is a different story and I don't know of a single mass producer that has used so-called "natural" methods for tanning these days. Even if we did use some old-timey "natural" methods, like scraping oak bark for its tannins, that has a cost. What is the ratio of cut oak trees for its various uses in lumber to the amount of bark obtained? Is there a chemical option that can be created that would do a better job at a lower cost? What other ingredients and byproducts are created to create leather? How much of the tanned leather is wasted (something I've noticed happens so that the material is consistent for the entire piece needed)?

    I can't say whether leather produced at an industrial scale is or isn't better for the environment than reusing discarded plastics, but I can't say it's better simply because one initial aspect of it is a byproduct of another industry or that someone calls it "natural". There's a lot of date to crunch to get an informed answer.

    There are any number of leather purveyors that don't use arsenic, cobalt, or other chemicals in tanning. Check Bridge of Weir. The leather used in BMW i4s and Polestar 2s use natural tanning. So the argument begins to fall flat at scale.
    1) You need to supply scale numbers to show that the options you mention are comparable.

    2) Again, the use of "natural' doesn't saying anything except check a box for a marketing buzzword. How do they tan? What is the current overall and longterm environmental cost of using leather from start to finish v reclaimed materials?
    Seriously? If BMW can do it with much more leather needed for a car interior, why would it be impossible for Apple to source cases?

    BTW, look into how Horween leather is tanned. Phone cases using their leather should definitely be more friendly to the environment. 
    These cases are made of 67% recycled materials. That alone makes them more environmentally friendly than any leather. 

    Also, using BMW as the example of scale is misleading. 
    They sell around 2.5 million vehicles a year most of which are their entry level models that don’t use leather interiors. The remainder are sold with various types leather. The two models you mentioned are EVs. I couldn’t find a world wide sales number for them but in the US they sold 15k EVs last year. This is not an example of scale. 
    Are they more environmentally friendly, though? Leather is renewable and although the fabric is recycled we don’t know the cost of doing so

    As far as BMW goes, the comparison isn’t about pure numbers - how many phone cases can you make from the leather in a single car?
    1) LOL I love you say leather is renewable (nothing else added) and then drop a concern about recycled material that would even make even Tucker Carlson splooge
     in his pants. I have to wonder if you take that same argument with renewable resources over fossil fuels. I'm guessing you will talk for days about the horrible environmental costs of wind, solar, and hydro over "clean coal".

    2) You say it's not about numbers and then immediately ask a "how many" question? 🤦‍♂️
    williamlondon
  • Reply 76 of 80
    MplsPMplsP Posts: 3,890member
    Xed said:
    MplsP said:
    gatorguy said:
    Xed said:
    sbdude said:
    Xed said:
    doggone said:
    longfang said:
    williamh said:
    I saw the finewoven case at the Pentagon City Apple Store on Friday and it seemed not that high quality and overpriced.  I'd prefer the silicone case to finewoven.  

    Honestly asking, what is the environmental issue with the leather case?   The leather cases are reusing the wrapping from my beef, it's not like cows are produced to use for iPhone cases and the meat is an afterthought is it?   Is the process of making the leather and using it worse than just composting the cow hides?  What is it?  I know my tone might seem snarky but seriously isn't there just an enormous amount of cowhide out there?  Wouldn't an iPhone case be better than tossing it?
    The chemicals and water used during the tanning process would probably be a big part of it.
    I agree, leather is a by product of the food industry.  It also is a natural product and ages extremely well.  I've had the Apple leather case for 2 years and it is only now starting to break up at the edges after a lot of abuse.
    I will be looking for a leather case from another provider.  Any suggestions?  I saw someone mention Nomad
    That isn't quote correct. The hide is a byproduct of the food industry, but the tanning process to make leather is a different story and I don't know of a single mass producer that has used so-called "natural" methods for tanning these days. Even if we did use some old-timey "natural" methods, like scraping oak bark for its tannins, that has a cost. What is the ratio of cut oak trees for its various uses in lumber to the amount of bark obtained? Is there a chemical option that can be created that would do a better job at a lower cost? What other ingredients and byproducts are created to create leather? How much of the tanned leather is wasted (something I've noticed happens so that the material is consistent for the entire piece needed)?

