[_hhkc]

At face value, it seems like Apple is choosing not to reuse the devices. Apple determined that the devices were beyond repair and needed to be recycled for a reason (Potentially safety-related reasons). Geep decided to reuse them anyway, disregarding any potential safety reasons that Apple found not to be repairable. As much as I'd like to say that Apple is in the wrong here, I trust Apple's quality control guidelines over some device recycling company executives trying to make some extra cash.

[IntelMiner]

Except that exact same argument applies to Apple. Making it harder to reuse perfectly serviceable existing hardware simply puts an invisible hand on the balancing scale toward "buy the new shiny thing"

[tonywastaken]

I think we are overestimating how much scale tipping consumers need in order to want to buy the shinny new thing. Also, we don't know the full story on either side, so our arguments are both valid.

[rasz]

Its the other way around. Apple determined it was detrimental to their bottom line to repair and resell devices older than Iphone X. Devices with cracked screens, requiring battery/ charging port/ case/ button replacement, of fully working traded in https://www.apple.com/shop/trade-in ones. What do you think happens to perfectly working iphone 8 plus worth ~$300 after its been traded in? Its not being resold https://www.apple.com/shop/refurbished/iphone , it goes into a blender https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYshVbcEmUc

[sschueller]

Safety? You mean like the latest Apple update that has many laptops running at 100% CPU because of Apples's poor software testing?

[alexfringes]

How exactly does a bug in a background process, which then executes within the same thermal performance limits as any other demanding task, present a safety issue? Product quality? Sure. Safety? How?