The New FineWoven iPhone Cases Are 'Very Bad' 283
Several Slashdot readers have shared this report: Folks, what you've heard so far is true. Apple's new FineWoven iPhone cases and accessories are bad. Like, really bad. I've been puzzling over them for the past week, looking at them from different angles. Picking them up, setting them down, petting them. Seven days later, I still can't make sense of them and have no other choice but to say it out loud: FineWoven is very bad. FineWoven is a new fabric option you'll find on iPhone 15 cases, AirTag holders, and MagSafe wallets. Apple calls it a "luxurious and durable microtwill." It's silky, almost slippery to the touch, and costs $59 for any of the phone cases, $35 for an AirTag holder, and $99 for one of the new watch bands -- not the most expensive phone cases you can buy, but pretty darn pricey.
Apple is pitching them as a premium replacement of sorts for the leather accessories it discontinued. The company won't sell leather iPhone cases and straps anymore because making them at Apple's scale "has a significant carbon footprint," according to Lisa Jackson, the company's environmental policy VP. That's fair; as my colleague Justine Calma puts it, "Cattle are a big source of greenhouse gas emissions because cows burp out methane, which is even more potent than CO2 when it comes to its ability to trap heat on the planet." If you want a fancy first-party iPhone case, then your new, more sustainable option would be FineWoven. But FineWoven is very much not the premium material that leather is. When I popped the MagSafe wallet out of its box, I could clearly see some places where it was already showing wear along the edges. Little bits of lint immediately caught on the fabric, too. And then there's the fingernail test.
Apple is pitching them as a premium replacement of sorts for the leather accessories it discontinued. The company won't sell leather iPhone cases and straps anymore because making them at Apple's scale "has a significant carbon footprint," according to Lisa Jackson, the company's environmental policy VP. That's fair; as my colleague Justine Calma puts it, "Cattle are a big source of greenhouse gas emissions because cows burp out methane, which is even more potent than CO2 when it comes to its ability to trap heat on the planet." If you want a fancy first-party iPhone case, then your new, more sustainable option would be FineWoven. But FineWoven is very much not the premium material that leather is. When I popped the MagSafe wallet out of its box, I could clearly see some places where it was already showing wear along the edges. Little bits of lint immediately caught on the fabric, too. And then there's the fingernail test.
tl;dr (Score:2, Informative)
One guy doesn’t like it
Re: tl;dr (Score:5, Insightful)
I immediately went and bought a proper leather case from nomad.
The "carbon footprint" logic is pretty shitty on the best of days, but for cows that are gonna be burgers anyway the carbon footprint is trivial or arguably zero. Also Apple already has a pile of shitty non-leather options, they didn't need another.
Re: tl;dr (Score:5, Insightful)
I wish Apple and every other OEM would make phones that didn't require cases to be held without slipping out of your hands and/or breaking from falls that most other handheld tech survives w/o issue. Seriously, I don't need a "case" for my $20 TV remote to survive a fall from end table to the floor, but I need one for my $1,000 phone???
Industry overcame the water resistance challenge, hard to find phones without it these days, surely it can overcome drop resistance?
Re: (Score:2)
^^^ This ^^^
+100 (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's 100% due to marketing.
Marketing is what requires the phone to be of a certain dimensional size (smaller, lighter!) and shiny (shiny!) for the ads.
When was the last time you saw a phone without a case? I'm thinking blackberry/Nokia days, myself.
Re: (Score:2)
I can walk or take the transit around NYC and see a hundred or a thousand people on the phone and not one case.
Re: (Score:2)
A few years ago, Moto G phones came exactly like your wish, they had a hard but semi-flexible case that was slip-resistant and didn't require you to buy a case to put it in. And on top of that, you could open that case and replace the battery! Since then, they discontinued this, making their shells slippery just like all the others.
Re: (Score:2)
It's even more ridiculous to market your whole company on the sleek design aesthetics of your high-tech product at the expense of durability such you have to encase it in a slab of rubber.
Re: (Score:3)
Because people don't buy these phones!
It's been done before. CAT - as in the heavy equipment company - has a line of ultra-durable phones. Those phones you could pretty much throw at concrete and they'd probably be fine. They're popular enough to keep making them, but they aren't exactly taking over the market.
People want slim, sleek, sexy phones. Then they want to cover them up so their slim, sleek, sexy phones look gaudy, and don't break.
Re: (Score:2)
I wish Apple and every other OEM would make phones that didn't require cases to be held without slipping out of your hands and/or breaking from falls that most other handheld tech survives w/o issue.
Actually I'm the exact opposite. We should have thin bland phones. The phone is not your TV remote. It's a personal accessory, and customising that accessory is and always has been one of the core features of the phone.