    I can't say whether leather produced at an industrial scale is or isn't better for the environment than reusing discarded plastics, but I can't say it's better simply because one initial aspect of it is a byproduct of another industry or that someone calls it "natural". There's a lot of date to crunch to get an informed answer.

    There are any number of leather purveyors that don't use arsenic, cobalt, or other chemicals in tanning. Check Bridge of Weir. The leather used in BMW i4s and Polestar 2s use natural tanning. So the argument begins to fall flat at scale.
    1) You need to supply scale numbers to show that the options you mention are comparable.

    2) Again, the use of "natural' doesn't saying anything except check a box for a marketing buzzword. How do they tan? What is the current overall and longterm environmental cost of using leather from start to finish v reclaimed materials?
    Seriously? If BMW can do it with much more leather needed for a car interior, why would it be impossible for Apple to source cases?

    BTW, look into how Horween leather is tanned. Phone cases using their leather should definitely be more friendly to the environment. 
    These cases are made of 67% recycled materials. That alone makes them more environmentally friendly than any leather. 

    Also, using BMW as the example of scale is misleading. 
    They sell around 2.5 million vehicles a year most of which are their entry level models that don’t use leather interiors. The remainder are sold with various types leather. The two models you mentioned are EVs. I couldn’t find a world wide sales number for them but in the US they sold 15k EVs last year. This is not an example of scale. 
    Are they more environmentally friendly, though? Leather is renewable and although the fabric is recycled we don’t know the cost of doing so

    As far as BMW goes, the comparison isn’t about pure numbers - how many phone cases can you make from the leather in a single car?
    1) LOL I love you say leather is renewable (nothing else added) and then drop a concern about recycled material that would even make even Tucker Carlson splooge
     in his pants. I have to wonder if you take that same argument with renewable resources over fossil fuels. I'm guessing you will talk for days about the horrible environmental costs of wind, solar, and hydro over "clean coal".

    2) You say it's not about numbers and then immediately ask a "how many" question? 🤦‍♂️
    lol. You’re still too obtuse and pedantic to have a discussion. 

    The question is what the total cost of a product is. I have friends who’ve worked on recycling projects in which the materials needed to process and recycle negated any benefit of recycling. 

    And I said it’s not about pure numbers. But again my comment was intended for people who could actually read and interpret. You can carry on. 
    muthuk_vanalingamavon b7williamlondon
  • Reply 77 of 80
    XedXed Posts: 2,465member
    MplsP said:
    Xed said:
    MplsP said:
    gatorguy said:
    Xed said:
    sbdude said:
    Xed said:
    doggone said:
    longfang said:
    williamh said:
    I saw the finewoven case at the Pentagon City Apple Store on Friday and it seemed not that high quality and overpriced.  I'd prefer the silicone case to finewoven.  

    Honestly asking, what is the environmental issue with the leather case?   The leather cases are reusing the wrapping from my beef, it's not like cows are produced to use for iPhone cases and the meat is an afterthought is it?   Is the process of making the leather and using it worse than just composting the cow hides?  What is it?  I know my tone might seem snarky but seriously isn't there just an enormous amount of cowhide out there?  Wouldn't an iPhone case be better than tossing it?
    The chemicals and water used during the tanning process would probably be a big part of it.
    I agree, leather is a by product of the food industry.  It also is a natural product and ages extremely well.  I've had the Apple leather case for 2 years and it is only now starting to break up at the edges after a lot of abuse.
    I will be looking for a leather case from another provider.  Any suggestions?  I saw someone mention Nomad
    That isn't quote correct. The hide is a byproduct of the food industry, but the tanning process to make leather is a different story and I don't know of a single mass producer that has used so-called "natural" methods for tanning these days. Even if we did use some old-timey "natural" methods, like scraping oak bark for its tannins, that has a cost. What is the ratio of cut oak trees for its various uses in lumber to the amount of bark obtained? Is there a chemical option that can be created that would do a better job at a lower cost? What other ingredients and byproducts are created to create leather? How much of the tanned leather is wasted (something I've noticed happens so that the material is consistent for the entire piece needed)?

