6 ms·

If 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 t

by sgc 6y ago

If 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 ago
It’s a shame that along that same line, “Cash for Clunkers” in America destroyed a lot of great cars.
- supernova87a 6y ago
  Cash 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 ago
    What 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.
    - supernova87a 6y ago
      Old, cheap cars have very bad fuel economy. The same logic you use could justify why we can't prevent rural Indian farmers from burning their fields, or Brazilian loggers from deforesting and slashing/burning the Amazon. Hey, it's their only source of income, who are we to take that away from them?
      - bigbubba 6y ago
        Obviously there is a balance to be struck. I don't have enough data to know what the correct answer is, but I do think it's not such a simple matter that can be decided by only looking at it from a single perspective.
  - HeWhoLurksLate 6y ago
    Cash For Clunkers also made the average price of a used car go up significantly. This really impacts poor / low-income families and individuals- lots of people can barely afford to feed, clothe, and house themselves, and the increasing costs of transportation can really really sting, and may make it harder for them to find stable employment. The financial stimulus of Cash For Clunkers is now long-gone, but poor people- and, for that matter, teenagers buying their first vehicle- are still feeling the aftershocks of it in the form of higher vehicle prices across the board. > Would you have been glad to see those 14 mpg cars shipped to Mexico to be reused and the emissions just sent overseas? If it means better lives for the people the vehicles are going to, then yes, I do.
    - supernova87a 6y ago
      I'm in support of burning the Amazon too, because it provides those people a livelihood.
      - HeWhoLurksLate 6y ago
        Fair enough, there do need to be limits on this- though I suppose the native peoples of the Amazon Rain Forest should be enough reason to stop logging, but we've seen how well that's gone throughout history...
- dkdk8283 6y ago
  Cash for Clunkers was a terrible program: it took many affordable albeit older cars off the road. The barrier to get a car on the road for someone without means has been raised significantly.
  - maxerickson 6y ago
    It was ~0.2% of the US vehicle fleet. Whatever sense it did or did not make, it seems pretty unlikely that it is having any significant effect on the availability of cars 10 years later. (yes 2 tenths of a percent, 2 vehicles out of 1000)
    - olyjohn 6y ago
      Believe it or not, the used car market changed drastically. I regularly shop around for cheap beater cars to fix up. Before the program, there was never a problem finding a running car for $500. It was also easier to find used parts, as cars would go through a part out process before recycling. The program required the cars to be crushed with no hope of salvaging good parts from them.
      - maxerickson 6y ago
        ~700,000 cars were crushed. ~170,000,000 new cars have been sold in the meantime (so assume tens of millions of used car transactions related to that). It was a blip. It's more likely that other factors are driving the change in the market.
birdyrooster 6y ago
Illegal punishable by fine or?
supernova87a 6y ago
Please go advocate strongly for your position and get lawmakers to act. I am of that same opinion, for the good of our natural resources. What I don't support is when people think that existing laws and rights in contracts should just be suspended or ignored because the outcome favors their side. Go put what you want into laws. Don't take pleasure in having laws ignored. It will come to bite you sooner than you think.
- TheAdamAndChe 6y ago
  A certain level of deviance and spurious or immoral lawsuits is basically required to gain the political capital required to create actual change. Thousands of laws have been passed because immoral application of existing law caused outrage and spurred lawmakers to change.
- sam_lowry_ 6y ago
  Sometimes it is immoral to abide the law.
  - supernova87a 6y ago
    I see, and who is to be the interpreter of that?
    - sam_lowry_ 6y ago
      People are. And history is the judge.
    - bigbubba 6y ago
      You, me, and everybody. You have a moral obligation to resist laws when you perceive them to be immoral. This was a pretty big part of the civil rights era for instance (not to say that reusing hardware is so morally important as that, but it neatly demonstrates the principle of not resolutely adhering to all laws.)
    - iakov 6y ago
      Luckily, people aren't computers and don't need an interpreter. Use your judgement, your ethics, and common sense.
remus 6y ago
While I broadly agree with your point, we don't know why these devices were meant to be recycled (and not resold). Apple may have found serious issues with the products which means re-sale wasn't an option.
- chottocharaii 6y ago
  Oh come on. Apple does not deserve the benefit of the doubt here.
  - drivingmenuts 6y ago
    > Oh come on. Apple does not deserve the benefit of the doubt here. Why not? If it’s because they’re a trillion-dollar company, then it’s a matter of scale, and every business from Apple down to the corner lemonade stand needs to be held to the same standard.
jtsiskin 6y ago
It reminds me of Uber shredding 10s of thousands of electric bikes after selling JUMP because they did not want to deal with any liability risk: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-52832791 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-52832791
usaphp 6y ago
> ship them to a developing country or somewhere else Wouldn't it be worse for the planet? First - shipping these across the globe is also destroying the planet. Secondly - many developing countries are not really recycling old electronics, they just dump them into the wasteland, which makes it even worse for the planet.
- searchableguy 6y ago
  Developed countries are worse. They don't recycle or reuse. https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2019/03/china-has-stopped-accepting-our-trash/584131/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2019/03/china...
