100,000 Apple Devices Repaired, Resold: Apple Sues Canadian Recycling Firm (iphoneincanada.ca) 113
Slashdot reader spth writes:
At a Canadian recycling firm hired by Apple to scrap about 600,000 Apple devices, 100,000 of them were actually resold to other companies that made working devices from the parts.
Apple now sues the recycling company for the money made from the sale plus 31 million Canadian dollars. The recycling company claims that the devices were resold by three rogue employees that pocketed the profits.
The re-sold devices included iPhones, iPads and Apple Watches, according to news reports, and though they were being re-sold in China, Apple still complains that at least 18% of the devices they'd shipped to the company they later found active on wireless carrier networks.
Apple also says the re-sales dampened demand for new Apple products, hurt their brand by keeping products intended for destruction out on the market — and created a safety issue for consumers.
Apple now sues the recycling company for the money made from the sale plus 31 million Canadian dollars. The recycling company claims that the devices were resold by three rogue employees that pocketed the profits.
The re-sold devices included iPhones, iPads and Apple Watches, according to news reports, and though they were being re-sold in China, Apple still complains that at least 18% of the devices they'd shipped to the company they later found active on wireless carrier networks.
Apple also says the re-sales dampened demand for new Apple products, hurt their brand by keeping products intended for destruction out on the market — and created a safety issue for consumers.
At least now we know (Score:5, Insightful)
How Apple really feels about recycling.
Re:At least now we know (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, this seems exceptionally stupid to me.
It makes it really clear exactly which contract term we can make non-enforceable by law, to fix the problem.
The only problem here is Apple complaining. STFU on this you morons, you're stabbing your own faces.
Re:At least now we know (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh come on. Apple explicitly paid a company to destroy some hardware. This wasn't consumers violating a shrink-wrap, this was a company with a negotiated contract for the specific purpose of destroying a large quantity of equipment given to them.
They didn't do it. Their employees walked away with 1 in 6 of the devices intact and sold them. This is an open and shut case of contract violation.
Re:At least now we know (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:At least now we know (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If Apple wanted the devices ground into bits and buried they could have done it themselves. It's cheap and easy. They paid this company to separate and recover the base materials, the metals and plastics, and feed them back in to the supply chain.
Re: At least now we know (Score:2)
Yea. Coz a desire to recover raw material is what was behind Apple wanting these devices destroyed.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple desired these devices destroyed because they were not in saleable condition and they didn't want cheaper but dubious quality phones competing against their flagship product. Apple could have destroyed them themselves, easily, but wanted to pay a third party to have materials reclaimed. The third party took Apple's payment -AND- sold them into consumer channels.
Re: At least now we know (Score:3, Informative)
Yes it is true that a breach of contract occurred. Nobody is denying that. but is possible for that to be true, and also for it to be true that the practice of destroying phone's that are still in usable or refurbishable condition is wasteful and unethical and a huge waste of resources at a point in history when we as a species ought to know better.
The motivation underlying this decision is that Apple don't want their new products to be competing with perfectly good refurbished products. the fact that this
Re: (Score:2)
If they were not in saleable condition then how the hell did they get sold?
Re: (Score:2)
Getting them to saleable condition required a little bit of effort, at which point they clearly were in saleable condition as evidence by the fact that they were sold.
So long as the devices were appropriately labelled (ie used devices, third party refurbished etc, not new stock or official refurbs) there should be no problem.
Reuse of existing parts is significantly more efficient than reclaiming the raw materials.
It should be illegal to knowingly destroy working components unless there is absolutely no dema
Re: (Score:2)
Will never pass. It means if you replace a bunch of hard drives, you cannot destroy them by putting them in the metal shredded since they're still operable hard drives.
You tell me again why people smash hard drives? 'm sure plenty of companies have protocols that say devices that carry data must be destroyed, even if perfectly servicable.
Same goes for SSDs and the like. For Apple products, this will me
Re: (Score:2)
Storage devices can be wiped, even governments have protocols and standards in place for secure wiping of highly classified data from drives.
Any protocol that says perfectly good hardware must be physically destroyed is unnecessarily harmful to the environment as well as the poor, and should not be permitted.
Re: (Score:2)
The government protocol for hard drives containing classified data is to overwrite them with several patterns and THEN shred them.
Re: (Score:3)
Or, perhaps Apple weighed the separated materials and found it weighed less. If you scrap 10 tons of metal and get 9 tons of raw material back, someone skimmed some of it for whatever reason and technically it is theft.