    I can't say whether leather produced at an industrial scale is or isn't better for the environment than reusing discarded plastics, but I can't say it's better simply because one initial aspect of it is a byproduct of another industry or that someone calls it "natural". There's a lot of date to crunch to get an informed answer.

    There are any number of leather purveyors that don't use arsenic, cobalt, or other chemicals in tanning. Check Bridge of Weir. The leather used in BMW i4s and Polestar 2s use natural tanning. So the argument begins to fall flat at scale.
    1) You need to supply scale numbers to show that the options you mention are comparable.

    2) Again, the use of "natural' doesn't saying anything except check a box for a marketing buzzword. How do they tan? What is the current overall and longterm environmental cost of using leather from start to finish v reclaimed materials?
    Seriously? If BMW can do it with much more leather needed for a car interior, why would it be impossible for Apple to source cases?

    BTW, look into how Horween leather is tanned. Phone cases using their leather should definitely be more friendly to the environment. 
    These cases are made of 67% recycled materials. That alone makes them more environmentally friendly than any leather. 

    Also, using BMW as the example of scale is misleading. 
    They sell around 2.5 million vehicles a year most of which are their entry level models that don’t use leather interiors. The remainder are sold with various types leather. The two models you mentioned are EVs. I couldn’t find a world wide sales number for them but in the US they sold 15k EVs last year. This is not an example of scale. 
    Are they more environmentally friendly, though? Leather is renewable and although the fabric is recycled we don’t know the cost of doing so

    As far as BMW goes, the comparison isn’t about pure numbers - how many phone cases can you make from the leather in a single car?
    1) LOL I love you say leather is renewable (nothing else added) and then drop a concern about recycled material that would even make even Tucker Carlson splooge
     in his pants. I have to wonder if you take that same argument with renewable resources over fossil fuels. I'm guessing you will talk for days about the horrible environmental costs of wind, solar, and hydro over "clean coal".

    2) You say it's not about numbers and then immediately ask a "how many" question? 🤦‍♂️
    lol. You’re still too obtuse and pedantic to have a discussion. 

    The question is what the total cost of a product is. I have friends who’ve worked on recycling projects in which the materials needed to process and recycle negated any benefit of recycling. 

    And I said it’s not about pure numbers. But again my comment was intended for people who could actually read and interpret. You can carry on. 
    Again, if you any evidence that shows that that leather production for Apple need and scale has a lower environmental cost than Apple's stated environmental costs for their cases using recycled material then by all means stop sitting on it. Such evidence will make headlines around the world and show that Apple is lying to earn a buck. I'll be here waiting patiently for your evidence.
    williamlondon
  • Reply 78 of 80
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 15,271moderator
    MplsP said:
    Xed said:
    MplsP said:
    gatorguy said:
    Xed said:
    sbdude said:
    Xed said:
    doggone said:
    longfang said:
    williamh said:
    I saw the finewoven case at the Pentagon City Apple Store on Friday and it seemed not that high quality and overpriced.  I'd prefer the silicone case to finewoven.  

    Honestly asking, what is the environmental issue with the leather case?   The leather cases are reusing the wrapping from my beef, it's not like cows are produced to use for iPhone cases and the meat is an afterthought is it?   Is the process of making the leather and using it worse than just composting the cow hides?  What is it?  I know my tone might seem snarky but seriously isn't there just an enormous amount of cowhide out there?  Wouldn't an iPhone case be better than tossing it?
    The chemicals and water used during the tanning process would probably be a big part of it.
    I agree, leather is a by product of the food industry.  It also is a natural product and ages extremely well.  I've had the Apple leather case for 2 years and it is only now starting to break up at the edges after a lot of abuse.
    I will be looking for a leather case from another provider.  Any suggestions?  I saw someone mention Nomad
    That isn't quote correct. The hide is a byproduct of the food industry, but the tanning process to make leather is a different story and I don't know of a single mass producer that has used so-called "natural" methods for tanning these days. Even if we did use some old-timey "natural" methods, like scraping oak bark for its tannins, that has a cost. What is the ratio of cut oak trees for its various uses in lumber to the amount of bark obtained? Is there a chemical option that can be created that would do a better job at a lower cost? What other ingredients and byproducts are created to create leather? How much of the tanned leather is wasted (something I've noticed happens so that the material is consistent for the entire piece needed)?