- ictebres 6y ago
  Yeah, lets not have them have the same luxuries as us so that they do not repeat our mistakes. \s
- bluejekyll 6y ago
  I think the parent comment meant that those countries could use the old phones, not recycle them—refurbish and resell.
vlovich123 6y ago
These phones were shipped to and resold in China. I think the issue is at hand is that instead of Apple recouping the value out of the recycling stream it went elsewhere which seems like contractual theft.
macspoofing 6y ago
> But I for one would expand to say that this type of destruction should be illegal. We should not be mass destroying usable devices. No. That's just wrong. First, just the contract itself should be enough. The customer wants these devices destroyed, and the recycler agreed and took the money to destroy them - they can't just renege on that deal. They took the money to destroy them. Full stop - we're done here. Why would Apple want these devices destroyed? Well .. many reasons. Maybe they can't guarantee safety of those devices. Electronics, especially with high-capacity batteries need to pass rigorous standards to be sold on the market. If Apple expects these devices to be destroyed, they will not be performing any safety checks. If one of these devices blows-up and kills a customer - who is liable? There are other reasons why Apple may want them destroyed. Maybe these devices will put pressure on their support and warranty services. Or maybe many of these devices have structural issues that cannot be fixed fully leading to bad end-user experience with the product. Or maybe those devices on the market will eat into their market share. Or a bunch of reasons (good or bad) that neither you nor I can come up with because we don't know actually know that business (so why are you arm-chair quarterbacking this?) >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 $$$ You can seriously impact a local or a national economy of a developing nation when a rich nations dumps crap it doesn't want on your market. Most developing nations will have anti-dumping laws as well.
- xg15 6y ago
  > No. That's just wrong. Why would it be wrong to make this practice illegal going forward? There are clear environmental impacts in desctroyiing functional devices. Of course Apple has all kinds of reasons why this makes sense for them. Doesn't mean those reasons are necessarily in the interest of the public, so the public doesn't have to accept them.
  - macspoofing 6y ago
    >Why would it be wrong to make this practice illegal going forward? Because it's a poorly thought-out policy created and pushed by people that may not (and clearly do not) understand the market, the space or the unintended consequences that arise from it. >There are clear environmental impacts in desctroyiing functional devices. And we also have clear liability and legal reasons for destroying 'functional devices'. >Doesn't mean those reasons are necessarily in the interest of the public Preventing devices that the manufacturer has not certified as safe from being distributed to the public is also in the interest of the public. Every device that is currently made will end up in a landfill. Having the manufacturer and consumer responsible for these externalities is not a terrible policy, but this is not how you do it.
dehrmann 6y ago
> We should not be mass destroying usable devices I'm fine with making companies pay for externalities of manufacturing, but if you own something, it's yours to do with as you wish.
- xg15 6y ago
  > I'm fine with making companies pay for externalities of manufacturing, Counterpoint: This may not actually cause companies to change their behaviour, it might simply create market barriers, which will be beneficial for companies with the necessary capital - i.e., it will just mean you have to be rich enough to be allowed to pollute the environment. > but if you own something, it's yours to do with as you wish. This is not true. We put restrictions on all kinds of actions if they have a high likelihood of causing damage. This is why you're allowed to own fertilizer but are still not allowed to build a bomb with it. This is also why you need a driver's license to operate a vehicle.
  - dehrmann 6y ago
    > This is not true... You're technically mostly right, but you're also comparing building a bomb to Apple recycling old phones. Your rights end where my rights begin. Driving a car without a license is an example of that. You don't have a right to an iPhone.
jchw 6y ago
It’s not really “artificially limiting” the conversation to one aspect so much as it is logically limiting the conversation to the only truly pertinent aspect. “After they’ve been shipped to a facility to have them destroyed” is way too late to talk about if maybe they ought to have been reused instead.
Shivetya 6y ago
They are usable in the market they were sold in and the environment is better protected if their disposal is done in a professional manner which includes accounting for disposition of any hazardous materials. By sending to a "country of need" we immediately run the risk that end up in the countryside or disposed of improperly and that unless you just happen to land in a country with sufficient infrastructure to even support the devices they just end up as curiosities. It is very easy to be altruistic when no analysis is involved in determining the true cost of such actions. As in, many ideas sound great on paper but are so unfeasible to actually worse than doing nothing.
rasengan 6y ago
To be clear, they were 'destroying' them to salvage reusable parts to move downstream to refurbishing shops to use to refurbish Apple devices, according to the article.
yread 6y ago
In the end it's very similar to how fast fashion brands burn their unsold merchandise every year because they can't sell it under certain price as that would damage their brand. As long as consumers will pay for it it will keep happening. Just capitalism at work.
comeonseriously 6y ago
"But I for one would expand to say that this type of destruction should be illegal. We should not be mass destroying usable devices." That's perfectly fine and I agree, but this has zero bearing on the current case.

