The environmental impact grows a lot more with the number of sold product than the maintenance burden.

For a business that sold a thousand units with a handful remaining, the calculation is going to be a lot less dominated by impact than for a giant who sold millions and has thousands still in use.

And if there's a giant in this industry, that's Apple.

We are talking about Apple, who is willing to chop off a feature from a product just to sell you the 39$ dongle later.

The couldn't give less shits about the environment.

Ah yes, the company that famously designed their headquarters with zero regard to the environment. The company that included a leaflet titled 'Why the brown box?' back in the 90's when they switched to unbleached cardboard shipping boxes for their computers. Nope they have never given a though about the environment. It's just not in their corporate dna.

Wow, they changed bleached with unbleached cardboard! They made some token environmental changes to their $1B headquarter glass, metal, and concrete behemoth.

I'm pretty sure they have switched to paper straws on their cafeteria too!

You're being sarcastic but they actually did design their new headquarters with zero regard for the environment. They built it in an area where there is not enough housing for their employees and public transportation is non-existent. The parking structure is larger than the office building. The building itself is like a giant greenhouse requiring cooling even in the winter.

Same company against right to repair, I wonder how many broken parts thrown away it took to offset some hundred carbon boxes.

Don't fall for the marketing.

>you're making a decision that the maintenance burden you're trying to avoid is more important than the environmental impact of users disposing of & buying hardware.

Companies don't care for the "environmental impact". When they pretend to, it's a token gesture to make certain customer demographics feel good. At best they will sacrifice a slither of their margins, but if there's a conflict between environmental impact and any bigger slice of their profit, they'll go for profit anytime.

>Which... maybe it is; who am I to suggest different priorities for other people

Environmental impact is about the commons, so it shouldn't be just about whatever personal priorities each has.

This is an example of the difficult (politically not technically) problem of companies externalizing costs. Apple washing their hands of the burden of maintaining software for old hardware is no different than Exxon washing their hands of the burden of capping abandoned oil wells. In both cases the company saves money by costing society more.

>Which... maybe it is; who am I to suggest different priorities for other people

I mean, I get the sentiment. But I live in this world too, and the E-Waste and forced obsolescence(or whatever you'd call it in this particular instance) does have an effect on me, personally. So yes, we should absolutely have a say, despite the fact that at this time we actively do not. In the US, our environmental policy is laughably inadequate, and with what happened in the election, we're about to be on a path of complete self-annihilation, environmentally speaking.

It's a bit of a long-winded way of explaining myself here, but we definitely shouldn't refrain from serious issues because you feel you may be stepping on others' toes.

>We don't want to move away from Space Bar Heating[1] once we've gotten established, and screw everyone who tries taking it away.

This implies what people want to stick to is some inefficient BS workflow.

As opposed to what's usually the case: more stable, tested, and loved features, changed due to tech fads, to make the product appear new for marketing, to squeeze extra profit despite inconveniencing users, or just for change's sake.

As far as the rest of the tech world moving ever forward is concerned, it is "some inefficient bullshit workflow".

I don't necessarily agree with it, but that's certainly the wider consensus.