Plus, Apple may have wanted those devices scrapped because they contained user data. Considering the IT crowd here hates returning hard drives of data back, preferring to smash or shoot it up into a million pieces, Apple might want the same - the devices contained user data and should be des
Re:At least now we know (Score:4, Insightful)
They paid this company to separate and recover the base materials, the metals and plastics, and feed them back in to the supply chain.
And that they did, quite successfully, as it seems, avoiding the most environmental harm possible.
Re: (Score:3)
I'll just use Rainway, Moonlight or Steam to stream the same content from my desktop and hopefully by then I can obtain a USB/PCI-E device to plug into my PC
Re: (Score:2)
That's brilliant: who needs a mobile phone if you're never mobile. :P Apple better look out for how prevalent a trend this is going to be.
Re: At least now we know (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Easy Solution: Increase sales tax (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Given the state of the planet and the fact we should be doing everything we can to re-use old tech
"Given the state of the planet" doesn't give anyone the excuse to break the law, especially when the majority of the devices were certainly tossed in a landfill instead of being responsibly recycled as Apple had paid GEEP to do.
Re:At least now we know (Score:5, Interesting)
While true, and apple may have a case against them, the government should immediately sue apple for intentionally damaging the environment. Not only is apple not trying to recycle the devices properly it is actively trying to stop other people from doing so in order to make more profit.
In my option it should be illegal to create unnecessary waste, and my understanding of the law any contract that tries to enforce an illegal activity is unenforceable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: At least now we know (Score:3)
Reuse, technically they were paying to recycle. Reuse has a lower environment impact than recycle. Reclaiming gold from contacts, lithium from batteries, sapphire from camera lenses, and storage drives, is still wasteful compared to creating an aftermarket for 3rd world countries. There is no reason these devices could not be turned into medical scanners for clinics in poor countries around the world. We put people on the moon with a 286 equivalent computer. An iphone 8, with a OS specific to a given task c
Re: (Score:2)
While true, and apple may have a case against them, the government should immediately sue apple for intentionally damaging the environment.
That's not how the world works. First you as the government need to introduce a law that makes it illegal to dispose of electronics (good luck with that by the way, that'll get struck down in court very quickly). Then you need to make the law retrospective (that will also get struck down). Finally then you can sue Apple.
I get it, we have a problem with the way Apple is handling that, but there's very little you can do about it, disposal of equipment is legal.
Re:At least now we know (Score:5, Insightful)
>> At least now we know how Apple really feels about recycling.
> Apple explicitly paid a company to destroy some hardware. [That was still perfectly usable]
> This is an open and shut case of contract violation.
Yep, the company (or their employees) sold the perfectly good phones rather than destroying working hardware as Apple had asked them to.
Judicial judgement: For Apple
Court of public opinion: Apple's green talk is apparently hypocritical virtue signaling, they do not in fact care about the environment.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The contract should be declared illegal, destroying functional hardware is damaging to the environment, harmful to the poor and not to mention stupid.
Taking a collection of faulty devices, stripping them for parts and producing a smaller number of functional devices while recycling the defective parts is EXACTLY what a recycling company should be doing. This reduces waste, and puts cheaper devices onto the market for those who can't afford to buy new devices, as well as a supply of parts for those who want
Re: (Score:2)
Very well put. Now write some congress critters, proposing a bill which prohibits companies such as Apple from contractually requiring that a company *destroys* their hardware, enabling said company to refurbish and re-use functional hardware as they see fit.
The same bill could also require companies producing large amounts of electronic consumer devices to let said devices remain functional for no less than 10 years, and are not allowed to destroy said devices or parts thereof unless at least 10 years afte
Re:At least now we know .. yes BUT.. (Score:2)
They RECYCLED it and apple is ANGERY. I do realize the probably violated their contract, but such contracts should CERTAINLY be illegal. It is always much better for both consumers and the environment if there is demand for a device and it can be cheaply 'enough' repaired to repair the device and resell it.
Intentionally rebuying older devices and destroying them to enlarge your profit should be illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes please, let's jail these clearly socially dangerous peddlers of used iPhones!
It's how all the silicon valley sociopaths think (Score:2)
They pay cynical lip service greenwash to the enviroment until it hits their bottom line then the health of the planet be damned, money matters far more even if as in this case it's a fraction of a percent of their annual turnover. The hypocrisy utterly stinks.