The additional case on it now is no different from the swappable aftermarket covers we put on our phones in the 90s.
Re: not everyone suffers from peripheral neuropath (Score:2)
So you never have a problem holding onto your phone, except when you do? Great story there.
Re: tl;dr (Score:5, Insightful)
I have some leather products that I've had for decades and will be around long after I'm not. The carbon footprint becomes negligible over the actual lifetime of the product. Probably less than the so-called green option that gets tossed in the landfill because it's a piece of crap that falls apart in few years and needs replacement.
Re: (Score:2)
Anecdotally, Apple's rubber-lined phone cases always start falling apart after 1-2 years, but their leather phone cases can last 3-4 years (or more, presumably, I just haven't tried using one longer) without any visible degradation other than the expected cosmetic surface scuffing. I've seen this pattern repeated with at least two each of their rubber-lined and leather-lined cases.
I've since switched to the dBrand grip case because it's just generally a much better case than anything Apple makes, simultaneo
Re: (Score:2)
My iphone leather case lasted like a year, and looked pretty crap long before that. I just put it in my pocket and treated it normal, just the same as my leather wallet which has lasted years without issue.
I tried a generic leather case. That was even worse! Very frustrating. I'm not picky, but they both were terrible.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
For a quality leather product like a belt or a watch band, you should expect it to last the rest of your life, and probably well after that if you properly care for it. I don't know if Apple's leather straps were actually any good as far as the quality is concerned or if they barely qualified as "genuine leather" (the crappiest thing that can still be legally marketed as leather) but people who already have a leather band shouldn't need a new one if they get a new watch.
I have some leather products that I've had for decades and will be around long after I'm not. The carbon footprint becomes negligible over the actual lifetime of the product. Probably less than the so-called green option that gets tossed in the landfill because it's a piece of crap that falls apart in few years and needs replacement.
The problem with this is that Apple can't sell you a new one every year if they last.
I've a pair of, what Americans call "flip flps" (Australians will know them as "thongs") from a brand called "Colorado" that are now in the 3rd decade. Quality leather rather than rubber and I'm certain there are some old boots out there telling my shoes to get off their lawn.
A lot of companies have zero interest in making things that will last. Apple is chief amongst them in an entire industry that embodies being dis
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The "carbon footprint" logic is pretty shitty on the best of days, but for cows that are gonna be burgers anyway the carbon footprint is trivial or arguably zero.
Think abut it, folks: where does the carbon in cow farts come from? From coal the cow eats? No, it comes from grass that grew recently, pulling carbon from this year's air. The cow is just putting part of that carbon back into circulation. Cows are carbon neutral.
Re: (Score:2)
However, Cows add an extra step to the carbon cycle: biomass -> methane -> CO2 -> repeat.
That step they add increases the length of the cycle of their atmospheric carbon, and therefor they do in fact have an impact on the extant carbon cycle.
Think about it.
Re: (Score:3)
Cows are carbon neutral.
Not even close boss. Cows are fed feedstock, which requires large amounts of fertilizer, which incorporates significant amounts of petrochemicals. If you live in any reasonably developed country you are literally eating oil, even if you opt out of the meat economy.
You're also kinda glossing over the carbon footprint of the transportation infrastructure that brings your food to market, the tractors that plow the fields/spread the fertilizer, and the electricity that powers refrigeration.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: tl;dr (Score:5, Insightful)
I have a vegan colleague who refuses to accept the fact that her cat cannot thrive on a vegan diet. They’re obligate carnivores, I don’t care what alternative facts you found on the Internet and/or in the hippie store. It is, IMHO, animal cruelty to try and impose that diet on a feline. It’s an indoor/outdoor cat, so safe assumption it’s simply achieving its dietary needs via hunting, which of course reinforces her beliefs. "Look, she’s doing just fine!"
I’ve met religious zealots more open to science than many Vegans.
For the record, I hate everything about the meat industry, the day lab grown matches it in price/nutrition/safety is the day I’ll join the PETA protests, because at that point, it’s no longer ethical to slaughter animals for food, IMHO, never mind raising them in factory farming conditions.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not about the slaughter as much as the treatment of the animal in captivity. Granted farm animals today have it a lot better than in the wild, but it doesn’t provide a good enough excuse for the suffering they may endure. That individual animal wasn’t born in the wild so it’s not like we are saving it.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not about the slaughter as much as the treatment of the animal in captivity.
Eh, it's kind of about both for me. I'll concede the treatment in captivity is by far the worst part of the process. Factory farming is disgusting. Driving past one is bad enough, going inside will make even the most committed meat eater question the ethics/morality of the industry.
