One major key element in saving the planet is clearly the greater production of clean electricity. In the UK there’s already a huge electric infrastructure. Nationalize it, expand it and ban fossil fuels. There are new technologies that can make good use of that infrastructure.
Old technology as well, heat pumps, been around for ages - is another example.
Oh yes I agree - or rather it’s ‘free market’ ideology. This is the point of my previous reply to John - perhaps I should have been clearer. Corporate policy is always a collection of ploys to sell more products/services, since this is inherent in capitalist business models - as is the really damaging tendency to monopoly.
The fact that a corporate policy directed at selling less is inconceivable in the capitalist business world underlines the point that it is fundamentally incompatible with what we have to do for the environment.
But note 2 things:
Small businesses are generally not ‘growth’ but ‘lifestyle’ businesses (this is the distinction used in the business development world - which sees the latter as a waste of time because it is (wrongly) focused on growth. Lifestyle businesses do decide to sell less frequently. They generally have no desire to grow into mega-corporations. They are usually integrated with their local community and environment, and are often socially useful.
It is ‘free market ideology’ - not really free markets. It’s easy to expose the fact that big business does not really believe in free markets by suggesting the repeal of intellectual property rights - just watch them all turn into arch-market-regulators in an instant! In fact, unregulated markets are not possible - all markets take place within strict legal, cultural etc frameworks - that is not the issue. The on]y issue is who benefits from the market regulation.
Flying is energy-intensive per minute, but not per mile. Per passenger-mile travelled, it requires approximately the same energy as driving in a car with a passenger. That said, reducing the number of flights taken is one of the most effective ways for individuals to reduce their energy footprints.
Getting people to buy new products would certainly be an objective of the design, sales and marketing divisions Geof. And pissing off existing users would not be compatible with that. However for cost and practicality reasons there’d also be a corporate policy on sunsetting support on obsolete platforms Car manufactures, for example, don’t guarantee spare parts availability ad infinitum.
But we both know John that the balance Apple (or any other mega-corporation) is interested in is ‘how short can we make the period of support without impacting sales’ - not ‘how long do we need to make the period of support to minimise environmental damage’; much less ‘should we use our profit to minimise environmental damage’.
This is the point - their mindset, everything they have been taught about business, their deal with their investors, what they see as their own self-interest, even the legal structure they work in - everything in the mega-corporation world is fundamentally incompatible with serious action on the environment.
I can’t agree with that Geof, and I spent 35 years in IT, 25 of those with a major H/W, S/W and services provider. It wasn’t our policy to build in obsolescence or to forces upgrades. I don’t believe it is Apple’s either. Maybe Samsung and others do have that approach though, who knows. I was responding to an Apple specific comment.
As a family we’ve used Apple laptops since 2010 and over that period we’ve bought about eight of them. They are all still working as “hand me downs”. The four oldest ones run Linux now because they haven’t the oomph for the latest MacOS, one other, which is eight years old, runs the MacOS release before the current one. I’m not sure if it can run the latest release, but if not I think that’s fair enough. I don’t believe there is any built in obsolescence in theses machines and I doubt the policy regarding that doesn’t differ across the Apple product range. desktops, laptops, tablets, phones, watches, sent top boxes, etc. The risk to the Brand would be too great IMHO.
Yes, but just because you can’t upgrade to the latest version of the OS doesn’t mean your iPhone stops working. There’s no reason a ten year old iPhone can’r just keep chugging along. Android’s a mishmash used by multiple vendors so I can’t comment on that. Phone vendors fiddle with it and load their own bloatware.
At what price point though? Plus we live in a very fashion conscious age, who wants a twenty year old kettle, or a house with an avocado bathroom suite No demand. There’s a bit of a chicken and egg here too. To what degree do vendors in each segment create the demand or just satisfy it?
Oooh now that is smart there was a yellow basin in my bathroom when I bought this house, unfortunate colour really.
Also a long narrow bathroom with a tiny round window was tiled in dark chocolate brown with the occasional orange watercolour-style flower accent tile.
I don’t have any problem obtaining spare parts for my 25 year old Citroen though.
I reckon that the smartphone industry has done a wonderful job in conning people into believing that they simply must have the latest device in order to be able to have a life at all. I don’t have a smartphone, and probably never will, and it really doesn’t adversely affect my quality of life at all.
“35 years in IT, 25 of those with a major H/W, S/W and services provider. It wasn’t our policy to build in obsolescence or to force upgrades”
I"m sorry John but I can’t resist this. What your lot actually did was just have the customer buy a new box to put in front of the old box…and repeat. That’s what we thought in the competition, anyway
I think that’s just luck Robert. It will depend on the make model and part I guess. I don’t think there’s any guarantee of parts availability in the longer term. We’ve a 2000 306 convertible as a family pet from the same stable and the Peugeot deal told me to sod off years ago Despite having serviced the car with them for over 10 years. That’s a Pinninfarina he happily declared when I had a problem with the hood.
I need dual SIM so had an Android OnePlus for years, a good solid phone but a shitty OS IMHO. iPhones now support dual SIM, one is virtual, so I bought a dinky little iPhone 13 Mini last year. It’s brilliant, I wouldn’t be without it.
I guess there are some silly features on many products. I had three different Samsung devices, Fridge, Laptop and something else I can’t remember that were packed with features I didn’t need and mostly didn’t work. I’ll never buy a Samsung product again. But most of the features Apple introduce across their range, IMO, are useful. Especially if one and ones family use many of their devices. The integration is stunning IMO.
Oh dear! I do. I’m an Aga/Smeg/Dualit woman. I much prefer the old classics. Buy less. Buy the best. Take care of it and make it last. Go mechanical wherever possible because it’s fixable. And avoid plastic like the plague. (That last one is quite hard and expensive but still doable ).
That said, I will keep my now 10 year old (plastic!!) Dyson. It makes vacuuming a joy () with a new battery bought from Dyson UK. Great after sales service, they even had a record of where and when I bought in 2012 and knew immediately which battery was required. I will keep it going as long as I can. No interest in a new one just because it is new.
The iron, on the other hand just had a thermostat OD and had to be replaced with the next 5 year lasting piece of plastic. I would use an antique iron but I don’t like coal and the weight is challenging for arthritis. But I looked into it all the same!
Tech is a bit different and challenges my philosophy somewhat. Basically, I use up all the disc space so just changing the battery dies not fix the problem. In my careful hands the hardware would easily last 10 years but seems I cannot just replace the chip or even the motherboard, so it’s back to Apple for recycling and a new one for me.
No TV in our house so I guess the Joneses win that one.
You’re right there Gareth IMHO it was just an engineering decision, albeit a highhanded one, not some great conspiracy. Bit of a well intentioned cock-up.
I remember prior to joining my old firm I used to read the expensive Garner Group and Yankee Group analyses of its strategies. These two firms and others made a lot of money explaining such matters to Fortune 500 end users. I used to enjoy reading them too, they had a bit of “insider info” feel about them.
Then when I joined the Firm I realised those strategy reviews were unsubstantiated guesswork and/or fabricated rubbish The Firm didn’t have a strategy, certainly not an integrated one. Every division was making up as they went along, though there was Corporate wide silence on such matters, which enabled the “Industry watchers” to make money filling the void with speculation dressed up as insight