Another step for animals rights!
Leather is a byproduct of the beef industry.
At no point will any fewer cattle be ‘processed’ for meat because of this decision.
What does change is the utility ratio of the beasts. Well use less of each beast making the tragedy of their death more meaningless.
Leather is far more environmentally friendly than plastics, with a small caveat for the tanning process’ chemicals, and emissions from the beasts themselves (though that’s attributable to beef production.)
Leather doesn’t degrade into micro plastics.
So unless Apple is also reducing its beef consumption* by the equivalent amount it’s pointless.
* yes, it’ll be non-zero.
Guess we should all eat increasingly less beef then
Yes.
This is wrong in so many ways.
Making cows(not beasts) less viable to grow because they are more expensive because the farmers aren’t getting money for their other body parts is a win!
Less leather bought = more expensive cows = less people able to afford cows = less cows murdered.
You’re not considering that the meat will still be sold, and the leather doesn’t actually decide how many cows are killed more than the meat does.
Yes, the person did take that into account. That was the whole point. If leather can’t be sold, meat prices will have to become higher (if farmers are not to get less money per cow). This will lower demand for meat, and less cattle will be raised.
It means I’ll be eating beef while poor people won’t.
Probably the dumbest boast I’ve read all day.
Glad you liked it. Cows are tasty especially wrapped in bacon. Don’t bother downvoting me, I have votes values hidden so I don’t even see them. lol.
Cool.
Meat will be replaced by meat replacement products. There’ll be less demand for meat, and there’s also less demand for leather. Good for cows.
You’re not understanding what I said at all.
Just remember it’s always about the profits.
Just like how they stopped selling chargers for the sake of reducing e-waste. Even though they can save on shipping weights and charge extra for 1st party chargers.
Now is it worse for the environment to produce extra chargers and cables? Or the secondary purchases, shipping, and manufacturing? I can’t tell you the actual impact.
Oh and remember the absolute trash 1A/5V charging bricks they included for the longest time ever? They hardly even pushed out 18w bricks before they nixed the entire included charger crap.
If the drive for profits pushes companies to use more recycled materials and reduced their carbon footprint , that’s a good thing right? In the same way that Apple have decided that privacy is a marketing differentiator
Nonono, it’s driving by profit and capitalism bad!
Sure but this is also good for the planet and the animals
No it’s not lol
Those aren’t cute animals though, they are also destroying the planet with their farts. I’ll have to eat so many more of them now to balance it out, Thanks Apple.
What a foolish comment when most beef cows are artificially seminated to produce the most heads.
I love those little bricks, they share outlets very well if you’re going to plug things in overnight.
Good. But fuck that faux pleather stuff too though, it doesn’t last long and is just microplastics waiting to end up in the environment. Get proper stainless steel one or even a good quality NATO strap.
That NATO strap will also end up as microplastics in the water at some point.
Depends on the materials used.
They’re doing a woven material. The article I saw said the rumor was using recycled nylon and polyester in some manner, but that was a rumor and I don’t know if it’s confirmed. But you could absolutely make a decent, reasonably rugged phone case with something in approximately the neighborhood of canvas.
Stopping trying to be leather when it sucked was needed. If you’re not doing a relatively high quality grade of leather, it can’t handle the abuse, and what Apple had recently wasn’t that.
I mean, polyester and nylon are also petroleum-based so will eventually degrade into microplastics as well…
Hermés bands will still be actual leather, right? That’s a whole brand thing with them.
They aren’t
Hope it feels like leather too.
It won’t last like leather
Agreed, however with a phone I think leather cases are a waste. You’re not getting the longevity benefits so are contributing to less ethical environmental practises.
Boots/wallets/belts which you’ll keep for a lifetime are surely better in the long term than man made alternatives which last a year and need replacements.
Leather case means less micro plastics. Which really doesn’t matter to the tech industry, unless it’s straws at the office.
In my experience with cases, they don’t last as long as the phone does. A leather case would out last the phone and not contribute to micro plastics.
It outlasts the phone but it’s unusable with your next phone so in reality it doesn’t
I suppose lab grown leather would be the bees knees
That would be interesting. Not sure using bees knees to manufacture it is the best option. We currently have nothing synthetic that has the same properties as leather. It would be good to have a natural non-synthetic alternative.
For example when vivobarefoot stopped using leather for the synthetic alternative. Thier shoes fall apart so fast now and don’t provide the same leave of protection.
deleted by creator
Agreed. I’ve used the same leather wallet for 13 years and it’s still going strong. Not sure how cheap plastic that needs to be replaced every few months is better for the environment.
Canvas straps can be good quality, less sticky, and last way beyond the lifespan of any consumer grade electronic device.
Not to sound like I’m a textiles expert, so don’t come at me
I’m going on 15yrs for my ostrich wallet. Looks almost new.
I have sixty year old hobnail boots that are still solid. Synthetic material would have failed long ago.
Yeah but now imagine they were part of a sixty year old computer. Kind of a waste if you ask me.
The electronics here will be grossly obsolete within five years.
I wasn’t implying there was a need for a sixty year old computer, just that some natural materials are superior to their substitutes.
I got that, I was just repeating the number. My point is that leather is more durable than is necessary for a consumer electronic, especially one from Apple which has made
planned obsolescencecontinuous innovation a cornerstone of their business.
deleted by creator
Even for the animals it doesn’t matter; leather is a by-product from meat processing. There will not be fewer butchered cows due to lower leather use.
Cool.
But like a broken clock that is right twice a day, Apple doing the right thing is only because there is money in it.
Doing the right thing for the wrong reason still results in the right thing being done. So ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Sure, I’m all for this. Less body parts being sold is always a good move. I just think we need to keep in check why corporations SOMETIMES act ethically.
