5 ms·

The whole article is bad faith. It links to a Vice article claiming that Apple is lying about its environmental stances because it doesn’t reuse old iPhones and

The whole article is bad faith. It links to a Vice article claiming that Apple is lying about its environmental stances because it doesn’t reuse old iPhones and MacBooks. Then, they breeze over the fact that Apple literally breaks these devices down into their core materials for use in new devices and falsely claims that they’re “shredded into immortal e-waste”. How is that not reuse? Are they suggesting that the parts from an iPhone 4 can somehow be reused more effectively? How many old iPhones are still out there that would even be able to use any of those parts?

_aavaa_ 3y ago
That is in fact not reusing. That’s recycling. And what they could do instead is yes sell those parts, or extend their certified refurbished program. It currently only goes back to the iPhone 12, even though their newest OS supports much older phones. To say nothing of how far back security updates are still (selectively) being released.
- dpkonofa 3y ago
  The logistics of doing that are nearly impossible. Old phones are old phones. No one wants them.
  - _aavaa_ 3y ago
    That’s a matter of price. People who currently use their old phone rather than upgrade every year very much do want their old phone.
bzzzt 3y ago
Technically "reuse" means wholesale reuse of components, shredding them would be recycling. But you're right. The whole right-to-repair is just lobbying from independent iPhone repair companies who want to make a quick buck at Apple's expense. It's part penny-pinching, part fake environmentalism and lots of hate for everything Apple. Even if Apple would bring out the most repairable phone ever it wouldn't be enough since it's all about the control they don't want Apple to have (even if that control is advantageous to the customer)
- whelp_24 3y ago
  I staunchly refuse to buy an iphone or whatever else Apple sells. I both support right to repair and am affected by many non Apple companies that do anti-consumer stuff. The article here actually lists several companies that aren't and hate right 2 repair, including Wahl (learn something everyday). I can't understand why anyone who isn't a manufacturer would be against this.
- fragmede 3y ago
  > The whole right-to-repair is just lobbying from independent iPhone repair companies who want to make a quick buck at Apple's expense. That is a very interesting take. Basic repairability, whether by an independent shop, or a skilled individual (aka you), should be a goal so the manufacturer doesn't have a monopoly on repairs. Market economies abhor a monopoly, and the vendor-only repair scheme is a big one. Looking at cars, The US has the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, which was fought for in the courts, to force vendors to accept that aftermarket parts didn't void the warranty of the part wasn't related. Which isn't directly applicable here, but the point is that an outside vendor could create a replacement part, better in some way (cheaper is a kind of better), and repair shops and customers could choose to use that part instead. Apple shouldn't have that much control. We decided this for cars, the same should be applicable with ebikes for the mind.
- eternityforest 3y ago
  How is it advantageous to the customers? Are there commonly shady phone repair people doing bad work? I've never had a phone repaired(Rugged cases prevent the need pretty effectively!) so I might be out of the loop.
  - Kirby64 3y ago
    This isn't specific to repair shops, but there are a plethora of 3rd party battery options for many, many cell phones. iPhone included. Even stuff sold from companies like ifixit. My experience with replacing those batteries with anything except the OEM battery has been always .. let's just say underwhelming. Maybe I've just been consistently unlucky, but there doesn't seem to be any quality control and plenty of outright lying from 3rd party vendors on battery capacity and expected performance on aftermarket cells.
zbbbbbbb 3y ago
Shocking that an article that uses a swear word in its title doesn't adhere to the strictest journalistic standards :)
- throw10920 3y ago
  That's because Doctorow (the author) is not a journalist. He's an activist. He never has and never will adhere to any sort of journalism standards.

_aavaa_ 3y ago

That is in fact not reusing. That’s recycling. And what they could do instead is yes sell those parts, or extend their certified refurbished program. It currently only goes back to the iPhone 12, even though their newest OS supports much older phones. To say nothing of how far back security updates are still (selectively) being released.

dpkonofa 3y ago
The logistics of doing that are nearly impossible. Old phones are old phones. No one wants them.
- _aavaa_ 3y ago
  That’s a matter of price. People who currently use their old phone rather than upgrade every year very much do want their old phone.

bzzzt 3y ago

Technically "reuse" means wholesale reuse of components, shredding them would be recycling. But you're right. The whole right-to-repair is just lobbying from independent iPhone repair companies who want to make a quick buck at Apple's expense. It's part penny-pinching, part fake environmentalism and lots of hate for everything Apple. Even if Apple would bring out the most repairable phone ever it wouldn't be enough since it's all about the control they don't want Apple to have (even if that control is advantageous to the customer)

whelp_24 3y ago
I staunchly refuse to buy an iphone or whatever else Apple sells. I both support right to repair and am affected by many non Apple companies that do anti-consumer stuff. The article here actually lists several companies that aren't and hate right 2 repair, including Wahl (learn something everyday). I can't understand why anyone who isn't a manufacturer would be against this.
fragmede 3y ago
> The whole right-to-repair is just lobbying from independent iPhone repair companies who want to make a quick buck at Apple's expense. That is a very interesting take. Basic repairability, whether by an independent shop, or a skilled individual (aka you), should be a goal so the manufacturer doesn't have a monopoly on repairs. Market economies abhor a monopoly, and the vendor-only repair scheme is a big one. Looking at cars, The US has the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, which was fought for in the courts, to force vendors to accept that aftermarket parts didn't void the warranty of the part wasn't related. Which isn't directly applicable here, but the point is that an outside vendor could create a replacement part, better in some way (cheaper is a kind of better), and repair shops and customers could choose to use that part instead. Apple shouldn't have that much control. We decided this for cars, the same should be applicable with ebikes for the mind.
eternityforest 3y ago
How is it advantageous to the customers? Are there commonly shady phone repair people doing bad work? I've never had a phone repaired(Rugged cases prevent the need pretty effectively!) so I might be out of the loop.
- Kirby64 3y ago
  This isn't specific to repair shops, but there are a plethora of 3rd party battery options for many, many cell phones. iPhone included. Even stuff sold from companies like ifixit. My experience with replacing those batteries with anything except the OEM battery has been always .. let's just say underwhelming. Maybe I've just been consistently unlucky, but there doesn't seem to be any quality control and plenty of outright lying from 3rd party vendors on battery capacity and expected performance on aftermarket cells.

zbbbbbbb 3y ago

Shocking that an article that uses a swear word in its title doesn't adhere to the strictest journalistic standards :)

throw10920 3y ago
That's because Doctorow (the author) is not a journalist. He's an activist. He never has and never will adhere to any sort of journalism standards.