PL 4 stuck after start while importing database and parameter

I appreciate you going to the trouble to source a link for your point of view, Zkarj.

Let me present the counter-case in more detail. All the propaganda and marketing material in the world does not undo what Apple is doing: building unrepairable devices.

Apple’s intense legislative opposition to Right to Repair is one of the primary reasons the legislation has not passed yet, despite being introduced in over 20 U.S. states this year. Last year, Apple’s lobbyists in the California statehouse went so far as disassembling an iPhone for legislators, telling them the device could catch on fire if customers tried to fix them.

Until 2012, Apple computers were relatively easy to repair even if they often included proprietary parts. Since 2012, every effort has been made to make a laptop which breaks industrial garbage. There are lots of ways to do this: using proprietary connectors, soldering parts on, gluing parts together, refusing to sell any spare parts. Apple does all of them and actively fights against the right to repair. This is the result of ewaste. It is a major, extremely wealthy corporation actively pursuing evil.

It’s an extremely shallow retort to tell me that if I disagree with Apple’s current methods I should give up twenty five years of expertise in Apple products and at least a ten thousand euro investment in third party software. If I had to do it all over again, I certainly wouldn’t look at Windows. I’d start with Linux. But that’s not my position. It would take at least two or three years of intensive work to change horses. I have to run my business, care for my family and create my art now, with the tools I’ve mastered.

Despite Apple crippling laptops and computers after 2011, I’ve managed to use Apple computers and behave in an ecologically responsible way, upgrading those 2011 MBP to make them competitive with most MacBooks Apple sells now. For desktop, I’ve bought Mac Pro 4,1 and carefully upgraded those. All of these MBP and Mac Pros have had SSD, memory, screens, keyboards and processors either repaired upgraded. Even motherboards have been swapped. I’ve forced Apple to honour their class action obligations for out of warranty repair, keeping these computers out of the digital scap heap. I’ve equipped my colleagues (staff) with the same computers and made sure their Macs got the same attention.

Apple’s disregard for the environment has cost them a pretty penny with me. Until Apple started to build devices which couldn’t be repaired, I bought a new MBP every 1.5 years (finding a good home for the retired device of course) and many new Macs at work as well. But crime evidently pays as Apple is the wealthiest corporation in the world, partly through their intense program to obsolete (software) and cripple (hardware) older hardware.

I’m astonished you choose to applaud and defend this reprehensible behaviour. Do you not live on the same planet with the same oceans and the same air as the rest of humankind? Do you not care what kind of environment our children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren will inherit?

But Alec, as you know, of course, if they distribute a build for High Sierra they would have to officially support it. They can’t sell a product and not provide support. Furthermore they would have to update and test that build with future point upgrades and bug fixes to keep it current, not to mention what might be required for it to work with a PL5 upgrade. That means they would be coding, testing and supporting a second Mac version on an ongoing basis regardless of how similar the two versions are. It is a rabbit hole they are unlikely to go down. They will either support High Sierra or they won’t. I don’t think there is any viable middle ground. Perhaps I’m missing something in my logic.


1 Like

That is a counter case to one aspect of environmental sustainability.

It misses every other thing Apple are doing to preserve the environment. Which is why I still disagree with your statement.

I contend that their net effect on the environment is one of the lowest of any modern organisation and certainly of any that are anywhere near the size of Apple.

The example of an iPhone that “could catch fire” if customers “tried to fix them” is interesting considering Apple themselves have built a robot that disassembles 15 different iPhone models, at 200 per hour, in order to recycle their components.

You can hate on Apple all you like (and there are many good reasons to) but directing your anger into claiming Apple is anti-environment is off the mark. I think the actual problem you have is that you cannot repair them as you would wish. I have no argument with that, just the claim that I quoted.

You are buying the corporate propaganda. It’s a real problem with Apple users, there’s almost a religious attachment. Or perhaps a better analogy would be Communist Party members in the Soviet Union: they went around denying reality as it didn’t correspond with what they’d been told. The math is really simple: it’s difficult to repair Apple devices so they live much shorter lifespans than they should. That math works in favour of Apple Inc in the short term (more devices sold) but against the world in the medium and long term. I’d argue it works against Apple Inc in the medium term as it creates a poor user experience and alienates long term users (like myself). So far Apple Inc has succeeded in fending off that backlash, thanks to their PR efforts.

Sam Goldheart of ifixit who follows Apple behaviour on environmental issues as closely as anyone on the planet conceded at the end of July this year that over the last six months Apple’s behaviour is improving, albeit very slowly. Some positive movement is infinitely preferable to negative movement. The butterfly keyboard after six years of sending MBP and MacBooks to an early grave has almost been retired (I think it’s still included on one current model).

Please go and read the articles carefully to which I linked and try to think deeply on the issue. Knee-jerk responses and phrases like “Hate on” should have no place in this conversation. It’s a very shallow way to treat deep issues like sustainability and the environment.

I probably misspoke when using the phrase “hate on” but I feel it in your words when you use language like you have.

You have your sources, I have mine. I’m not the one concentrating on the narrow subject which I did not contest (the repairability factor). So this conversation is over for me.

Almost forgot, there is the possibility to set someone to ignore. Just the 2nd time used since I am in this forum. Among other things also because the discussion has nothing to do with my original topic.

1 Like