In this case it’s obviously cheaper, also organic materials are probably harder to source and manufacture consistently
As much as I hate Apple (and like beef and leather), I suspect a bit of work went into making it financially viable. Maybe they’ve worked their synthetic material to be as good and cost effective.
But yeah, there’s the chance it’s all marketing and they’ve merely replaced the word “vinyl” with “vegan” and called it a day.
Maybe they want to move manufacture to India where the cow is sacred. Who knows.
LOL, animals have no rights. OK, maybe the right to be tasty.
Apple claimed this was for environmental reasons, not animal rights reasons.
Which I don’t really get. Most leather is a waste product from the meat industry. Are they just going to throw it away if everyone stops using it? That doesn’t really seem environmentally friendly… nor does using recycled synthetic materials instead of natural materials. Unless there issue is with the tanning process, but it seems like there should be options there.
Tanning is very polluting. Even throwing away the hides is better for the environment than tanning them.
Isn’t plastic production polluting as well?
Is it all tanning or would vegetable tanning better than chrome tanning? I assume chrome tanning is worse, but faster and cheaper, which is probably why it’s done more often.
It makes perfect sense as a PR or cost-cutting move.
PR
But the bigger issue is the amount of environmental destruction beef farming has on the planet. Why don’t we stop that instead?
That’s fine, but stopping the use of leather isn’t going to fix that.
But it does reduce the profitability of beef. Thus reducing operations and preventing more carbon.
Unless it’s reducing the demand for beef, I’m not sure how it’s going to shrink the operations. Beef might just get more expensive if they need to compensate for reduced leather demand.
Less people would buy beef if the prices increased thus the supply will follow :)
Apple doesn’t have much control of that.
Anyone that buys cow products has control of it
But then, if it depends on customers to collectively stop buying something, we’re doomed already.
One less animal product consumer prevents the deaths of many animals. You’re using the all or nothing fallacy.
Because there isn’t a good alternative to red meat?
Ever heard of plants?
You can’t get the same amount of amino acids that you can with meat without consuming 1000s of excess calories.
Also iron from plants is hardly bioavailable.
Well vegans do it, so it must be available enough
soylent would like to have a word.
Have you tried beyond burgers they taste just like the real thing and so humanity can skip the cruelty of lining cows in a narrow chute and slaughtering them unceremoniously.
Those are junk. Not healthy at all.
Research says red meat isn’t for your heart health
Not a waste product, they rely on the profits of everything, it’s a product just as much as meat is and slowling demand for it is good.
Well meat farms produce a lot of methane, which is a potent greenhouse gas, so reducing any kind of demand from a ranch is probably better than nothing. That said, I thought the leather used for iPhones weren’t from animals we’d traditionally use for eating. Moleskin or something?
It reduces the profitability of the meat industry
It’s more enshittification. Making it cheaper and worse and telling everyone it’s an upgrade.
OP is editorializing that it’s for vegan ethics.
Why is it worse?
Leather lasts a lot longer and personally I think it feels better. But the fake leathers often fall apart really quickly and can’t be cared for like leather. A maintained leather item can last centuries, not that an accessory would last very long but faux leather crumbles pretty quickly
I’m curious how many animals are killed to make leather. I would think that the animal is killed for food and the byproduct is leather. If we’re still raising feed cattle and just wasting the leather, wouldn’t that be worse for the environment?
If you pay for it, it’s not a byproduct
You’re tight, but I couldn’t think of a better term for it. I suspect leather is made with material that is generated not for leather making but as a consequence of the meat industry. And since when is “using the whole animal” a bad thing? Unless I’m wrong and there are animals killed specifically for their leather, that would be pretty fucked up.
Right, when we make things out of wood sure it’s killing trees, but it’s a sustainable resource that is better than mining for other materials that don’t biodegrade. Of course in leathers case it is literally a byproduct so there is very little environmental concers. Garentee faux leather is much more environmentally unfriendly
Like almost everything, this announcement sounds more like green washing.
For your wood example, wood is actually a great green resource. It’s not like they’re cutting down the old growth trees anymore. They selectively cut and they have tree farms. Trees are also not as good of a carbon sync as people tend to think they are. Yes, they absorb carbon over their lifetime, but when they die, they rot and release it back into the atmosphere. The carbon we’re worried about is the stuff that came out of the ground that was there for millions of years, which is far longer than a tree lifespan.
“Yes I am causing pain and suffering ring but lol idc” is a totally normal thing to say.
Can you name another place where it’s ethical to willingly cause harm to another?
Animals aren’t people and have no rights.
Sure, but no one is saying they do. Pigs don’t deserve the right to vote and cows don’t deserve the right to a public education.
But I am asking why its okay to harm them? If you cut them, they bleed, scream, flee, possibly attack in retaliation. All the same responses humans have. It’s reasonable to assume animals feel pain similar to humans.
Is the only reason you don’t harm other humans is because the government says those other people have rights? Or is there perhaps an ethical reason in which why that would be wrong?
What situations exactly are okay to cause pain in another for your own pleasure?
Another step for animals rights!
—OP
Sure, but no one is saying they do.
Animal rights do not exist.
Kinda weird that you are only saying the same thing over and over whole ignoring questions. But allright, you do you.
Human rights don’t exist either. These are legal and philosophical concepts that we decide on, not fundamental constants.
Then why is animal abuse a crime?
There are many victimless “crimes against society”
You’re alright with dog fighting?
Bestiality?Are you?
I would say it’s a safe guess they are not, as it’s pretty obvious they were asking you because you said “animals have no rights”. Which implies that you are okay with it and you also decided not to refute it.
I’m not convinced you even believe anything you type though, as your comments all scream “troll child”.
Cool, youve got no rights
Animals have rights in almost every country in the world.
