Almost Nothing About the 'Apple Harvests Gold From iPhones' Story Is True (vice.com) 45
Jason Koebler, reporting for Motherboard: You may have seen a viral headline floating around over the last few days: Apple recycled $40 million worth of gold last year, which was extracted from iPhones. Almost none of what was reported is true. [...] Here is the truth: Apple paid independent recyclers to recycle old electronics -- which were almost never Apple products, by the way -- because it's required by law to do so. Far from banking $40 million on the prospect, Apple likely ended up taking an overall monetary loss. This is not because Apple is a bad actor or is hiding anything, it's simply how the industry works. All electronics manufacturers that sell products in the United States are required to do e-waste recycling under laws enacted in 25 states. The laws are different in each state, but none of them require Apple to recycle Apple products. Instead, they usually require manufacturers to recycle a certain amount of pounds of e-waste, which is linked to either their market share or to the overall weight of products they sell. That's why you see Apple noting that it recycled "71 percent of the total weight of products we sold seven years earlier."
Who cares what products they recycle? (Score:4, Insightful)
As long as they do it, it's a good thing.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Almost nothing about the "Almost Nothing About the 'Apple Harvests Gold From iPhones' Story Is True" story matters.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm sure they release this information in the hopes that idiots take the bait and Apple gets some good press, but if they want praise for being virtuous t
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It seems to be you who's keen to rationalise buying something else. Insecure that you bought something not as good, but 17% cheaper.
Re: (Score:1)
The issue is how the story misinform readers, otherwise yes it is a good thing and I don't think anyone is arguing that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have not trusted TV since monopolization was allowed and the TV all became the same company with the same owners, stories, and spin. Oh, it took a bit to move that way so that it was not too obvious, but as countless journalists warned it happened. The AP with the same spin is intermixed with slightly different fairy stories to claim "we are different".
Newspapers suffered the same fate, and now primarily have the same owners with the same AP stories and spin. Mixed with some slightly different fairy st
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Please tell me I can still show off the Apple logo to everyone in the coffee shop.
Only if t's the latest model otherwise it's worst than having a copy of Mein Kampf with highlighted sections and multiple bookmarks.
Re: (Score:2)
A. Just wait, they'll tell you.
Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
How does the author take a statement such as "Apple recycled $40 million worth of gold from phones last year" and basically end up with "that's not true because it wasn't $40 million in profits"?
Re: (Score:2)
Because most if not all was ever in apple's hands. By the same form of logic, the US recycled $40M worth of gold from phones last year. And the US is a representative republic, so I recycled $40M worth of phone gold last year. Can't quite seem to remember where I left it.
So, since the population of the U.S. Is basically 320 Million, and the amount claimed was $40 Million, that works out to 40000000 / 320000000, or roughly 12.5 CENTS per human in the U.S.
Re: (Score:1)
That's not this author's claim. The claims are "Apple did not recycle anything, they paid other companies for 'recycling credits' (think carbon credits)" (so "Apple recycled" is false)
and
"Apple refurbishes and resells used phones instead of recycling them. The e-waste is mostly old CRT TVs, computers, and other equipment" (so "from phones" is false)
Leaving "$40 million worth of gold" and "last year" to be the only parts of the sentence that are true.
it's not "gold from phones", it's TVs (Score:3)
> How does the author take a statement such as "Apple recycled $40 million worth of gold from phones last year"
That's false because the article is based on data that isn't about recycling phones. Mostly it's CRT televisions and monitors. So if we take out the incorrect words "from phones", we get "Apple recycled $40 million worth of gold". Of course "Apple recycled" isn't true either, so take that out. The (possibly) true part is "$40 million worth of gold". So half the words are true, half aren't.
Re:it's not "gold from phones", it's TVs (Score:4, Informative)
No, Apple sent a check (Score:2)
No, Apple didn't send the TVs anywhere. Apple sent a check to a recycling company in exchange for X million pounds of their recycling credits, as required by law.
Re: (Score:2)
Basically, Apple is required by laws in various states and countries to recycle e-waste because they are a manufacturer of electronics. The waste that they collected, which included cell phones but likely included far more non-cellphone electronics, went to many different recyclers for processing. Most of the articles implied that only Apple's phones/devices/gadgets where involved but would have included a lot of non-Apple products as well. Any e-waste would qualify to meat their requirements, not just the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Apple recycled $40 million worth of gold from phones last year"
Apple has in its possession or (has sold) 40 million in gold as a result? Well no.
But the gold was from phones? Well mostly no.
And it was last year? Well... mostly. Sure.
But 40 million in gold was recycled? Yes. That part happened.
So it should have read:
In the last fiscal year Apple paid recylers to process various ewaste from which the recyclers extracted 40 million worth of gold. It cost more than that to process the ewaste.
Yeah.
Re: (Score:2)
How does the author take a statement such as "Apple recycled $40 million worth of gold from phones last year" and basically end up with "that's not true because it wasn't $40 million in profits"?
Not, he said it wasn't true because Apple didn't do it, and it wasn't gold and it wasn't worth $40 million dollars. In other words: Almost none of it was true.
Re: (Score:2)
So? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The 'errors' were errors of omission: the earlier story didn't mention that Apple is forced to do that by law. But that's not the same as being false.
Re: (Score:1)
Believe me, if the name of Apple is associated with a story someone here is going to go over it with a fine tooth comb and try to make everything seem like Apple was making deals with the devil.
Being a fanboy is no longer about liking something and talking about it all the time. It's about bashing the competition to try to make them look bad. Politics is much the same way and yet people wonder why the public is so polarized and hostile. Nothing good will come of this kind of thinking.
4 "R"s (Score:2)
Reduce, reuse, repair, recycle.
It's nice to see some progress on the recycle part.
Re: (Score:2)
Someone call 911,that person ^^^ is having a stroke
Great, just great (Score:1)
Newsflash (Score:2)
Gold in iPhones (Score:1)
Meh. (Score:1, Flamebait)
I accidentally burned my Macbook Pro in the firepit in the backyard two years ago. I had tossed the wrong box in the fire (I had two boxes... one had cardboard in it, the other had my Macbook Pro and a couple of boxes in it and I mixed them up). My GF at the time asked me "is that your Macbook in there?"
oops.
Not a tear was shed though. I laughed about it - because I loathed the thing. Chicklet keyboard, much of the assembly glued together to make it as unrepairable and un-upgradable as possible (Apple is v