    I can't say whether leather produced at an industrial scale is or isn't better for the environment than reusing discarded plastics, but I can't say it's better simply because one initial aspect of it is a byproduct of another industry or that someone calls it "natural". There's a lot of date to crunch to get an informed answer.

    There are any number of leather purveyors that don't use arsenic, cobalt, or other chemicals in tanning. Check Bridge of Weir. The leather used in BMW i4s and Polestar 2s use natural tanning. So the argument begins to fall flat at scale.
    1) You need to supply scale numbers to show that the options you mention are comparable.

    2) Again, the use of "natural' doesn't saying anything except check a box for a marketing buzzword. How do they tan? What is the current overall and longterm environmental cost of using leather from start to finish v reclaimed materials?
    Seriously? If BMW can do it with much more leather needed for a car interior, why would it be impossible for Apple to source cases?

    BTW, look into how Horween leather is tanned. Phone cases using their leather should definitely be more friendly to the environment. 
    These cases are made of 67% recycled materials. That alone makes them more environmentally friendly than any leather. 

    Also, using BMW as the example of scale is misleading. 
    They sell around 2.5 million vehicles a year most of which are their entry level models that don’t use leather interiors. The remainder are sold with various types leather. The two models you mentioned are EVs. I couldn’t find a world wide sales number for them but in the US they sold 15k EVs last year. This is not an example of scale. 
    Are they more environmentally friendly, though? Leather is renewable and although the fabric is recycled we don’t know the cost of doing so

    As far as BMW goes, the comparison isn’t about pure numbers - how many phone cases can you make from the leather in a single car?
    1) LOL I love you say leather is renewable (nothing else added) and then drop a concern about recycled material that would even make even Tucker Carlson splooge
     in his pants. I have to wonder if you take that same argument with renewable resources over fossil fuels. I'm guessing you will talk for days about the horrible environmental costs of wind, solar, and hydro over "clean coal".

    2) You say it's not about numbers and then immediately ask a "how many" question? 🤦‍♂️
    The question is what the total cost of a product is. I have friends who’ve worked on recycling projects in which the materials needed to process and recycle negated any benefit of recycling. 
    There are a number of factors to consider. Durability plays into this too. The last leather wallet I had lasted nearly 20 years. If someone has to buy 3x 68% recycled finewoven cases in an upgrade cycle, the recycling is negated somewhat.

    https://www.tomsguide.com/opinion/ive-been-using-apples-finewoven-iphone-15-pro-case-for-a-week-and-i-get-the-backlash

    However, the leather production process wouldn't be able to meet Apple's renewable commitment that includes suppliers.

    https://www.imore.com/if-apple-serious-about-environment-it-needs-ditch-leather

    "Contrary to popular belief, leather is not a by-product of the meat industry. As a profitable business in its own right, it is at least a co-product meaning the impact of raising animals for their skin should not be left out of the conversation with some animals being raised for their skin specifically. Turning cowhide into a usable material requires a lot of energy and potentially hazardous chemicals, too.

    Leather as a material is at odds with Apple's environmental goals.

    According to the Sustainable Apparel Coalition, who developed the respected Higg Materials Sustainability Index, cow skin is the third most environmentally impactful fashion material so it's a wonder why Apple hasn't sought alternatives for its products. Apple did not reply to a request for comment on its use of leather and potential plans to replace it with alternative materials.

    ECCO, the only leather manufacturer named on Apple's supplier list, has joined the company's Supplier Clean Energy Program, though it did not respond to request for comment as to what parts of its leather production were covered by the commitment to use 100% renewable energy, i.e., just the cutting and tanning process or the animal's lifespan, too."

    It says here on Apparel Insider that cow leather ranked among the lowest on that index:

    https://apparelinsider.com/higg-materials-sustainability-index-updated/

    That also says the index was contributed by Nike. Maybe this had some influence on Apple's decision.

    https://mashable.com/article/tim-cook-nike-board

    People from the leather industry say that the index used for sustainability is using outdated information about the production and doesn't account for durability:

    https://www.laconceria.it/en/sustainability/global-leather-industry-stands-up-against-higg-sustainability-index-it-is-all-wrong/

    "According to the Higg Index, leather, as pointed out in the letter signed by Kerry Senior, President of ICT (International Council of Tanners), is “burdened with a disproportionately high score”, based on the application of “inappropriate methodologies” and, in addition, “out-of-date, unrepresentative, inaccurate and incomplete data”.

