3 ms·
> 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: V
by 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 agoI 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.