by sgc 6y ago

dvdbloc 6y ago

It’s a shame that along that same line, “Cash for Clunkers” in America destroyed a lot of great cars.

supernova87a 6y ago
Cash 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 ago
  What 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.
  - supernova87a 6y ago
    Old, cheap cars have very bad fuel economy. The same logic you use could justify why we can't prevent rural Indian farmers from burning their fields, or Brazilian loggers from deforesting and slashing/burning the Amazon. Hey, it's their only source of income, who are we to take that away from them?
    - bigbubba 6y ago
      Obviously there is a balance to be struck. I don't have enough data to know what the correct answer is, but I do think it's not such a simple matter that can be decided by only looking at it from a single perspective.
- HeWhoLurksLate 6y ago
  Cash For Clunkers also made the average price of a used car go up significantly. This really impacts poor / low-income families and individuals- lots of people can barely afford to feed, clothe, and house themselves, and the increasing costs of transportation can really really sting, and may make it harder for them to find stable employment. The financial stimulus of Cash For Clunkers is now long-gone, but poor people- and, for that matter, teenagers buying their first vehicle- are still feeling the aftershocks of it in the form of higher vehicle prices across the board. > Would you have been glad to see those 14 mpg cars shipped to Mexico to be reused and the emissions just sent overseas? If it means better lives for the people the vehicles are going to, then yes, I do.
  - supernova87a 6y ago
    I'm in support of burning the Amazon too, because it provides those people a livelihood.
    - HeWhoLurksLate 6y ago
      Fair enough, there do need to be limits on this- though I suppose the native peoples of the Amazon Rain Forest should be enough reason to stop logging, but we've seen how well that's gone throughout history...
dkdk8283 6y ago
Cash for Clunkers was a terrible program: it took many affordable albeit older cars off the road. The barrier to get a car on the road for someone without means has been raised significantly.
- maxerickson 6y ago
  It was ~0.2% of the US vehicle fleet. Whatever sense it did or did not make, it seems pretty unlikely that it is having any significant effect on the availability of cars 10 years later. (yes 2 tenths of a percent, 2 vehicles out of 1000)
  - olyjohn 6y ago
    Believe it or not, the used car market changed drastically. I regularly shop around for cheap beater cars to fix up. Before the program, there was never a problem finding a running car for $500. It was also easier to find used parts, as cars would go through a part out process before recycling. The program required the cars to be crushed with no hope of salvaging good parts from them.
    - maxerickson 6y ago
      ~700,000 cars were crushed. ~170,000,000 new cars have been sold in the meantime (so assume tens of millions of used car transactions related to that). It was a blip. It's more likely that other factors are driving the change in the market.