    Because of it, this has led to “a negative perception of leather that does not reflect its sustainable and circular nature”.

    Global leather industry has highlighted all the mistakes unfortunately made by SAC while drafting the Higg Materials Sustainability Index. Here they are: “use of old data (used from no later than 2013) and inaccurate data (the average lifespan of cattle is assumed to be five years, but the lifespan of a typical beef animal is usually between 12 and 36 months). Moreover, misconceptions about the tanning raw materials tanners use alongside a rather narrow geographical focus. On top of that: “Reluctance to take into account the durability and longevity of leather in assessing its environmental impact”.

    Even “more troubling is the lack of transparency on the basis for the score”. Not to mention “the lack of engagement with the wider leather industry to ensure that the data is accurate”."

    I'm sure Apple has done a thorough assessment to determine that their leather production didn't meet their environmental goals but iPhone cases are pretty small. It would be possible to make over 200 iPhone cases per cow. They sell 250m iPhones per year, if they sell leather cases for 20% of them, they'd need 250k cows per year < 20m square feet. The leather industry is > 20 billion square feet per year.

    Given that Apple's move will affect < 0.1% of the leather industry, maybe it's more about setting an example to other companies than direct environmental benefits.

    It will probably have little impact on the industry, if someone wants to buy a leather case, there will be no shortage of suppliers offering one.

    gatorguywilliamlondon
  • Reply 79 of 80
    I've had my blue FineWoven case for 2 weeks and it's showing some nice patina. It looks good. 

    But it is a little bit worrying given it's basically brand new and already appears aged.

    I don't think it will hold up well long term, likely will have to be thrown out after 6 months. Basing this on the silicon cases - the OG Apple Silicone case I had for the 13 Pro was destroyed after less than a year of use. Cheap aftermarket copies of the silicon case, on the other hand, are indestructible. 

    Design wise , I didn't realize from the pictures that it has a black rubber bumper - would be nice to have the entire thing out of the finewoven fabric. 

    If you're looking for a tough, life of the phone kind of case, this one's not it. But it looks pretty nice. 

    I don't regret my purchase, I am using this over some other cases I got because it looks and feels better. 
  • Reply 80 of 80

    williamh said:
    I saw the finewoven case at the Pentagon City Apple Store on Friday and it seemed not that high quality and overpriced.  I'd prefer the silicone case to finewoven.  

    Honestly asking, what is the environmental issue with the leather case?   The leather cases are reusing the wrapping from my beef, it's not like cows are produced to use for iPhone cases and the meat is an afterthought is it?   Is the process of making the leather and using it worse than just composting the cow hides?  What is it?  I know my tone might seem snarky but seriously isn't there just an enormous amount of cowhide out there?  Wouldn't an iPhone case be better than tossing it?
    You have to understand the "environmental" thing is just posturing and marketing fluff. Has absolutely nothing to do with actually caring for the environment. 

    Leather cases are nice and I think I will get an aftermarket one - some really nice options out there. 

    As for tradeoffs there's some people who believe anything they read and suddenly become "experts" on leather and the environment by reading marketing brochures from big corporates.

    In reality if you did the math, chances are there'd be very little difference, and quite often, the diference on a broader picture is that the environmentally friendly stuff is actually worse for the environment. How much energy does it take for a steel straw vs plastic? 1000x? How many applications before you lose the steel straw - how much energy and chemicals are spent to clean the steel straw, etc.... I am convinced plastic straws are better for the environment than most of the alternatives, with the exception of grass straws fresh cut and organic compostable, and lips ... (no straw)... 

    As to how much they really care for the environment global corporations just dumped 10s of billions of completely useless masks into the oceans while telling you you shouldn't use straws... makes no sense, it's all marketing... 
    edited October 2023
Sign In or Register to comment.