Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by esmi 2411 days ago
The article is from 2017 and references data from 2016 and 2012. In 2018 Apple announced it stepped up its recycling efforts but I don’t know how things have changed and I haven’t read the full environmental report.

Apple forces recyclers to shred because they determined those devices are not fit for resale and they don’t want recyclers reselling them, like they said they would in the article. This happens to 1/3 of trade-ins, see link below.

https://www.apple.com/environment/
1 comments
jraph 2411 days ago
You are implying that an article that is only two years old is too old, precising that you don't know if things have changed (thank you for your honesty by the way).

Apple forces recyclers to shred perfectly good hardware indiscriminately, against their will, so it does not hurt Apple's bottom line. When you are the richest company in the world, surely you can do better. There is no excuse.

I cannot take Apple's own 2 MB, 55 request loading marketing material about environment as a reliable source.

link
esmi 2410 days ago
> You are implying that an article that is only two years old is too old,

No. I’m stating that policy changed after this article was published, who knows maybe it was in response to this article, so the facts may have changed. The age of the article is not relevant I was just showing the timeline.

> Apple forces recyclers to shred perfectly good hardware indiscriminately

Says the recyclers. Apple says they are not perfectly good hardware, otherwise they would have refurbished it themselves. I also believe Apple maximizes profit which is why I believe if it was reliably repairable, they would have done it. A refurbishment unit has to fetch more than a recycled unit.

link
jraph 2410 days ago
>> You are implying that an article that is only two years old is too old,

> No. I’m stating that policy changed after this article was published, who knows maybe it was in response to this article, so the facts may have changed

Ok, that was a more charitable and likely interpretation of your message. A bit of bad faith unfortunately slipped in my last comment. Sorry for that.

link