I think this is showing another benefit of focusing on a smaller number of products and controlling their development from (virtually) top-to-bottom.
Apple has such a limited number of products that they can build robots to disassemble said products piece-by-piece, which is arguably a more efficient manner to recycle individual parts. Other companies that have a zillion products would likely find it difficult to achieve the same level of efficiency, because they basically have to "shred" their products and sort the bits out later.
EDIT: Do you have a source on Apple using "Bangladeshi children" for disassembly before today?
OTOH a great way to reduce waste is to make products repairable and upgradable, which is something Apple keeps moving away from, especially on popular products.
Not really. The products aren't upgradable or repairable by the end user, but as they demonstrated today, they are upgradeable (to brand new things like solar panels) and repairable by Apple themselves. I for one hate the idea of an end-user upgradeable smart phone. That sounds like a minefield of driver issues and the like that I just don't want. Its why I moved away from Windows in the first place.
I think it makes a great deal of sense to consolidate the upgrades and repairs - they can do it far more efficiently at scale.
> The products aren't upgradable or repairable by the end user
See? Yes really indeed.
> as they demonstrated today, they are upgradeable (to brand new things like solar panels) and repairable by Apple themselves.
Recycling is neither upgrading nor repairing.
> I for one hate the idea of an end-user upgradeable smart phone. That sounds like a minefield of driver issues and the like that I just don't want. Its why I moved away from Windows in the first place.
I'm not talking changing GPU (which doesn't really make sense on a laptop let alone a cell phone), I'm talking about soldered RAM and non-standard SSD connectors on laptops, and heavily glued batteries behind tons of odd screws on both phones and laptops. No drivers involved, and the ability to increase device lifespan by years.
> I think it makes a great deal of sense to consolidate the upgrades and repairs
Again, recycling is not upgrading or repairing, it's taking waste and re-making into product, that requires more materials and energy than not having to do that and being able to keep using the product in the first place.
> they can do it far more efficiently at scale.
That makes literally no sense. Recycling, even at scale, can't be more efficient than not making product into waste in the first place. You can't recover as much matter and energy as was put into building the product to start with unless you've found a way around everything we know of thermodynamics, and if you have what are you commenting on internet forums for? You've basically solved all the world's problem!
I doubt Apple does that for its official recycling program. But I also doubt most iPhones are recycled through the official program (though I can't find statistics).
I don't mean to single out Apple except to the extent that these sorts of events don't lend themselves to honestly discussing the huge environmental impact of the disposable electronics Apple and others produces. I'm willing to believe they're better than most other companies in this regard, but that doesn't mean much when there is almost zero accountability in this area.
Apple has such a limited number of products that they can build robots to disassemble said products piece-by-piece, which is arguably a more efficient manner to recycle individual parts. Other companies that have a zillion products would likely find it difficult to achieve the same level of efficiency, because they basically have to "shred" their products and sort the bits out later.
EDIT: Do you have a source on Apple using "Bangladeshi children" for disassembly before today?