I still have an issue with the slaughter part though. I make my peace with it, because there's not an alternative at scale yet, but when (not if) there is, I would posit that it is no longer morally justifiable to enslave an
Re: (Score:3)
I suspect that a lot of vegans falls into this category. These are people who have a mental illness or are borderline. Then they read something on the internet about “toxins” and their brain locks into a bonkers way of eating. I
Re: (Score:2)
Most vegans I've met aren't about toxins, they're about killing animals. Toxins may enter in as an ad-hoc justification to attempt to bolster their claim, but the smart ones only care about the treatment/killing of animals (because the toxins angle is rather obvious bullshit - meat is good for you, in most cases).
Re: (Score:2)
I have a vegan colleague who refuses to accept the fact that her cat cannot thrive on a vegan diet.
Obligatory Futurama: We taught a lion to eat tofu [youtu.be]
Re: tl;dr (Score:5, Informative)
If you are trying to force a vegan diet on your cat you are a bad person.
Re: tl;dr (Score:4, Insightful)
Incorrect. Meat does, in fact, contain ascorbic acid - more than enough, if it's your sole source of nutrients. This may not be true for all meats, but it definitely is for fresh red meat that's been cooked properly.
Humans can not "survive" solely on a plant-matter diet. They quickly develop cavities, lose hair, and develop skin disorders. Bad breath is extremely common, as is weight gain from malnutrition (commonly seen in the third world where meat is expensive). B12, D3, creatine, carnosine... bottom line, you'll get dumb and ugly without it.
There definitely are things you can't get from meat, and even more that are not easy to get... but vitamin C isn't one of them. An all-meat diet, by the way, is miserable. You've got to eat about 3lb of meat a day to not rapidly lose weight, and you'd better like lung, heart, and liver or you're going to be missing out on most of the important nutrients you need. And you'll still feel pretty miserable, IME.
We are omnivores.
Re: (Score:2)
Humans are obligate frugivores. If you do not get ascorbic acid, you will die. Whether or not you eat meat is entirely optional. A meat-only diet will kill you., because meat is notoriously lacking in ascorbic acid.
Some people like myself are basically intolerant to all fruits, vegetables, grains, nuts, and fungus. Basically I cannot have any salicylates, the base molecule of aspirin and it is found in all of the above in varying amounts, not just in some willow bark. I’m also intolerant of several other things, but salicylates are in everything including tons of products not intended for consumption like toothpaste, and oil of wintergreen common in candy is basically methyl aspirin. Nature uses it as a poiso
Re: (Score:2)
In less modern times, you likely would have died. Because Darwin has been largely augmented by technology and modern food fortifications.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: tl;dr (Score:5, Insightful)
it's absurd to think a cat can't live just fine on a synthetic+vegan diet
It's not though. Don't take my word for it. Ask ASPCA [aspca.org]. Ask your country's veterinary association [bva.co.uk], my added emphasis, "While on paper a vegan diet for cats may include supplements or alternatives to animal-based protein, for example, there is no guarantee that these would be bioavailable to the cat or that they wouldn’t interfere with the action of other nutrients."
Nobody who knows a damn thing about cats will endorse trying this. I take the word of the veterinary association over the word of the hippie vegan that can't see the irony in her rejection of veterinary advice while she lectures another colleague of ours who opted out of the COVID vaccine about the importance of "trusting the experts"
Bottom line, don't bring a tiny little carnivore into your house if you have issues killing animals for nutritional purposes.
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly a non-bioavailable source of feline metabolic produces does not constitute valid supplementation.
The ASPCA and your "vetrinary association" are warning you that there aren't any good studies to indicate what will and will not work- and that's completely accurate. I wouldn't want to be the scientist who figured out how to make a safe non-meat diet for a cat.
It does not say anything to my immutably true statement.
There isn't a living organism on thi
Re: tl;dr (Score:4, Insightful)
Let me know when you're willing to volunteer to live off sugar water, Metamucil, and vitamins. That's what you're doing to a cat if you try this. They are largely unable to digest plant material. It's primarily dietary fiber to them. You would know this if you bothered to look at their teeth, small intestine, or just asked someone knowledgable about felines.
BVA's point, which you acknowledge, is we don't know enough about bioavailability in felines to safely try this. The other thing you tacitly admit, there's no ethical way to find out. Why the fuck is this even a discussion? Oh, that's right, you want to cling to a strict reading of what's theoretically possible vs. what's practical and ethical, ignoring the experts in the field who are telling you it's a bad idea.
For bonus points, try and shame me for a typo. Not that it's any of your business, but FYI, I'm dyslexic. I don't care enough to obsess over every word in a casual conversation. This isn't my CV, it's fucking Slashdot. Get over yourself.
