5 ms·

Recycling is better for your brand than the environment. Reuse dilutes your brand and reduces sales.

lostlogin 6y ago
Reuse 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 ago
  That'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 ago
    It'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 ago
Correct.... 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 ago
Does that explain Apple's refurb program? https://www.apple.com/shop/refurbished https://www.apple.com/shop/refurbished
- TallGuyShort 6y ago
  No, it explains the lawsuit mentioned in the article.
  - dahart 6y ago
    Does 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 ago
      They'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 ago
        They’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?

Reuse 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 ago
That'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 ago
  It'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 ago

Correct.... 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 ago

Does that explain Apple's refurb program? https://www.apple.com/shop/refurbished https://www.apple.com/shop/refurbished

TallGuyShort 6y ago
No, it explains the lawsuit mentioned in the article.
- dahart 6y ago
  Does 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 ago
    They'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 ago
      They’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?