[jraph]

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.

[esmi]

> 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.

[jraph]

>> 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.