capitalism, consumerism and planned obsolescence. These three things are destroying our planet.
Climate change is a non issue by itself. Pollution (of all kinds, not just CO2, but the toxic sludge from coal plants and Chinese cellphone factories) are non issues compared to the economy of scale we've constructed around new shit.
Given the audience, and the accepted notion that Apple, as a business, wants people to buy their hardware, isn't Schiller's comment meant as something of a joke?
This is what's wrong with the Internet! The reaction reminds me of Madeleine Albright's comment about there being "a special place in Hell for women who don't support other women," a comment she made at a Hillary Clinton function. Apparently, Ms. Albright has been making this comment at the end of speeches for years. Do you know why? Because in the context it's funny. It's funny because it's exaggerated, quasi-ridiculous thing to say. But, the last time she said it, at the Clinton rally, people in the Twitterverse -- or whatever we're calling it -- took offense and went crazy.
I'm sorry, but both Albright's comment and Schiller's comment are benign jokes. The Internet manufactures outrage.
So? It's still a shitty joke, and in the Apple case it breaks a key rule of comedy by punching down.
It also leaves a really bad taste in your mouth for the rest of the address because instead of Apple trying to increase profits by building better products, it starts to become Apple guilting people into buying things they don't need just because their possessions are old. It especially feels crappy when no product they unveiled was anything except a yearly iteration.
If a web developer gets frustrated by having to support Internet Explorer 8, is that offensive? "How dare you! You're punching down at people who are stuck with Windows XP!"
The internet is very good at being offended by everything.
My point is that no one has this outrage machine when web developers whine about Internet Explorer, even though plenty of people are stuck using it for financial reasons, just like people who are stuck with five-year-old computers, and as a developer, I actually do find it frustrating when I have to support older hardware.
I'll admit the choice of the word "sad" might have been poor, but it's hardly worth getting offended over.
Aren't there better alternatives to IE that don't cost money? That doesn't seem to be the same at all. Much of the reason older PCs are still useful is because the software is still mutable, often at no monetary cost.
Plenty of companies cannot upgrade away from IE because the cost would be too high. I worked at a company that only worked with IE7 at one point.
Sure, I could have said "just use Firefox" or "just use Chrome...It's free!", but that wasn't really an option.
Now, granted, I'm aware that a company is not the same as a person, but it was just a dumb example I used to kind of point out that getting offended because Apple "punched down" is kind of arbitrary.
Why wasn't using Firefox or Chrome an option? They're free. Maybe corporate policy prohibited it, but that means it's basically a choice to keep using old and broken stuff.
People find Apple's statement offensive because the people who use old PCs tend to be poor, so that statement was basically shitting on poor people for not having the means to buy new electronics. I don't see how your example compares.
Their web app broke when using anything but Internet Explorer 7, and they couldn't afford to upgrade it to modern web standards (they actually did get an estimate to do exactly that), so no, they didn't have a choice, really.
I'm done with this topic; be as offended as you want.
Are you under the impression that all web pages and all web applications have been created with utmost respect for the standard and only the one standard (and not a specific browser in mind) and have been maintained for the last 10 years ?
Because those applications, that only work with IE (and not a too recent one !) do exist, and are a PITA to work with. It's not like the application would have some glitches or some CSS properties that don't render correctly with Chrome or Firefox; it's a real "does not work".
I struggle to understand the relevance of this comment. What have I said that indicates I think such web apps don't exist? Of course they do. My point is that they don't mean you can't run a better browser, for other web stuff.
It's obvious you never worked for a large bureaucratic company having to support many intranet legacy web apps. Of course you can run another browser for the other stuff. This is about the financial costs of software resulting in "corporate standards" including some ancient browser.
This is not at all unusual. And it's hardly a thing to flame the messenger on. It's just a reality some people deal with.
I covered that above: "Maybe corporate policy prohibited it, but that means it's basically a choice to keep using old and broken stuff."
I acknowledge and understand that some web sites require ancient browsers and some companies have policies prohibiting alternatives. I just don't see that being at all related to poor people using old computers, because poor people do it out of necessity, while corporate policies are a choice. I'm not flaming the messenger because of these policies, I'm just getting a bit annoyed that people keep telling me irrelevant things and criticizing me for things I'm not saying.