Adding you to my foes list now. Buh-bye.
Re: (Score:2)
You would know this if you bothered to look at their teeth, small intestine, or just asked someone knowledgable about felines.
Or if you let your cat in the yard, where it will run and eat grass, and then immediately go find the most visible part of the carpet to throw up on.
Re: (Score:2)
Your statement is true and meaningless, it maybe true if an animal gets all the nutrients it need it will be healthy, its trivially true and irrelevant.
The question is can you in the world we live in, provide them to that cat, if not and you are not willing to feed them meat, then don't get a cat its cruel.
Re: tl;dr fishy (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You have inserted some kind of emotional ideological positions into a scientific discussion, and it has led you to make some stupid assumptions.
Re: (Score:2)
We're obligate frugivores
no, we're not. our ancestors were. also, frugivores tend to consume fruit usually once a year, when it grows, storing that high quantity of energy to fit themselves for a long cold winter where food will be scarce. they don't have permanent access to a frig loaded with strawberries and bananas all year around, in an air conditioned box.
today's fruit consumption is mostly industry hype, and is insanity. people eat way too much of it, it's just another form of sugar addiction thriving on deceitful marketing.
Re: (Score:2)
no, we're not. our ancestors were.
Yes, we are.
The only difference between our ancestors and us in that regard is that we are effective omnivores now. But we remain obligate frugivores.
frugivores tend to consume fruit usually once a year, when it grows, storing that high quantity of energy to fit themselves for a long cold winter where food will be scarce.
Completely wrong.
they don't have permanent access to a frig loaded with strawberries and bananas all year around, in an air conditioned box.
Huh?
today's fruit consumption is mostly industry hype, and is insanity.
Irrelevant.
people eat way too much of it, it's just another form of sugar addiction thriving on deceitful marketing.
Irrelevant.
and no, for humans, the vitamins in fruit don't really make up for the amount of fructose that comes along, those can be found in abundance in many fresh vegetables and legumes.
No. You require ascorbic acid to survive. Period. Your body cannot synthesize it, and you cannot get it from vegetables and legumes, except for the case where the thing you are calling a vegetable is actually a fruit (see: tomatoes, a great source of ascorbic acid)
You're talking out of your ass, and it's hilarious.
Re: tl;dr (Score:2)
But you can get it from meat, although you really need to eat organ meat in order to get enough of it. So your whole argument is trash per usual.
Re: (Score:2)
You need the resources of an entire cow, every day, per person, to get enough ascorbic acid just to fucking survive.
I'd love to see you make that math work if anything other than
Re: tl;dr (Score:5, Interesting)
it's just another form of sugar addiction thriving on deceitful marketing
Umm, no, it's not. It's possible on paper to eat too much fruit but it's pretty far down on the list of worries for dietitians and nutritionists. Most Americans have the opposite problem, they aren't eating nearly enough fruit. I have a family full of Type 2 diabetics and not one of them did it to themselves with fruit. Fruit is self-limiting, eating enough to cause yourself problems is difficult, as opposed to, say soda, sweetened tea, or processed/concentrated fruit juice. One of my family members downs a 3 liter bottle of soda every day. That's the rough equivalent of the sugar in 24 apples. I could probably put away 24 apples in a day, on a dare, but I'd feel pretty crummy afterwards. I wouldn't be able to eat much if anything else that day. By contrast, for him, the soda is what he's using to wash down the rest of his calorically dense food.
There's also a huge difference between how natural fructose metabolizes vs. how processed/refined sugars are metabolized. Those 24 apples will give you a stomach ache. They won't give you fatty liver disease or diabetes. The soda most definitely will. Most insidiously, the soda will leave you feeling hungry. Good luck stuffing your face after you shove 24 apples down your gullet, lol.
Fruit is usually better as a local/seasonal thing though, I'll give you that one. A few fruits (bananas/apples) survive transport reasonably well but most do not. Out of season grocery store fruit is usually bland as fuck. Strawberries, one of the most amazing things in the world if you eat one straight off the plant, meh at best when purchased out of season. Don't get me started on tomatoes, it is impossible to buy a decent one from any grocery store at any price. Might luck out at a farmer's market if you live in the right part of the country but growing your own is the winning move. I know people that despised them until I gave them one from our garden.
Re: tl;dr (Score:5, Informative)
"We're obligate frugivores, "
That took five seconds to disprove.
https://www.5minutebody.com/bl... [5minutebody.com]
Also you don't need fruit, cabbage is also high in vitamin C as are many other vegetables.
And if you need synthetic supplements you are not getting along just fine on a given diet.
