15 ms·

> Believe it or not, if you tell customers you will recycle old products for them, you'd better not sell them instead. Legally, I'm sure you're right. But on a

by btrask 6y ago

> Believe it or not, if you tell customers you will recycle old products for them, you'd better not sell them instead. Legally, I'm sure you're right. But on a practical level, what do you think recycling is? If you fish something out of the trash and reuse it, congratulations, you have recycled it in the most efficient way possible. It's like these recyclers are "too good" at their jobs. I thought market forces were supposed to make sure of that. The really disgusting thing is Apple coopting "recycling" for "destroying unused product to maintain brand value." If you have an old Apple product and you want to be good to the environment, do not take it to an official Apple recycling dropoff!

alexfringes 6y ago
I say to you: “mind throwing this battery in the recycling on your way out, I care about its harmful materials not seeping into the environment” and you say “yes” but then decide “this battery could still power my nephew’s toy car for a bit”. But then your nephew throws it in the regular trash eventually. You’ve broken your promise to me. If you’re also the world’s most valuable public company you’ve made that promise to your shareholders and used it to increase your brand perception. It seems reasonable that you’d like to make sure you keep it, no?
- btrask 6y ago
  Isn't that still better than your nephew buying a brand new battery and then throwing it in the trash? Even if he only got a week's worth of use out of the old battery. Reusing things doesn't change the overall recycling rate. It just reduces the demand for new things (which is why Apple dislikes it). Knowing how to Reduce, Reuse, Recycle (in that order!) is much better than some sort of cargo cult destruction of working devices.
  - derrick_jensen 6y ago
    The argument isn't that its better than buying a new battery, the argument is that it isn't conveyed in the contract. EDIT: Also, knowing this happens without Apple adjusting their own terms may be grounds for fraud, so somebody has to change their language anyways.
  - catchmeifyoucan 6y ago
    Not quite. You now end up with an extra battery in the trash. Though you were able to get more life out of one item, you reduce the likelihood that it’ll be recycled again. So the metal parts like antennas, aluminum, that could have been reused for future devices, are now sitting in the trash after the device dies. There is a slight chance the device could be sent to recycling again after it completely dies. Let’s say Apple had assumed a 15% recycling rate, and 3 tons of aluminum in return, you now have a much lower return rate in materials than anticipated because the devices were essentially “stolen” and resold. Seems like fraud to me.

by btrask 6y ago

alexfringes 6y ago

I say to you: “mind throwing this battery in the recycling on your way out, I care about its harmful materials not seeping into the environment” and you say “yes” but then decide “this battery could still power my nephew’s toy car for a bit”. But then your nephew throws it in the regular trash eventually. You’ve broken your promise to me. If you’re also the world’s most valuable public company you’ve made that promise to your shareholders and used it to increase your brand perception. It seems reasonable that you’d like to make sure you keep it, no?

btrask 6y ago
Isn't that still better than your nephew buying a brand new battery and then throwing it in the trash? Even if he only got a week's worth of use out of the old battery. Reusing things doesn't change the overall recycling rate. It just reduces the demand for new things (which is why Apple dislikes it). Knowing how to Reduce, Reuse, Recycle (in that order!) is much better than some sort of cargo cult destruction of working devices.
- derrick_jensen 6y ago
  The argument isn't that its better than buying a new battery, the argument is that it isn't conveyed in the contract. EDIT: Also, knowing this happens without Apple adjusting their own terms may be grounds for fraud, so somebody has to change their language anyways.
- catchmeifyoucan 6y ago
  Not quite. You now end up with an extra battery in the trash. Though you were able to get more life out of one item, you reduce the likelihood that it’ll be recycled again. So the metal parts like antennas, aluminum, that could have been reused for future devices, are now sitting in the trash after the device dies. There is a slight chance the device could be sent to recycling again after it completely dies. Let’s say Apple had assumed a 15% recycling rate, and 3 tons of aluminum in return, you now have a much lower return rate in materials than anticipated because the devices were essentially “stolen” and resold. Seems like fraud to me.