9 ms·
Apple sues Canadian recycling firm for reselling 100k devices, not destroying
- rbecker 6y agoIsn't reuse the best version of recycling? Who could have thought Apple was so anti-environmental.
- TallGuyShort 6y agoRecycling is better for your brand than the environment. Reuse dilutes your brand and reduces sales.
- lostlogin 6y agoReuse might dilute some brands, for others it’s a key strength which drives sales. I can’t name a tech company this applies to though, which is a shame.
- TallGuyShort 6y agoThat's a good point. I drive high mileage Toyotas because I love their legendary reliability. I've never bought a new car. I suppose the advancement of the technology is a bigger / faster factor in tech.
- oauea 6y agoIt's obviously a much better business model to sell you a new car every year by artificially making the old one break.
- dheera 6y ago> I can’t name a tech company this applies to though It definitely applies to professional camera equipment, where the cost of buying all your lenses, filters, flashes, and everything else every couple of years is actually beyond almost everyone's budgets. Professionals and serious hobbyists usually upgrade their camera bodies every 2-5 years but often keep lenses around for at least a decade or two if not more. The entry-level cameras are another story though, and are littered with plastic trash lenses that usually malfunction a month or two before their warranty expires.
- ardit33 6y agoCorrect.... Not sure why you are being downvoted There is also a desire for apple to quality control, and not have lots of used devices around that will need to be serviced again at some point.
- usr1106 6y ago> Reuse dilutes your brand and reduces sales Depends on the customer. I would never buy an Apple device and neither would most of my friends, because they have diluted their brand by their long term unethical practices. Unfortunately they still have too many customers who think differently or not at all. Once California is mostly uninhabitable it will change. But that will not happen the next couple of quarters, so they continue.
- dahart 6y agoDoes that explain Apple's refurb program? https://www.apple.com/shop/refurbished https://www.apple.com/shop/refurbished
- TallGuyShort 6y agoNo, it explains the lawsuit mentioned in the article.
- dahart 6y agoDoes it? How so? Can you clarify the connection? Apple does re-use hardware, so isn’t that evidence they don’t agree with you? Doesn’t it mean they believe reuse is good for their brand and not diluting sales? Maybe - since they do both (reuse and recycle) - this has nothing to do with choosing one over the other, and it is more about choosing between recycling vs landfill, ensuring proper managed disposal?
- TallGuyShort 6y agoThey're suing for damages (to them, Apple) because of reuse in lieu of recycling. Not including the money they made. Apple believes this act damaged them. The connection is laughably obvious. Unless Apple shipped unsecured private or proprietary information on these devices to the recycling company, I don't know what other possibility you can think of. Your counterargument is a resale market entirely controlled by them wherein they can pick and choose every item.
- dahart 6y agoThey’re suing for the amount that GEEP made breaking their contract, plus some punitive damages. That seems like it might be par for the course in a contract dispute. Breaking the contract does damage Apple in a number of ways. You seem to be making assumptions about which ones they care about most, without evidence, and in contradiction to what they’ve done and said. You said “Recycling is better for your brand than the environment. Reuse dilutes your brand and reduces sales.” How does Apple’s control of their resale (reuse) market prove your point here? It seems like the point you just brought up contradicts what you said earlier. Control of their resale market is evidence that it’s an important channel, that they care about it, and that they have strong reasons to prefer resale to recycling, no?
- dheera 6y agoFully agree. Apple has always been anti-environmental in just about every design decision they make. Soldered SSDs? Proprietary connectors that change every couple of years? Lack of ability to take old mobile devices and run recent open-source OSes on them? Non-user-replaceable batteries? Everything about the ecosystem is designed to get people to buy new devices every 2 years. I don't own any Apple devices. I just upgraded my desktop computer's SSD from 2TB to 4TB for a grand total of $400 and nothing more in manufacturing impact than the SSD itself and a cardboard box for shipping. I have a PC case with modern internals but a 10-year-old power supply and a 15-year-old case. How's that for NOT creating unnecessary trash on the planet? With Apple I would have had to trash the PC and buy a new one because they solder the goddamn SSDs to the motherboard.
- wwright 6y agoYou make a lot of fair points, but I think this is off the mark: > Proprietary connectors that change every couple of years? Is there any connector in particular you are thinking of that has been cycled out in just two years? All the ones I can think of lasted at least most of a decade. Some such as USB and the 30-pin connector lasted much, much longer than that (the 30-pin connector honestly lasted a long time for how crappy it was).
- oauea 6y agoJust look at the dongles almost every mac user religiously carries with them.
- dehrmann 6y agoThat's just because of USB-C, but USB-C is a standard that other manufacturers use that might have a 10-year lifespan. Why iPhones don't use USB-C is the bigger question.