Re:It's how all the silicon valley sociopaths thin (Score:4, Informative)
Not just Silicon valley. Surplus industrial equipment resale used to be a big thing. In the past few decades, it has all but disappeared. There are professional buyers that will walk in to a 'junk store' and offer to write the owner a check to buy up the entire inventory. Just to keep it off the second-hand market.
Boeing surplus used to have a nice store in Kent , Washington. Now their "investment recovery" [boeing.com] web site (all that's left of the operation) says
Surplused assets up for auction are not redeployable
Thanks, guys. I know quite a few small manufacturing businesses that did pretty decent work with their used equipment. No more. Also, the University of Washington surplus store holds back increasing amounts of equipment from public sale/auction. Preferring to send it to scrappers instead.
Re: (Score:2)
How Apple really feels about recycling.
Not really. Apple is pushing to get a 100% closed loop supply chain. Proper design allows for better recyclability; the problem here is someone decided that since the parts were worth more than the scrap to make a few bucks. As for the consumer, if they ever need to go in for repair the device is likely to show up as destroyed; ans Apple could refuse to service it.
Re:At least now we know (Score:5, Informative)
I highly doubt these devices were re-sold with expectations of warranty.
Also, it's not closed loop if you're clearly scrapping what is still functioning and clearly still has market value. Even if you recycle 100% of the raw materials, the energy used to do so is still a waste.
Let's not try to justify corporate greed here, Apple wanted those devices and parts off the market to steer consumers towards new devices.
Re: (Score:2)
I highly doubt these devices were re-sold with expectations of warranty.
I agree, my thought was if someone went for an out oof warranty repair.
Also, it's not closed loop if you're clearly scrapping what is still functioning and clearly still has market value.
Repair parts are often worth more, together, than the item itself. It's quite possible these were old devices Apple no longer sold as refurbs but someone could either cobble together functioning ones form the units to resell cheap; or used to repair devices. Either way, they had insufficient value for Apple to refurb and so they sent them off
Even if you recycle 100% of the raw materials, the energy used to do so is still a waste.
Sure it takes energy, the question is is the environmental impact less tahn if you used new raw
Re: (Score:2)
Consumers are a big part oof the problem as well, they want the new shiny when the old one is just fine
No, Apple is 100% the problem here.
There were plenty of consumers willing to purchase the old devices, as evidenced by the fact that they were sold. If there was no demand for these old devices then this story wouldn't exist.
The environmental impact of reusing already manufactured devices is less than reclaiming the raw materials to build new devices.
The people buying these cheap old iphones are not competing against new devices from apple, these people would likely be buying bargain basement android device
Re: (Score:2)
Consumers are a big part oof the problem as well, they want the new shiny when the old one is just fine
No, Apple is 100% the problem here. There were plenty of consumers willing to purchase the old devices, as evidenced by the fact that they were sold. If there was no demand for these old devices then this story wouldn't exist.
Sure there is demand, just not at a price level Apple can afford to sell them for and make a profit. If Apple sold them consumers would expect support from Apple, and the cost of salvaging the parts is more than what they could sell them for. Others can because they only care about unloading the devices, after that you're on your own. For Apple, the potential problems with selling out of date or cobbled together units is simply not worth it. The problem, in the end is the consumer wants an Apple product a
Re: (Score:2)
Considering "no expectation of warranty" - don't expect warranty repairs from Apple. First off, their moisture sensors draw moisture from air and you'll have your warranty denied for "water damage" if you don't live in a desert and use the device for a couple months. Next, a lot of parts are just not covered by warranty - and expect them broken when you get your phone back from the service. You report with damaged power supply chip, warranty repair denied because the home button broke (it was okay when you
Re: (Score:2)
The problem isn't the warranty, it's branding. If you resell remanufactured Apple products, the performance of those products reflects back on the Apple brand. Before you say it doesn't, how could you sell them without invoking the Apple brand? Generic cell phone? Not to mention Apple's hardware obsolescence is frequently related to software updates, meaning a remanufactured phone might find itself quickly locked out of the Apple ecosystem/walled garden and unable to load the current system, which will agai
Re:At least now we know (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, I'm sure the fact they're hellbent on preventing the "right to repair" is purely because they want to close the loop. Also, the immense trouble they go to preventing parts from being available to repairshops is purely aimed at saving the environment because it would use up materials or something?
I'm assuming you're completely unaware of the trouble Linus (from Linus Tech Tips) had to go through in order to get a mac pro repaired. In the end it was literally "a deal in an alley" to get parts. Louis Rossman has been campaigning against Apple for quite some time now. I think he gave up after Apple bought up the politicians involved.