birdyrooster 6y ago

Illegal punishable by fine or?

supernova87a 6y ago

Please go advocate strongly for your position and get lawmakers to act. I am of that same opinion, for the good of our natural resources. What I don't support is when people think that existing laws and rights in contracts should just be suspended or ignored because the outcome favors their side. Go put what you want into laws. Don't take pleasure in having laws ignored. It will come to bite you sooner than you think.

TheAdamAndChe 6y ago
A certain level of deviance and spurious or immoral lawsuits is basically required to gain the political capital required to create actual change. Thousands of laws have been passed because immoral application of existing law caused outrage and spurred lawmakers to change.
sam_lowry_ 6y ago
Sometimes it is immoral to abide the law.
- supernova87a 6y ago
  I see, and who is to be the interpreter of that?
  - sam_lowry_ 6y ago
    People are. And history is the judge.
  - bigbubba 6y ago
    You, me, and everybody. You have a moral obligation to resist laws when you perceive them to be immoral. This was a pretty big part of the civil rights era for instance (not to say that reusing hardware is so morally important as that, but it neatly demonstrates the principle of not resolutely adhering to all laws.)
  - iakov 6y ago
    Luckily, people aren't computers and don't need an interpreter. Use your judgement, your ethics, and common sense.

remus 6y ago

While I broadly agree with your point, we don't know why these devices were meant to be recycled (and not resold). Apple may have found serious issues with the products which means re-sale wasn't an option.

chottocharaii 6y ago
Oh come on. Apple does not deserve the benefit of the doubt here.
- drivingmenuts 6y ago
  > Oh come on. Apple does not deserve the benefit of the doubt here. Why not? If it’s because they’re a trillion-dollar company, then it’s a matter of scale, and every business from Apple down to the corner lemonade stand needs to be held to the same standard.

jtsiskin 6y ago

It reminds me of Uber shredding 10s of thousands of electric bikes after selling JUMP because they did not want to deal with any liability risk: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-52832791 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-52832791

usaphp 6y ago

> ship them to a developing country or somewhere else Wouldn't it be worse for the planet? First - shipping these across the globe is also destroying the planet. Secondly - many developing countries are not really recycling old electronics, they just dump them into the wasteland, which makes it even worse for the planet.

searchableguy 6y ago
Developed countries are worse. They don't recycle or reuse. https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2019/03/china-has-stopped-accepting-our-trash/584131/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2019/03/china...
ictebres 6y ago
Yeah, lets not have them have the same luxuries as us so that they do not repeat our mistakes. \s
bluejekyll 6y ago
I think the parent comment meant that those countries could use the old phones, not recycle them—refurbish and resell.

vlovich123 6y ago

These phones were shipped to and resold in China. I think the issue is at hand is that instead of Apple recouping the value out of the recycling stream it went elsewhere which seems like contractual theft.