- kitsunesoba 6y agoThere's definitely some hyperbole in that statement. In the past decade, there's been: - iPod 30-pin - Magsafe - Lightning Only one of those (Lightning) is still in use, and it was a replacement for the circa 2001 iPod 30-pin. Magsafe was abandoned in favor of the non-proprietary USB Type-C/Thunderbolt 3. Most are predicting that Lightning will go the way of the dodo in favor of Type-C in another generation or two of iPhones. Thunderbolt 2 and Mini DisplayPort sometimes get mistaken as proprietary because they were mostly a Mac thing, but in reality it was an Intel thing. A handful of PCs had Thunderbolt 2, but it never really caught on, likely due to licensing fees. Hilariously enough I've seen a number of non-Apple devices equipped with Mini DisplayPort now that Apple has abandoned it. I guess there's the iPad Smart Connector, which has changed a couple of times in recent memory, but practically nobody but Apple made devices for it anyway. Most third part peripherals connect via Bluetooth, or now with the Pro and Air USB-C.
- rossjudson 6y agoI had this same reaction, but we can argue for the other side of it. It's highly likely that these devices have reliability problems, used-up batteries, etc...but are still being sold as grey market/relatively new devices. That would mean harm to Apple's reputation for quality, I guess.
- inetknght 6y ago> It's highly likely that these devices have reliability problems, used-up batteries, etc The problem here are that these parts aren't interchangeable.
- MattGaiser 6y agoIs there a reason that Apple wanted them recycled instead of reselling them itself?
- x0x0 6y agoI'd assume to avoid the competition -- they absolutely know the numbers on revenue per device and can guess at services revenue from low cost devices. It's way lower than selling new phones. If one were charitable, perhaps they couldn't be refurbed to Apple's standard. I don't believe they deserve the benefit of doubt there.
- konschubert 6y agoBut that’s just cargo cutting statistics, mistaking correlation for causation. If a person doesn’t have money and therefore buys a used phone and doesn’t spend on services, forcing them to buy a new phone won’t make them magically have money for services.
- x0x0 6y agoBut it will make them spend more money at Apple -- the device purchase price.
- konschubert 6y agoOr maybe they just get an android then and are out of the ecosystem
- dahart 6y agoWhy do you assume a consumer buying a low-cost used Apple device would prefer a new device over a low-cost competitor's device? Obviously they already chose based on price. Do you think it's possible Apple believes that reselling devices will result in lower recycling rates? Is it possible that reselling devices that can't be refurbished to their standards could be a safety or liability issue? Why are you making judgements about what benefit of the doubt a company deserves based on an assumption on top of an assumption?
- chrisbolt 6y agoDupe: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24663718 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24663718
- neom 6y agoDeviantART Chris Bolt?
- easton 6y agoI'm surprised Apple didn't perma-Activation Lock the phones after sending them off. They do that with the demo phones in the stores, although that might be a MDM policy or something.
- neurostimulant 6y agoWhy would they do that? Apple still earns some money from these devices via the app store. Locking the device will just piss the users and may harm Apple's reputation. And they can still get more money if they win the lawsuit, which is very likely. It's all win for Apple.
- supernova87a 6y agoIf a company pays a contractor a certain $ value to destroy/recycle equipment such that it cannot be used again, but that contractor turns around and resells it, why shouldn't the company sue for breach of contract? If Apple wanted to resell and have those devices reused, it could have done that itself and kept some of that value. Contractor was breaking its contract pretty clearly. Whether or not things should be reused / resold is a separate point.
- sgc 6y agoIf you want to artificially limit the conversation to only one aspect, you are right -- everything else is beside the point. But I for one would expand to say that this type of destruction should be illegal. We should not be mass destroying usable devices. Force the company to ship them to a developing country or somewhere else where it won't hurt your sale of new phones as much, but stop destroying the planet for $$$.
- dvdbloc 6y agoIt’s a shame that along that same line, “Cash for Clunkers” in America destroyed a lot of great cars.
- supernova87a 6y agoCash for Clunkers was specifically aimed at getting gas guzzling cars off the road while providing economic stimulus. Would you have been glad to see those 14 mpg cars shipped to Mexico to be reused and the emissions just sent overseas?
- bigbubba 6y agoWhat of the role cheap used cars play in helping people with little money improve their lives (for instance, by allowing them to commute to better jobs) and the positive ecological effects of raising people out of poverty? An impoverished population has less leverage against corporations and empowered corporations can lobby governments to stop meaningful environmental regulation. It's not clear to me that 'clunkers' were a net benefit to society. Maybe getting rid of them was the correct choice. I don't know what the answer is, but I think there is probably more to consider than car emissions.
