[kev009]

The citation is common sense.. if your business is consumerism, you are by definition the opposite of "green". Putting some idiots on stage every year to carefully gesticulate to soft music about how "green" creating immense amounts of industrial waste are and thinking it is real is getting high on your own supply.

[7speter]

It's green as long as you give them your previous Apple product and buy a new one to replace it.

[kev009]

That's not how entropy works.

[Daz1]

Define "consumerism"

[kev009]

There is very little change from one iPhone to the next but very much marketing which underscores the true intentions. The business model is built on a revolving demand cycle that is unrelated to long term thinking, maintainability, efficiency, nor sustainability. One may argue well that Apple is better than the other players in the field but it doesn't undercut the overall impact of producing incredibly complex and rapidly obsoleting assemblies. It's not just soldering some chips to a board and snapping it together, each individual component potentially has global impact as the raw materials and finished pieces move into their final form. The magnitude of what is going on is not immediately intuitive unless you are an insider or read a well researched book like "The One Device: The Secret History of the iPhone"

The fundamental problem, which is out of sight out of mind from the consumer, is how much energy is required to produce and move assemblies around. See also the automotive industry, where the "green" thing to do is drive and maintain older vehicles for a long time.

And to be honest, this doesn't bother me that much, but if I'm not on the take as an engineer I have no particular qualms punching through the bullshit smokescreens as a customer of a company that takes my money. The attention and empathy fatigue of the bullshit does take away from things that do matter such as national versus international manufacturing.

[Daz1]

>There is very little change from one iPhone to the next

Visually, sure. Under the hood? Wrong.

>The business model is built on a revolving demand cycle that is unrelated to long term thinking, maintainability, efficiency, nor sustainability.

Sorry you need to qualify this statement. An iPhone 6S is still completely usable and almost certain to be in a functional condition assuming it has been looked after correctly. That's a 8-9 year old phone. Meanwhile my 2001 phone was hopelessly outdated e-waste in 2007.

[babarjaana]

No way that any technologically competent person can claim that the iPhone 16 is a massive and amazing improvement over the iPhone 15. There is "change", sure - the chip is now every so slightly faster, it can do "AI things", it can take slightly better photos, etc. But any comparison of these changes with the previous model for an average use case - which is what most people buy iPhones for, not benchmarking - would hardly yield any visible differences. Scrolling through reddit or HN or Instagram is about the same on both devices, and gaming gives you a few more frames if you care about that sort of thing, and I say that as someone with those exact models. Apple could have easily skipped releasing a new model this year, packaged exactly the same hardware and released the iPhone 16 the next year and fundamentally nothing would've changed. But the shareholders won't like that, will they?

[Daz1]

>No way that any technologically competent person can claim that the iPhone 16 is a massive and amazing improvement over the iPhone 15.

Kicking off with a logical fallacy, strong start.

>There is "change", sure - the chip is now every so slightly faster, it can do "AI things", it can take slightly better photos, etc.

Just say you're technologically uninformed.

>But any comparison of these changes with the previous model for an average use case

Kathy using Instagram while she waits in line at the supermarket is not a useful point of comparison when we're comparing iterative improvements, keep up.

>Apple could have easily skipped releasing a new model this year, packaged exactly the same hardware and released the iPhone 16 the next year and fundamentally nothing would've changed.

What an absolutely ridiculous statement.

>But the shareholders won't like that, will they?

Low IQ statement.

[kev009]

I don't feel like I need to, the referenced book or a cursory look into the rare mineral trade and shipping industry would be more useful for anyone actually interested. If the 6S is still useful, the fact I can't remember the last time seeing anyone with a phone more than 5 years old kind of speaks for itself to the fashion aspect the business has built for itself.

[lofenfew]

modern apps will demand a modern os and even if you already installed apps they will often cease working.