4 ms·

Why is Apple's reputation more important than the profits of a recycling company? Contracts aside, banning resale over something like this isn't capitalism. Yo

Why is Apple's reputation more important than the profits of a recycling company? Contracts aside, banning resale over something like this isn't capitalism. You either own something or you don't. Edit: I misunderstood the article and thought that the devices were sold. Indeed a service contract for recycling should be enforced, unless health & safety reasons preclude. Apple is in the right here, I think.

lotsofpulp 6y ago
What is the purpose of discussing a made up scenario? Obviously there are contract terms that Geep violated, and it even admitted it by blaming it on its employees. I don't know what you mean by capitalism, but two businesses voluntarily entering into a contract, and then litigating when one of them breaks the terms of the contract is pretty normal stuff for any society, capitalist or not.
- andrewjl 6y ago
  Edit: I misunderstood the article and thought that the devices were sold. Indeed a service contract for recycling should be enforced, unless health & safety reasons preclude.
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    Why?
jmole 6y ago
lol, imagine you paid a company to recycle old hard drives or documents and they resold them instead.
- andrewjl 6y ago
  You're right. I misunderstood the article and edited my comments.
- franga2000 6y ago
  No! That is not even close to being comparable! These devices are almost always soft-wiped before being shipped out and failing that, always 100% encrypted. Many of these were either scavenged for parts, all but one of which are entirely non-sensitive, or re-sold whole, which necessarily entails another software wipe, making recovery of ciphertext near impossible (but also, still encrypted even if you did). "lol, imagine being so blinded by greed that you would destroy thousands of working devices, force barely-paid workers in horrible conditions to make almost identical devices out of dirty materials mined by children with guns to their heads, which you would then proceed to sell to those same consumers whose devices you just threw away for more than a month's salary."
solarkraft 6y ago
> Indeed a service contract for recycling should be enforced, unless health & safety reasons preclude. Apple is in the right here, I think. With current law: Very likely. But should it be that way? Should it be allowed to order the destruction of perfectly good devices people really want? Apple's reason for wanting this is "we can extract more money that way", which sounds like an inefficiency of an unfree market to me, actually.
- andrewjl 6y ago
  I realize the irony of arguing against my prior IMO incorrect position, so it goes. Given it's a freely entered into contract I don't consider it our place to allow or disallow it. Apple's reason is a legitimate one, since it owns those devices, that's the cornerstone of property rights. The argument about social good may sound good but unnecessary coercion is incompatible with a free society. IMO the better way to fix this is to create better incentives for re-use, such as tax credits. Coercion should always be a last resort.

lotsofpulp 6y ago

What is the purpose of discussing a made up scenario? Obviously there are contract terms that Geep violated, and it even admitted it by blaming it on its employees. I don't know what you mean by capitalism, but two businesses voluntarily entering into a contract, and then litigating when one of them breaks the terms of the contract is pretty normal stuff for any society, capitalist or not.

andrewjl 6y ago
Edit: I misunderstood the article and thought that the devices were sold. Indeed a service contract for recycling should be enforced, unless health & safety reasons preclude.
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  Why?

jmole 6y ago

lol, imagine you paid a company to recycle old hard drives or documents and they resold them instead.

andrewjl 6y ago
You're right. I misunderstood the article and edited my comments.
franga2000 6y ago
No! That is not even close to being comparable! These devices are almost always soft-wiped before being shipped out and failing that, always 100% encrypted. Many of these were either scavenged for parts, all but one of which are entirely non-sensitive, or re-sold whole, which necessarily entails another software wipe, making recovery of ciphertext near impossible (but also, still encrypted even if you did). "lol, imagine being so blinded by greed that you would destroy thousands of working devices, force barely-paid workers in horrible conditions to make almost identical devices out of dirty materials mined by children with guns to their heads, which you would then proceed to sell to those same consumers whose devices you just threw away for more than a month's salary."

solarkraft 6y ago

> Indeed a service contract for recycling should be enforced, unless health & safety reasons preclude. Apple is in the right here, I think. With current law: Very likely. But should it be that way? Should it be allowed to order the destruction of perfectly good devices people really want? Apple's reason for wanting this is "we can extract more money that way", which sounds like an inefficiency of an unfree market to me, actually.

andrewjl 6y ago
I realize the irony of arguing against my prior IMO incorrect position, so it goes. Given it's a freely entered into contract I don't consider it our place to allow or disallow it. Apple's reason is a legitimate one, since it owns those devices, that's the cornerstone of property rights. The argument about social good may sound good but unnecessary coercion is incompatible with a free society. IMO the better way to fix this is to create better incentives for re-use, such as tax credits. Coercion should always be a last resort.