4 ms·

> 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. Fi

> 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.
papaf 6y ago
Electronics, especially with high-capacity batteries need to pass rigorous standards to be sold on the market. Then the batteries should be replaceable -- who pioneered non replaceable phone batteries? Or maybe those devices on the market will eat into their market share. Bingo. Profits before planet.
- macspoofing 6y ago
  >Then the batteries should be replaceable -- who pioneered non replaceable phone batteries? You missed the point because you have a narrative you want to fit this situation into. The big picture is that there are valid reasons for sending devices to a landfill. 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. >Bingo. Profits before planet. You're just a one-trick pony, aren't you? That you are writing this insightful commentary on a computing device that will end up in a landfill within the next 2 to 5 years, I'm sure, is lost on you.
  - fsflover 6y ago
    > That you are writing this insightful commentary on a computing device that will end up in a landfill within the next 2 to 5 years Not the parent, but I am writing this comment on Pinephone, which definitely will not end up in a landfill within the next 2 to 5 years, because it's openness enables unlimited support. See also: Librem 5 with lifetime support.
    - papaf 6y ago
      I am the parent, and I am typing this on a second hand Thinkpad. That's the problem with Apple users -- they can't see that there are better ways to consume and are unable to "think different".
      - macspoofing 6y ago
        This is not the issue at hand. People are looking at this and trying to tie it to all kinds of things, like environmental policy, or the right to repair. All of those are valid issues that have specific policy goals behind them but his is much more straightforward. Apple contracted a recycler to destroy the devices, and those devices made it out to the market, breaking contractual obligations. That's it. For some reason, you want to nitpick specific reasons I listed why a company may want to destroy devices, but that's not the point. You and I don't know the reasons, don't know the space, don't know the business, don't know what we don't know, we're just two guys speculating on things we don't have experience in. I am confident in arguing, however, that in whatever regulatory regime we are in, there will be times and good reasons for destroying or landfilling devices. I'm happy you have a secondhand Thinkpad. And I'm happy you got an endorphin rush for telling people on the internet that you have a secondhand Thinkpad - but you are going to landfill that device. Also, I hate Apple devices. I think OSX is overrated, and both OSX and iOS have terrible ergonomics. And yes, Mac computers and laptops are overpriced and their quality varies from year to year.
dandellion 6y ago
In the end any reasons Apple might have to want them destroyed are just because they don't have to face many of the externalities of dealing with their residues because they ship them to thirld world countries, and they also don't pay many of the externalities of producing new hardware because they produce it in a country with poor regulations. In any sustainable system Apple should either be the first interested in repairing those devices or forced to do it.
- macspoofing 6y ago
  >In the end any reasons Apple might have to want them destroyed are just because they don't have to face many of the externalities of dealing with their residues because they ship them to thirld world countries, and they also don't pay many of the externalities of producing new hardware because they produce it in a country with poor regulations. You can create a policy to price the externalities of recycling the electronic device (and that may be a necessary policy), but to be clear, it will be shared between Apple and the consumer through higher-prices - which will impact the poor disproportionally. Maybe that's a good thing, but I always find it interesting that people just point the finger at the manufacturer and not the consumer that ultimately buys the products and tosses it (usually without properly recycling it). It's the same kind of garbage as trying to blame Exxon for extracting petroleum and ignoring the SUV in your driveway. >In any sustainable system Apple should either be the first interested in repairing those devices or forced to do it. You don't even know what's wrong with these devices.

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.

papaf 6y ago

Electronics, especially with high-capacity batteries need to pass rigorous standards to be sold on the market. Then the batteries should be replaceable -- who pioneered non replaceable phone batteries? Or maybe those devices on the market will eat into their market share. Bingo. Profits before planet.

macspoofing 6y ago
>Then the batteries should be replaceable -- who pioneered non replaceable phone batteries? You missed the point because you have a narrative you want to fit this situation into. The big picture is that there are valid reasons for sending devices to a landfill. 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. >Bingo. Profits before planet. You're just a one-trick pony, aren't you? That you are writing this insightful commentary on a computing device that will end up in a landfill within the next 2 to 5 years, I'm sure, is lost on you.
- fsflover 6y ago
  > That you are writing this insightful commentary on a computing device that will end up in a landfill within the next 2 to 5 years Not the parent, but I am writing this comment on Pinephone, which definitely will not end up in a landfill within the next 2 to 5 years, because it's openness enables unlimited support. See also: Librem 5 with lifetime support.
  - papaf 6y ago
    I am the parent, and I am typing this on a second hand Thinkpad. That's the problem with Apple users -- they can't see that there are better ways to consume and are unable to "think different".
    - macspoofing 6y ago
      This is not the issue at hand. People are looking at this and trying to tie it to all kinds of things, like environmental policy, or the right to repair. All of those are valid issues that have specific policy goals behind them but his is much more straightforward. Apple contracted a recycler to destroy the devices, and those devices made it out to the market, breaking contractual obligations. That's it. For some reason, you want to nitpick specific reasons I listed why a company may want to destroy devices, but that's not the point. You and I don't know the reasons, don't know the space, don't know the business, don't know what we don't know, we're just two guys speculating on things we don't have experience in. I am confident in arguing, however, that in whatever regulatory regime we are in, there will be times and good reasons for destroying or landfilling devices. I'm happy you have a secondhand Thinkpad. And I'm happy you got an endorphin rush for telling people on the internet that you have a secondhand Thinkpad - but you are going to landfill that device. Also, I hate Apple devices. I think OSX is overrated, and both OSX and iOS have terrible ergonomics. And yes, Mac computers and laptops are overpriced and their quality varies from year to year.

dandellion 6y ago

In the end any reasons Apple might have to want them destroyed are just because they don't have to face many of the externalities of dealing with their residues because they ship them to thirld world countries, and they also don't pay many of the externalities of producing new hardware because they produce it in a country with poor regulations. In any sustainable system Apple should either be the first interested in repairing those devices or forced to do it.

macspoofing 6y ago
>In the end any reasons Apple might have to want them destroyed are just because they don't have to face many of the externalities of dealing with their residues because they ship them to thirld world countries, and they also don't pay many of the externalities of producing new hardware because they produce it in a country with poor regulations. You can create a policy to price the externalities of recycling the electronic device (and that may be a necessary policy), but to be clear, it will be shared between Apple and the consumer through higher-prices - which will impact the poor disproportionally. Maybe that's a good thing, but I always find it interesting that people just point the finger at the manufacturer and not the consumer that ultimately buys the products and tosses it (usually without properly recycling it). It's the same kind of garbage as trying to blame Exxon for extracting petroleum and ignoring the SUV in your driveway. >In any sustainable system Apple should either be the first interested in repairing those devices or forced to do it. You don't even know what's wrong with these devices.