Re: (Score:2)
So far you've given zero evidence for your claims. It sounds like you're the one with the preconceived notions who is avoiding any disconfirming information.
Re: (Score:2)
That really doesn't work
it may be a drop in the ocean, but it's still a drop and counts. any reduction in consumption, any alternative, disincentivates the industry, simple as that. that's not vegan logic, that's just plain good old logic.
I expect that vegans will cease to exist over the next century. Eventually someone will figure out how to grow meat in a lab
i hope so, but more than as an extinction i would consider that as one vegan victory. those lab experiments exist only because the industry knows there is a growing market, and that the current model is not sustainable. then again, that's still in the future. for now, veganism (or other forms of,
Re: (Score:2)
But what if they figure out how to grow vegans in a lab? That could be the real disaster.
Re: tl;dr (Score:2)
It's okay as long as they still have good marbling like the natural vegans.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is this modded funny? This is exactly the logic they use.
Leather is a byproduct (Score:3, Insightful)
Pretty sure nobody slaughters cattle solely for hides. You kill the cow for meat and then use the hide for leather. If nobody wants the leather then it gets tossed. Unless tanneries are major CO2 emitter, you aren't really accomplishing much by eschewing leather.
Re: (Score:2)
No, but leather production improves the economics of beef.
What I don't like is the fact that it's made from synthetic fibers means more microplastics in our food and drinking water. Just make it from denim or corduroy or something like that, maybe sewn around thin wooden or aluminum stiffener.
Re: (Score:2)
No, but leather production improves the economics of beef.
What I don't like is the fact that it's made from synthetic fibers means more microplastics in our food and drinking water. Just make it from denim or corduroy or something like that, maybe sewn around thin wooden or aluminum stiffener.
Cotton (as in denim) has quite a huge environmental footprint of it own, using massive amounts of water, fertilizer, and land. It is worse than (oil based) polyester for CO2 production. I'm quite fine with the waste product from my burgers and steaks being used to make jackets and seats for my car. If it makes beef cheaper that is fine with me, because I would continue to eat beef even if the hides went to landfill instead.
Re: (Score:2)
"Just make it from denim"
https://www.worldwildlife.org/... [worldwildlife.org].
Re: (Score:2)
And why would you not want to improve the economics of beef?
Beef is one of the cheapest, most readily available sources of protein and most of the world relies on it. The more profitable it is, the fewer animals people need to raise to be profitable, which means they're more likely to be able to produce high quality beef from high quality animals which are well cared for, and not destroy the environment through over-grazing in the process.
Re:Leather is a byproduct (Score:5, Interesting)
Using leather makes the cost of producing beef less (since more parts of the cow are marketable) which then makes beef a more appealing food.
This directly increases the length of the gaseous part of the cow's carbon cycle, which has a tangible effect on the extant carbon content of the atmosphere.
I'm not convinced ditching cows is really the solution to our problem, but the reasoning Apple is using is entirely correct.
Re: (Score:2)
This directly increases the length of the gaseous part of the cow's carbon cycle, which has a tangible effect on the extant carbon content of the atmosphere.
Does it? Wasn't the carbon all from the grass which was taken from the atmosphere in the first place?
Re: (Score:2)
Does it? Wasn't the carbon all from the grass which was taken from the atmosphere in the first place?
Yes, and yes.
But carbon cycles have length. Over a long enough length of time, even oil is carbon neutral.
We're primarily interested in the gaseous portion of the carbon cycle, since it's what directly affects the energy flux of the planet.
This means the route from biomass to biomass matters for any extant timeslice we're looking at.
For a pure biomass -> CO2 -> biomass cycle, the amount of impact to the thermal flux over that time period is lower than for biomass -> methane -> CO2 -> bio
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Leather is a byproduct (Score:5, Informative)
2) That 30 year period, it's about 25 times more thermally impactful to the atmosphere than an equivalent amount of carbon mass in the form of CO2.
This means that every ton of methane produced is equivalent to 25 tons of CO2.
So, let's say a patch of grass produces 1 ton of CO2 over a 1000 year period.
Let's say that same patch, with a population of cows, successfully converts 25% of that biomass into methane.
So that's 1 tons of CO2, and
Why 1 ton of CO2? Because that methane doesn't die as methane, it turns into CO2 once it has broken down.
So, let's say CO2 has a climactic impact of 1 per year, and CO2 has a climactic impact of 25.
That means our field of grass has a climactic impact of 1000, and our field of grass and cows has a climactic impact of 7250.
No matter how you swing it, that's as far as you can fucking get from negligible.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not to argue against you here, but this only sounds like half the calculation.
