Hacker News Reader

Comment by mattnewton | Hacker News Reader

Did it seem weird to anyone else that this was slipped in?

"...Abraham’s main message is that we need products that can be improved or repaired (rather than having an in-built ‘death clock’, like most Apple devices) and that we should recycle more assiduously what are actually valuable materials within that old computer or phone."

I thought, (anecdotally as the owner of a iPhone 5 running fine) that apple is actually ahead of the curve here. Maybe on MacBooks where battery replacement is hard? Even then my MacBook has outlasted any other laptop I've bought. Seems weird to call the battery degrading a "death clock."

Is this a common sentiment or known fact I've missed?

View on HN

"apple is actually ahead of the curve here"

I'd argue that old-fashioned desktop PCs were (and are) ahead of the curve. No need to wastefully throw everything away, just upgrade the components you want. A reasonable level of standardisation has allowed this to happen.

Desktop PCs might not have the polished, all-in-one usability of an Apple device, but the ability to add or remove components from a PC make them very amenable to re-use. For example, I have an older hard drive (HD) that I removed from my desktop PC and put into an external HD case. It's now used as a backup and storage device.

Only a tiny percentage of desktop PCs are ever opened after being manufactured, never mind being upgraded. Retail components also have a high return rate. I would not bet that an analysis of desktop PC resource utilization and upgrades would tell you that upgrade-ability results in lower resource utilization.

Sure, among enthusiasts, and I would agree that apple's philosophy of hermetically sealed parts goes against this principle. But apple isn't competing with the parts manufacturers targeting DIY-ers, they're targeting the direct-to-consumer market. And on that segment, it's striking to me how much longer the devices have a shelf life (again, anecdotally). Also self repair is much less common in that non-expert market, so their policy of keeping repairs in house as much as possible I'd argue doesn't have a huge effect.

Edit: I think I should give the parent comment more credit. After thinking about it, maybe the real goal should be to make partial hardware upgrades (like the DIY pc's enjoy) more accessible to end consumers.

It's very common among app writers, who struggle to keep up with iOS changes every year which break their app. It's also common that Apple will not support older devices with iOS upgrades, and if the app you need no longer supports your iOS version, you must upgrade the device or keep working with the older app for as long as you can (bugs and all, until the app maker forces an update to continue working).

I have some iPhone4 devices still around, as they power 30 pin connected speakers and other devices. But their iOS is locked to an old version, and as the apps I use continue to upgrade (and some force upgrade), the devices are forced to the ground. Hardware itself is not terrible or low quality, but the combination of Apple's control on hw and sw makes things it hard to consider these as "investments" in any way, given the high price.

Perhaps it's a handheld thing; Macs and PCs appear to have better backward compatibility and longevity.

Apple is definitely ahead of the curve even on iOS devices. I'm uncertain about the latest iOS update, but the one before supported iPhone 4s devices, that's 4 generations ago. None of the updates was paid. All older devices still work with the versions that you have.

Compare to any kind of android devices: They rarely get obsoleted by OS Updates since there are none.

Edit: My Macbook Air 2nd gen (2010 (?), can't really remember) still runs El Capitan. It's getting a bit limited in what you can do on it, but it's fine for browsing and lightweight work. Obviously no gaming :)

Because of Android's more open nature, there are groups like CyanogenMod that will release updates for devices after the manufacturers have stopped. Popular devices can continue to get updates beyond 4 years.

The Android & iOS/Apple differences are interesting. Both are great, in my opinion.

It's neither handheld or desktop, it's the pace of advancement.

In 2005, it was a frustrating and nearly impossible task to use software made for Windows 95. In 2016, it's much easier to emulate a 2005 environment.

Same for mobiles. As the relative gains from each generation to the next taper off, there will be less to radically change from the ground up.

I think the loss-leader model for selling cell phones is the real death clock. I've owned about a dozen phones over the years, with replaceable batteries. By the time the battery goes, it's a choice between spending $50 to revive a cracked and scratched old phone with lint in every orifice, or spending $0 (plus a plan extension, which you were going to do anyway) to get a brand new, faster one.

> Maybe on MacBooks where battery replacement is hard?

Isn't battery replacement hard on all iOS devices?

>Isn't battery replacement hard on all iOS devices?

Good point. I guess it's macbook's batteries stand out as hard in the laptop world, and on the mobile side I must have been comparing it to recent android devices from samsung and htc, forgetting that until very recently most had removable batteries, even cheaper to replace than laptop ones.

Older iPhone's (4 and below) home button have known to fail like clockwork after 1-2 years - I've repaired a few friend's phones in this time range.

I wonder if that is the cause of this sentiment? If the repair can be done by a friend, it still doesn't seem like a "death clock" causing material waste.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com