- ysleepy 6y agoI know Apple will not re-sell devices obtained in a buyback/trade-in deal, but being confronted with the reality of it like this makes me think. After boiling off the pragmatic trade offs, I'm left being slightly baffled by discounts Apple has decided are still economic with a trade-in. Either the margins are that big that it is worth the points with consumers, or there is actually an equal advantage to the discount in removing a perfectly fine device from the second hand market. The economics of "platform-providers" are very interesting and quite relevant.
- z3t4 6y agoThe aftermarket for electronics is very cheap. They dont want to compete with their own/old products that cost 1/10 the price but for almost the same value.
- jeffbee 6y agoIf Apple doesn't resell trade-ins, why do they buy them and where do refurbished iphones come from?
- jeromegv 6y agoRefurbished look as new, which isn't hte case for trade-ins. Refurbised will typically be new products that were returned within the return window, or may be customers that brough something for repair and were offered a new device to speed up the process.
- TAForObvReasons 6y agoiPhone 11 Pro Max is estimated to cost $500 [1], but retails at $1100 for the 64GB model [2]. Based on their public numbers [3], the most you can get is $450, so they're still ahead if they offer a trade-in discount and just dispose of the old phone. More importantly, they either get to accelerate a potential sale (if the phone is still working) or they get to compete more aggressively on price with high-end android phones [1] https://www.nbcnews.com/now/video/how-much-does-it-cost-to-make-an-iphone-11-70289989901 https://www.nbcnews.com/now/video/how-much-does-it-cost-to-m... [2] https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-iphone/iphone-11-pro https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-iphone/iphone-11-pro [3] https://www.apple.com/shop/trade-in https://www.apple.com/shop/trade-in
- Scoundreller 6y ago> The iPhone maker found 18% of devices shipped to GEEP were active on wireless carrier networks. I'm sure other 'recyclers' played the same game, but this vendor was dumb enough to sell whole units with the logic boards or other remotely identifiable serialized parts. Even a broken logic board has value, but the recycler should've destroyed the serialized parts before sending them off.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- Jon_Lowtek 6y ago> The iPhone maker found 18% of devices shipped to GEEP were active on wireless carrier networks. How is Apple able to get such numbers? Edit: i am stupid - all Apple devices phone home because you must use apple services with apple devices. I was confused by the "wireless carrier network" part.
- judge2020 6y agoBased on the article it seems like they got the number from IMEI activations or something along those lines, not via phoning home to Apple-ran services (since then they could have gotten iPad numbers as well) > While some devices like Wi-Fi iPads won’t show up on carrier networks, which Apple says makes the total number of stolen products higher.
- Jon_Lowtek 6y agoactivation lock is an apple ran service. At first i thought they got the data from the carriers and that sounded very ridiculous. That's what confused me.
- baybal2 6y ago> How is Apple able to get such numbers? Because iphones OTA software has a hidden feature that "phones home" with serial number.
- sydd 6y agoI accidentally opened the link without ad blocker, wtf. How can anyone use the web without one, it looks like this https://i.postimg.cc/tJW4DXyn/Screenshot-20201004-204153.png https://i.postimg.cc/tJW4DXyn/Screenshot-20201004-204153.png
- msoad 6y agoIronically the link you provided is like a cancer itself
- codecamper 6y agoWhy Apple will never receive another dollar from me, despite starting with an Apple IIc.
- JohnJamesRambo 6y agoWhat step in the 100% carbon neutral Apple plan is this? https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2020/07/apple-commits-to-be-100-percent-carbon-neutral-for-its-supply-chain-and-products-by-2030/ https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2020/07/apple-commits-to-be-1...
- franga2000 6y agoIn a functioning society, Apple would be the one paying a fine for ordering the destruction of 100k devices that were easily refurbishable, not the company (admittedly in gross violation of contract) that took the matter into their own hands.
- shrubble 6y agoThis is done or used to be, with paperback books. Instead of shipping the entire book back, a bookstore would cut or rip off only the cover and ship it to the publisher for a refund. It was then considered illegal to resell the cover-less book. For magazines the distributor or store would fill out a "certificate of destruction" to receive credit, and then dispose of the unsold magazines.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- baybal2 6y agoI wrote before about this few times https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21895534 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21895534 Some people were not believing me in earlier posts. Now they have their proof. I can say that Apple was actively practicing this as early as iPhone 4. They at least once tried to threaten online marketplaces selling wholesale refurbished Apple iStuff. Alibaba prohibited wholesale of refubished electronics specifically because of that, knowing this from an ex Alibaba employee: https://rule.alibaba.com/rule/detail/2047.htm https://rule.alibaba.com/rule/detail/2047.htm look at point 17.3. As I understand, they no longer actively enforce that now.
- comeonseriously 6y agoCan't believe people think Apple is wrong here. You're arguing your ideals instead of looking at this case like the contract dispute that it is.