Carbon is sequestered in the cow itself when it eats the grass - cut grass grows faster and spreads more than grass left to grow to full height (at which point carbon sequestration should severely slow down, though I don't know for sure), which means the cows are actually pulling some portion of atmospheric CO2 into their bodies before releasing said CO2 back when it dies.
I have no idea the actual numbers on that. I would be surpr
Re: (Score:2)
The full picture is vastly more complicated. But the simplified picture is also not in essence, incorrect.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The idea that there is a single cow anywhere in the world that was raised and butchered because of the existence of the leather market is daft.
Absolutely. Anyone who claims otherwise is insane.... but nobody has.
The value of the leather from a cow hide is a rounding error on the value of the animal.
Incorrect.
The value of the leather from a cow hide is a rounding error on the value of the animal. In the 1980's you had to pay a minimum of $500 to $1000 for a full length pair of leather pants or a full leather dress. Very similar garments are available today in the $100-$150 range.
It's about $200 in the total value of the cow- which is not a major portion of it, but it is appreciable.
Last numbers I tried to look up, it was around 10% of the value of the cow.
Again- not major, but also not a rounding error.
iPhone accessories?! (Score:2, Funny)
*Disclaimer: I am in no way affiliated with Apple Inc. & I have not received any renumeration or incentives to act in their interests. They don't need to. Their products are THAT good & I don't even own an iPhone or any other Apple Inc. electronics.
Re: (Score:2)
Joke would've been even better if it ended on an 'automatic' "Posted from my iPhone 13S"
other animals (Score:2)
There are other animals that you can get leather from that do not have the same environmental impact.
Re:other animals (Score:4, Insightful)
You have succeeded at unnecessarily being a complete asshole. I know that's hardly rare on the Internet, but congratulations on your achievement regardless.
Re: (Score:2)
You were cocky while uttering a complete falsehood that arose from ignorance of the basic functioning of human economies.
I posit that the only way to respond to people like that is as an asshole.
Next time, more trying to educate yourself, less trying to come up with fart jokes to seem clever.
Re: (Score:3)
As grass dies, it's broken down by fungus who release primarily CO2, since methane is generally only produced in anoxic conditions. This doesn't mean they produce zero- but it's a negligible amount.
Cows, on the other hand, are ruminants, and they ferment grass. They produce shittons of methane.
Believe what you want, but your belief is currently incorrect.
Re: (Score:2)
The water is not in short supp
This is "News for Nerds"? (Score:2, Insightful)
I miss the old
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know, I'm a nerd, just ask my wife! And I thought this was interesting, and it was about technology. Seems logical to be on slashdot to me.
Re: (Score:2)
This is the old Slashdot. What has changed is people.
You Can Lead A Horse To Water (Score:4, Informative)
And you can butt fuck him - Apple
Re: (Score:2)
No leather, but titanium is fine (Score:5, Informative)
Just to repeat what I wrote previously: I added some more comments in the brackets.
Titanium is one of the most environmentally unfriendly materials available.
1) Take ilmenite ore [from mining which Greens oppose] and boil in sulfuric acid [either from mining or as a byproduct of heavy oil refining] until it breaks down leaving you iron in solution and titanium dioxide.
2) Filter and dry the TiO2 then put it into a reactor. Heat to red heat, [requiring large amounts of fossil fuel energy] then add chlorine gas [produced by electrolysis of brine, which requires more energy].
3)The reaction is endothermic so ever so often you have to turn off the chlorine and reheat the reactor and remaining TiO2. [more energy]
4) Now you have titanium tetrachloride in a vapor and you can run that through a distillation column to clean it up. [the waste chlorides have to be neutralized and disposed of in a landfill]
5) The TiCl4 is now put into a closed container informally called the "the bomb" for reasons that will become obvious.
6) Now you add your choice of metallic sodium or metallic calcium, [either one produced by mining the ore, then processing it by electrolysis at high temperatures (700C for sodium) at great energy cost] close up the bomb and light it.
7) The resulting reaction is highly exothermic and after the vessel is done bouncing around you let it cool completely. [all that energy you have stuffed into the process is completely lost]
8) Open the vessel up and you have salt and titanium metal in sponge form. That gets lightly crushed and the salt washed away. [now you have dirty salt water to dispose of]
9) Take the Ti sponge and put it into either a vacuum induction furnace or an argon blanketed induction furnace. Melt it down, add alloying elements if any, and cast it under argon and now you have a useful piece of metal. [add even more energy/]
One other note, titanium is hard to ignite, but if you do set it on fire you are not putting it out.
So they removed a organic biodegradable substance that is the byproduct of dinner and substituted one of the most difficult and environmentally costly metals to refine, both in the name of trendiness.