There's a huge difference between running outdated software with serious security problems and using older hardware that might be perfectly capable of running a modern OS and modern web browsers. I own both a 7 year old desktop PC and a 5 year old laptop that I use occasionally when I need to run some Windows-only program, and they're both perfectly capable of running Windows 10 and every other piece of software I've thrown at it.
Apple expects it's customers to spend ~1100 every two years on their products. So it's sad for Apple that people are waiting 5 years to think about new hardware.
No, this isnt a joke. The reaction of the audience showed that clearly. How pityfull they shook their head to confirm how "sad" a five year old windows computer is.
That part of the keynote was really so ugly-spoiled-hipster-narrow-minded that i really started to think about switching to windows for the first time after 12 years of apple usage.
No kidding. I don't know if I'm more sad if (a) this is a PR campaign or (b) independent people feel hurt that a marketing guy touted his own product over a competitor's during his own company's product demo.
Even in the case of (b) it definitely isn't HN news worthy. There's nothing interesting or high tech about it. Just another day in the world of marketing.
I own a 5-year-old MacBook Air 11, which has run only Linux since day 1 (and it does an admirable job at it, unlike other Macs, but that's not relevant here).
So for all practical purposes this is a PC with an Apple logo. It it is really snappy, silent, and battery lasts approximately 5 hours. There's nothing sad about it.
Sad is having to trash fine hardware because its manufacturer won't release updates. Sad is having new versions of OSes running slower and slower. Sad is planned obsolescence.
20GHz at what IPC? Performance isn't just clock rate and core count, there's also been a big improvement over the years in how many instructions the CPU can execute per clock cycle. GHz has been more or less stagnant since the P4, but single-core speeds have still gone up significantly.
Devil's advocate here... and I'm adding the caveat that I still use my iPad 1 daily (with the grandfathered, unlimited data plan).
A lot of this is about generating revenues. At the end of the day, Apple is a public corporation. It's not a charity. Apple's primary reason for existence is to generate shareholder value. It's hard for a device company to do that if they aren't... you know... selling devices.
Apple doesn't believe everyone should buy a new Apple product every 5 years. Sure, they'd love it, but that's not the market they're targeting. Apple has branded itself as a luxury technology brand. Would someone make this same argument about Lexus or Rolex or Coach?
If you can't afford that shiny new Macbook, there are plenty of alternate options. No one is forcing people to buy Apple products.
Beyond pricing, older technology can limit software innovation. What if every App developer out there -- including the folks at apple developing the latest versions of iOS -- still had to support my "ancient" iPad 1?
Legacy support would put a lot of young companies out of business. As a developer, one of things that costs me the most time is cross-device support. It's a huge drain on resources, and not every company can afford it.
What is amusing is that Apple build such good quality Macbooks now, people are keeping them for 5 years. My 2 and half year old MBP handles any dev task I throw at it fine, can't imagine replacing it for a couple more years at least. I also know a lot of gamers, they are happy playing at 1080p with 2500 or 3500 series CPU's as they are mostly playing CS:GO or Dota 2.
I just refurbed my '09 13" MBP. New thermal paste, cleaned the intake/exhaust, new battery, replaced the battery indicator/sleep sensor (ribbon cable got damaged). All in: ~$70. It still has 8 GB RAM and an SSD from my previous upgrades. It runs El Capitan just fine, and the fan is barely audible. I'm going to be so disappointed when I eventually drop cash on a rMBP, knowing that I'll never be able to do all of that in the future.
We have a perfectly good iPhone 3G (not even 3GS, just plain old 3G) which I think I bought in 2009. But it can't access the App Store anymore. Like, it literally won't show the page correctly if you try loading it up. The CSS is all broken, and none of the buttons or links actually work (presumably the JavaScript is broken too).
So probably around 2012 I bought an iPhone 4 (not even an iPhone 4S, just plain old 4). And even though the App Store still works on that, it was dropped by iOS 8, so we can't even get most of the useful new apps that come out, because most (if not all) of them require iOS 8 or higher.
This is Apple's attitude towards anyone who isn't spending hundreds or thousands of dollars on their products every 2 or 3 years: you're sad and pathetic, and screw you.