macspoofing 6y ago

> But I for one would expand to say that this type of destruction should be illegal. We should not be mass destroying usable devices. No. That's just wrong. First, just the contract itself should be enough. The customer wants these devices destroyed, and the recycler agreed and took the money to destroy them - they can't just renege on that deal. They took the money to destroy them. Full stop - we're done here. Why would Apple want these devices destroyed? Well .. many reasons. Maybe they can't guarantee safety of those devices. Electronics, especially with high-capacity batteries need to pass rigorous standards to be sold on the market. If Apple expects these devices to be destroyed, they will not be performing any safety checks. If one of these devices blows-up and kills a customer - who is liable? There are other reasons why Apple may want them destroyed. Maybe these devices will put pressure on their support and warranty services. Or maybe many of these devices have structural issues that cannot be fixed fully leading to bad end-user experience with the product. Or maybe those devices on the market will eat into their market share. Or a bunch of reasons (good or bad) that neither you nor I can come up with because we don't know actually know that business (so why are you arm-chair quarterbacking this?) >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 $$$ You can seriously impact a local or a national economy of a developing nation when a rich nations dumps crap it doesn't want on your market. Most developing nations will have anti-dumping laws as well.

xg15 6y ago
> No. That's just wrong. Why would it be wrong to make this practice illegal going forward? There are clear environmental impacts in desctroyiing functional devices. Of course Apple has all kinds of reasons why this makes sense for them. Doesn't mean those reasons are necessarily in the interest of the public, so the public doesn't have to accept them.
- macspoofing 6y ago
  >Why would it be wrong to make this practice illegal going forward? Because it's a poorly thought-out policy created and pushed by people that may not (and clearly do not) understand the market, the space or the unintended consequences that arise from it. >There are clear environmental impacts in desctroyiing functional devices. And we also have clear liability and legal reasons for destroying 'functional devices'. >Doesn't mean those reasons are necessarily in the interest of the public Preventing devices that the manufacturer has not certified as safe from being distributed to the public is also in the interest of the public. Every device that is currently made will end up in a landfill. Having the manufacturer and consumer responsible for these externalities is not a terrible policy, but this is not how you do it.

dehrmann 6y ago

> We should not be mass destroying usable devices I'm fine with making companies pay for externalities of manufacturing, but if you own something, it's yours to do with as you wish.

xg15 6y ago
> I'm fine with making companies pay for externalities of manufacturing, Counterpoint: This may not actually cause companies to change their behaviour, it might simply create market barriers, which will be beneficial for companies with the necessary capital - i.e., it will just mean you have to be rich enough to be allowed to pollute the environment. > but if you own something, it's yours to do with as you wish. This is not true. We put restrictions on all kinds of actions if they have a high likelihood of causing damage. This is why you're allowed to own fertilizer but are still not allowed to build a bomb with it. This is also why you need a driver's license to operate a vehicle.
- dehrmann 6y ago
  > This is not true... You're technically mostly right, but you're also comparing building a bomb to Apple recycling old phones. Your rights end where my rights begin. Driving a car without a license is an example of that. You don't have a right to an iPhone.

jchw 6y ago

It’s not really “artificially limiting” the conversation to one aspect so much as it is logically limiting the conversation to the only truly pertinent aspect. “After they’ve been shipped to a facility to have them destroyed” is way too late to talk about if maybe they ought to have been reused instead.

Shivetya 6y ago

They are usable in the market they were sold in and the environment is better protected if their disposal is done in a professional manner which includes accounting for disposition of any hazardous materials. By sending to a "country of need" we immediately run the risk that end up in the countryside or disposed of improperly and that unless you just happen to land in a country with sufficient infrastructure to even support the devices they just end up as curiosities. It is very easy to be altruistic when no analysis is involved in determining the true cost of such actions. As in, many ideas sound great on paper but are so unfeasible to actually worse than doing nothing.

rasengan 6y ago

To be clear, they were 'destroying' them to salvage reusable parts to move downstream to refurbishing shops to use to refurbish Apple devices, according to the article.

yread 6y ago

In the end it's very similar to how fast fashion brands burn their unsold merchandise every year because they can't sell it under certain price as that would damage their brand. As long as consumers will pay for it it will keep happening. Just capitalism at work.

comeonseriously 6y ago

"But I for one would expand to say that this type of destruction should be illegal. We should not be mass destroying usable devices." That's perfectly fine and I agree, but this has zero bearing on the current case.