The Right to Repair includes a lot of other rights. This stuff right here what Apple was doing, was aimed purely at removing repairable or just older items from the market in order to sell more. If you think the new stuff actually uses the recycled materials you're not thinking too clear: the only reason Apple discovered this wasn't through a lack of materials to build more phones (which it should have been) but because the devices showed up on the networks.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I'm sure the fact they're hellbent on preventing the "right to repair" is purely because they want to close the loop. Also, the immense trouble they go to preventing parts from being available to repairshops is purely aimed at saving the environment because it would use up materials or something?
Right to repair and recycling are separate issues. More than likely these were items Apple took back in trade and for whatever reason could not refurbish and resell. Nothing prevented the original owners from selling them for parts.
I'm assuming you're completely unaware of the trouble Linus (from Linus Tech Tips) had to go through in order to get a mac pro repaired. In the end it was literally "a deal in an alley" to get parts. Louis Rossman has been campaigning against Apple for quite some time now. I think he gave up after Apple bought up the politicians involved.
I get it that Apple really doesn't want third parties repairing their gear; unless they certify them.
The Right to Repair includes a lot of other rights.
But it does not mean a device needs to be easily repaired, or even repairable. It also does not mean a manufacturer needs to make parts available after existing repair stock i
Re: At least now we know (Score:2, Interesting)
This is damaging to honest iPhone owners who sell their iPhones as used when they buy
Re: (Score:2)
I'd feel pretty good. Apple's quality of tech support service so abysmally bad, if you turned in a brand new phone on the day you bought it they'd find it unfit for refurbishing and requiring disposal.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe there is still a market for second hand car parts from scrapyards. I never heard of scrapyards being sued by car makers.
recycling doesn't have to mean destroy. (Score:5, Insightful)
But Apple might have lost an overpriced sale. Oops. Can't have that.
Re: recycling doesn't have to mean destroy. (Score:2)
Well put.
Re: (Score:2)
Remember the 3 "R"s, in order of increasing ecological footprint :
- Reduce (= do not buy new Apple shit)
- Reuse (= if it is still working or can be made to work again, do this instead of buying new Apple shit)
- Recycle (= destroy the original thing, scrap raw materials out of it, and make something totally different with them, possibly new Apple shit)
IMHO refurbishing falls into the "reuse" category much more than the "recycle" category.
Re: (Score:2)
They (and every other corp) became pleased and comfortable with how thoroughly they can decide to be the exclusive source of something, in the digital era.
The obligatory car analogy is their eager dream to somehow eliminate all car resale, the only source is their factory. New car, every time. They've made progress seizing the aftermarket as it is, with the occasional regulation pushback allowing you access to some diagnostics.
I haven't used the M-word yet, but one interpretation of "dampened sales" might b
Re: "recycling" could mean "destroy utterly". (Score:3)
Thomas J. Watson and his then employer, NCR, were famous for violating the Sherman Anti-trust Act. Mr Watson earned his one-year sentence by starting a "used cash-register" business that bought up used competing-brand cash registers but never actually resold them. It junked them instead. NCR threfor avoided having used equipment cut into their sales.
If the Sherman act still exists, Apple could be charged, and their Canadian helpers could be considered an accessory. I'm sure Geep Canada would be happy to
Does not get more clear what is wrong with them (Score:3)
Apple, that is. And any large corporation, really. These are not good citizens of this planet.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It should be illegal (Score:1)
It should simply be illegal to destroy devices that can be recycled, with "repaired" obviously being the optimal form of recycling.
If Apple will not repair them, others should be allowed to. I mean Apple already has planned obsolescence (devices stop getting updates, throttling, non removable batteries etc), destroying potentially good devices is a bit too much...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So it should be illegal to destroy a tube radio or television? An open-reel tape recorder? A VCR? A 1958 Buick? A hand operated butter churn?
Are you going to provide storage for all the obsolete junk people no longer want?
Before you post, ask yourself "What might the bad effects of my suggestion be?"
Re: (Score:2)
I said: "It should be illegal to destroy things that can be recycled". Did you read past the word "that" ? In any case, as I was not proposing the exact wording of such a law, it would require some more precise wording, but it should definitely cover cases where someone volunteers to repair a device to be used again, or reuse parts instead of destroying them.
Re: (Score:2)
The issue in your statement lies here: "the obsolete junk people no longer want".
People clearly still wanted those devices, and in fact someone was willing to pay for them.