Back when Steve was in charge, they had top notch hardware and it lasted forever. Anyone who still has an original iPod knows those things still work amazingly well, they were built to last. But now Apple's software and hardware is going downhill quickly, so the high price tag is no longer justifiable. They've gone the way of Thinkpads after Lenovo took them over.
I felt like a fool in 2012 or 2013, when I suggested to my employer that instead of buying me a MacBook Pro work computer, he buy a Mac Pro, because it would be around longer, and all we'd need to do was swap out the internals to upgrade it, which would be much cheaper than buying a whole new MacBook Pro. Literally like less than a year later, Apple came out with a brand new type of Mac Pro, completely ditching the kind they had what seemed like forever until then, and it's all incompatible internals now.
Honestly I'm tired of Apple's crap and I'm abandoning ship. I'll still use this stupid MBP that I bought for myself a few years ago, but when it inevitably dies in a few years and can't be fixed, I'll probably look into older IBM Thinkpads and switch to Linux full time.
I have an almost 9 year old MacBook Pro from before the unibody redesign. It runs El Capitan fine. I lend it to friends and family during a crisis. Apple computers last far longer than 5 years.
I think everything but the HDDs and the PSU in the desktop i am typing this on is approaching a decade of service (PSU because the fan burned out, but then it was in turn salvaged from an older build).
How do you know poor people bought their iPhones? They may have been handed down after someone else's 18 month contract was up.
(When I travelled in some remote parts of Nepal the people were very poor but many had smartphones. There weren't any mobile shops for hundreds of miles, so my guess is that they were gifted to them).
Currently all of my PCs, laptop and DSLR are over 5 years old and running strong. I am still using my HTC evo 4g I got 5 years ago...I replaced the battery once but that is all.
It is a shame we live in this world where things are thrown out every couple years...cars become "too expensive to fix" after a couple years (or totalled by insurance companies due to minor accidents).
I wish there was an easy solution...but I don't see anything changing when the major corporations encourage this type of planned expiration date.
Yes, Phil's comment about 5-year old PCs still in use might seem to be out touch for a lot of people especially the ones who aren't Apple products' demographics. But consider these points:
1) Moore's Law was still in effect in the past five years. iOS devices hardware have been taking full advantage of that. So for roughly the same price range, you will get a 12x more performant hardware [1] for the same price, probably more energy efficient device too. Ain't it better if you can afford?
2) Apple started to emphasize their environmental friendliness (including energy efficiency) in manufacturing process and product raw materials and has been advancing their game each year[2]. So a once more toxic product made 5 years ago might be manufactured less so. In the process of replacing this 5-year old product, it is actually moving us forward to a more environmental friendly life style. Similarly, like the light bulb evolution: incandescent -> CFL -> LED etc.
There are probably other connotations behind that comment when Phil said it. Since 2/3 of the revenues were from selling iOS devices[3], Apple is still a hardware company like it or not. If they can sell you a piece of faster, more energy efficient and environment friendlier hardware than the one from yesteryear and in the mean time making a huge profit from that, wouldn't it be merrier for both them and the consumer?
> 2) Apple started to emphasize their environmental friendliness (including energy efficiency) in manufacturing process and product raw materials and has been advancing their game each year[2]. So a once more toxic product made 5 years ago might be manufactured less so. In the process of replacing this 5-year old product, it is actually moving us forward to a more environmental friendly life style. Similarly, like the light bulb evolution: incandescent -> CFL -> LED etc.
That's an odd argument to make. Producing a new device (as opposed to continuing to use your existing one) will always be worse for the environment, other than with regards to your first argument (energy efficiency). Even with energy efficiency in mind, it's questionable at best - CPU/GPU performance is only part of the equation, and recent devices certainly don't use 12x less energy compared to ones from 5 years ago.
I have Macbook Pro Mid 2009 (with RAM and SSD upgrades) and it still works fine. They should be proud that they make laptops that last longer than na few years! But I well understand why they would prefer to have people trashing them after 3 years.
I do consider buying a new... but only once matte display becomes an option. (I prefer a slower laptop to a glossy, distracting mirror.)
reply