So which product embodies more CO2? The watchband or the titanium case? One cow produces how many watch bands? How many cute animals were dispossessed by the multiple mining operations [including energy inputs] to produce the titanium?
MDFs took the place over. (Moron-Dolt-Fools).
Feel free to forward this to Apple.
Re: (Score:2)
You could do the math and let us know. Until then it's just you speculating.
Re: (Score:2)
China, which produces 110,000 tons of titanium every year.
Japan, which produces 50,000 tons of titanium every year.
Russia, which produces 33,000 tons of titanium every year.
What is the net weight of Ti in a new iPhone?
Re:No leather, but titanium is fine (Score:5, Informative)
https://www.scielo.br/j/bjb/a/... [scielo.br]
See tables 3, 4, 5.
My major was in metallurgical engineering with a specialization in extractive metallurgy. I worked in mining for ten years until the career field dissipated due to Clinton, Gore, and Babbitt deciding to export the industry just like Biden is doing now.
That is why I know about this stuff.
Also, I grew up on a farm, cows are not worthy of your worship. Chickens are even less worthy.
Re:No leather, but titanium is fine (Score:4, Informative)
Just to repeat what I wrote previously: I added some more comments in the brackets.
Titanium is one of the most environmentally unfriendly materials available.
1) Take ilmenite ore [from mining which Greens oppose] and boil in sulfuric acid [either from mining or as a byproduct of heavy oil refining] until it breaks down leaving you iron in solution and titanium dioxide.
2) Filter and dry the TiO2 then put it into a reactor. Heat to red heat, [requiring large amounts of fossil fuel energy] then add chlorine gas [produced by electrolysis of brine, which requires more energy].
3)The reaction is endothermic so ever so often you have to turn off the chlorine and reheat the reactor and remaining TiO2. [more energy]
4) Now you have titanium tetrachloride in a vapor and you can run that through a distillation column to clean it up. [the waste chlorides have to be neutralized and disposed of in a landfill]
5) The TiCl4 is now put into a closed container informally called the "the bomb" for reasons that will become obvious.
6) Now you add your choice of metallic sodium or metallic calcium, [either one produced by mining the ore, then processing it by electrolysis at high temperatures (700C for sodium) at great energy cost] close up the bomb and light it.
7) The resulting reaction is highly exothermic and after the vessel is done bouncing around you let it cool completely. [all that energy you have stuffed into the process is completely lost]
8) Open the vessel up and you have salt and titanium metal in sponge form. That gets lightly crushed and the salt washed away. [now you have dirty salt water to dispose of]
9) Take the Ti sponge and put it into either a vacuum induction furnace or an argon blanketed induction furnace. Melt it down, add alloying elements if any, and cast it under argon and now you have a useful piece of metal. [add even more energy/]
One other note, titanium is hard to ignite, but if you do set it on fire you are not putting it out.
So they removed a organic biodegradable substance that is the byproduct of dinner and substituted one of the most difficult and environmentally costly metals to refine, both in the name of trendiness.
So which product embodies more CO2? The watchband or the titanium case? One cow produces how many watch bands? How many cute animals were dispossessed by the multiple mining operations [including energy inputs] to produce the titanium?
MDFs took the place over. (Moron-Dolt-Fools).
Feel free to forward this to Apple.
Blah, blah, blah. Most metal refining has ugly processing steps.
Quit trying to baffle us with bullshit.
Just how much Titanium do you think it will take to form the wraparound band portion of all the iPhone 15 Pro and Pro Max chassis that will ever be produced? Now how do you think that compares with the amount of Titanium that is mined and extracted for the pigments, as well as the thousands of aerospace, medical devices and plastics industries?
Hint: 95% of Titanium ends up in. . . Paint!
https://techiescientist.com/us... [techiescientist.com]
Yet it's Apple that's gonna doom us all with Titanium iPhone outer bands. Riiight.
BTW, the iPhones with Titanium "bands" actually have a subchassis made from Recycled Aluminum; further significantly reducing the total amount of Titanium used per phone.
Go find another Strawman to Burn, Man. . .
Apple's cases kind of suck in general (Score:3)
You can get very nice third-party iPhone cases for less money than Apple charges. And they typically have the features you want, versus the features Apple thinks you should have.
Big fan of Spigen (Score:5, Interesting)
Especially their Tough Armor series. Really good protection, not too bulky, has a fairly low profile look and you get a little kickstand. I'm a clumsy bastard so I drop my phone a lot and theye always held up.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a big fan of *not Apple.* Moto G is a great phone, and only $200 unlocked. Cases run about $10.
environmentally sustainable stuff (Score:3)
Probably cork is a good alternative. Silicone isn't quite as good but still better than plastic.
