Point is, nobody wants to pay. > The two offenses are very non-equal and not remotely equatable. Both sides are pretending to want to be eco-conscious while b

Point is, nobody wants to pay. > The two offenses are very non-equal and not remotely equatable. Both sides are pretending to want to be eco-conscious while buying/selling more hardware. > One is claiming to help the environment while doing something actively detrimental to it I'd say something neutral to it as they are promoting recycling. Maybe detrimental as encouraging e-waste but all hardware sellers want you to upgrade so e-waste is part of the modern tech industry. How long does a modern smart phone last? > the other is at most not going for a non-existant hypothetical option which resembled someone trying to sell them the Brooklyn bridge and added sales sleeze. No, the other is wanting to have their cake and eat it too. Which after much scandal, they did! > If that caught on without some through and validated accreditation method would rapidly see fly by night "recycling surplus" operations that ran off with the money without any actual recycling. In the end it was Sonos that did offer a discount, so they couldn't run with any money. It's actually the consumers that decided the deal was not good enough so now they keep the old device and get the money.