Here's an idea. (Score:5, Insightful)
They could even add texture for grip and render another entire market to the buggy whip garbage bin.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe Apple should make a phone so good it doesn't even need a case.
Who said the phone needs a case? Many people consider the case the fashion part of their fashion accessory. Who the heck wants a bland naked iPhone. Even before smartphone cases existed we customised the cases on our phone.
Next you're going to try and tell me that woman have just one handbag and only use them or buy them based on their ability to carry things.
Don't need "Premium materials" (Score:5, Insightful)
Just give me rubber or plastic that won't slip out of my hand or break the phone.
Even better: DON'T MAKE THE PHONE SLIPPERY AND EASILY BREAKABLE, REQUIRING A CASE.
Just a thought.
LOL..Green washing (Score:3)
Upgrade, I had been upgrading computers since my TRS-80 days, Apple is a tightly closed box now, 3rd party upgrades are also impossible.
Repair , I have circuit diagrams of all my old computers, TRS-80, Osbourne1, Kaypro, Sinclair, Amstrad,Commodore, etc etc etc.
I STILL get full service documentation for biomedical equipment, etc, etc I service.
Spare parts, there are plenty of highly skilled people who do not work for Apple who can replace faulty items.
If Apple wants to supply the parts (at a fair price, not some jacked up price) to ensure the encryption is maintained, so be it. But dont screw over your customers by treating each repair cost as being the same as someone buying new.
We have seen companies quote us over $32k for a "linux box" as the interface between a PC and a high end piece of equipment, it was based on a celeron
Urban Armor Gear Cases recommended (Score:2)
Need a good premium case for your expensive Smartphone? I recommend the cases from urban armor gear. Premium quality, perfect fit, excellent protection. Prices, but so is Apples stuff, and uag cases are better.
Apple & Durability (Score:2)
Tired (Score:3)
Really tired of the "greenwashing" of every bad product. "It's good for the environment!"
Look - no it's not. You used petroleum to produce that thing.
Let's take leather, and carbon footprints. Leather comes from cows. Cows are a renewable resource. While methane [sciencenews.org] -very well may be- a horrible greenhouse gas, there are other things which are far worse - such as nitrous oxide, which is 250+x as bad for the environment.
Do you know what produces nitrous oxide in extremely high volume? Decaying leaves. ( Clearly, we need to eliminate the use and growth of leaves. )
I have a wallet I made over 20 years ago at this point, out of leather. It's nothing special, just a rough piece of deerhide I fashioned into a pouch thick credit-card shaped pouch and stitched up. I'd made it after probably my third or fourth expensive synthetic wallet had fallen apart from use. It looks worn, but it doesn't look bad: it hasn't lost any integrity (though I did restitch it about 5 years ago). Unlike the oil used to create the crap cheap pleather which went into the $40 wallets, there are now more deer in the woods than when I'd made it.
Does this REALLY lower environmental footprint? (Score:2)
While not making leather cases might lower Apple's environmental footprint, will it really lower footprint overall? At Apple's scale, the leather cases they make probably have a good bit lower footprint per unit than other brands made in smaller batches. So if 1/3 of folks keep buying leather cases, but from other sources, maybe the overall impact is zero.
The lowest-carbon (and best-user-experience) option would be a big advertising campaign to get people to stop using any of these unnecessary cases...which
Furries (Score:2)
Guess I will buy 3rd party leather then (Score:2)
Why Design a Phone That Needs a Case?! (Score:3)
Getcher Greenwashed Apple Products here! (Score:3)
"The company won't sell leather iPhone cases and straps anymore because making them at Apple's scale has a significant carbon footprint, according to Lisa Jackson, the company's environmental policy VP."
Even though I own an iPhone, that doesn't stop me from hating these people sometimes. As long as we continue to eat cattle, pigs, goats and sheep, there's not going to be any shortage of skin to be turned into leather. This is just another case of Apple playing consumers for suckers, insisting all the while it's about the environment rather than good old corporate greed.
Leather is just a by-product (Score:3)
Leather is just a by-product of producing milk and meat.
The world has now more leather available than it uses as leather use is much lower than material available.
Processing leather has an environmental cost (for example chemicals used for tainting), but gas emissions by cows is not the problem as leather production is not what drives farming.
Re: (Score:2)
Every part has a customer.. hoof to tail.
There are plenty of cattle (calf), pigs, sheep raised for their skin, in ranches without barb wire. But when slaughtered all the other products are sold for something. Ranchers been doing this for 400 years... leather is something you can haul to market in 6 months. The meat you got to sell immediately, the other stuff you cannot let pile up or it stinks.