Re: (Score:3)
By default, it should be illegal to destroy things which are still within a serviceable warranty period, which should be increased by law to a minimum of 10 years for all electronic and mechanical goods, with the legal expectation that manufacturers charge a fair price for repair costs. All warranties should be transferrable, such that there is no difference between second hand goods and things purchased new.
This should a
Re: (Score:3)
I will rephrase that: it should be *legal* to *repair* items, and manufacturers like Apple or John Deere should not openly sabotage all attempts at this by keeping manuals secret and removing parts from the market just to prevent repairs.
Re: (Score:2)
Not news... (Score:4, Insightful)
Basically one company had a specific contract for another company. Second company broke contract. First is suing.
Destruction of product is a standard contract. Think hard drives, defects, produce, international contraband, and over production. I such cases, you don't want the product to be resold into the market unless you are licensed to do so.
Re: Not news... (Score:2)
Good point. This is why it's important to look past the headline and actually read the article.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Not news... (Score:2)
Thing is, Apple didnâ(TM)t receive the money from the resale of these devices. It was, technically, stolen and a breach of contract.
The paid a company to destroy and recycle the devices. The components (metals, rare earths, etc) may (article doesnâ(TM)t say) be recycled. That material belongs to Apple.
Apple makes their money selling new devices to people willing to pay for them. Their stock holders expect that of them. They make those devices from materials in limited supply and so they recyc
Re: (Score:2)
You have seen the contract between Apple and GEEP?
I am with you on the contract violation, but theft? That depends on the exact nature of the contract. I think it more likely that the contract transferred ownership to GEEP so that GEEP could resell the recycled materials.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that you donâ(TM)t think that is a good policy or are pissed Apple destroyed older but still serviceable devices really doesnâ(TM)t matter
Nor does what you think matter. But I think Apple just showed that all of its greenwashing is just that: greenwashing.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the term "beyond repair" reflects an economic judgement. An old iPhone with a cracked screen and a bad board would ordinarily be beyond repair, but this company was getting paid by Apple for the disassembly and parts--that really changes the economics.
I'm sure that Apple's manufacturing does a lot of environmental damage, but this particular program (as contractor for) still provides an environmental benefit. I am not aware of any recycling program from any of the manufacturers of my computers, ph
Re: (Score:3)
These people are being sued for doing what should be the default option for any used electronics, a second lease of life.
While I agree with your general sentiment, the company did take payment for a service it did not provide. And it's telling that the company's response to Apple isn't "well, shame on you - these were still useable devices" - they're saying "these were rogue employees who have hurt our business reputation, and we want them to pay the damages if Apple wins".
Re: Not news... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's because you don't understand the article you're reading.
The news here isn't that there was a contractual dispute. The news is that Apple for all it's virtue signaling is a company with incredibly shit environmental policies.
Straightforward Contract violation.. (Score:2)
There is certainly a strong argument to be made that Apple does far too little when it comes to recycling,. That's probably a discussion worth having again on /. and elsewhere.
But...
How Apple recycles, or fails to recycle, is not the issue. This case appears to be a straightforward contract violation. Apple is claiming GEEP was to only scrap (disassemble) the devices. If the contract supports that position, Apple wins a judgement.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple goes out of their way to increase recycling, but they do it by making it almost impossible to repair anything so recycling is the only option. Their default for any type of issue with Apple equipment is to get the customer to replace the device since there is a much bigger profit margin compared to a simple repair.
Apple should have been keeping the parts (Score:3)
Apple devices use parts that are mostly only useful for Apple devices.
As such, they main resale market for parts would be either Apple, Apple repair places, or of course, Apple Counterfeiters.
Apple should be paying them to dissasemble and quality test the parts before sending them back to Apple, perhaps as part of a cheaper repair option.
Expecting them to destroy working parts is just stupid.
Would we put up with... (Score:5, Insightful)
... an auto manufacturer that preferred that you buy a new car when the battery dies? Or a headlight burns out?
... a vacuum cleaner manufacturer that denies you the right to replaced the filled bag.
The list could go on and on and on. There's a reason Apple is a $1T company: they can demand that you buy another $1000+ smartphone just because the screen cracked. And we have a legal system that is stupid enough to entertain an argument like that. The court should have stamped their filing "DENIED" as soon as it was received. Instead, it'll waste everyone's time listening to Apple's lawyers make inane arguments about "consumer safety" in front of an overburdened court system.
Re: (Score:2)
... an auto manufacturer that preferred that you buy a new car when the battery dies? Or a headlight burns out?
... a vacuum cleaner manufacturer that denies you the right to replaced the filled bag.
The list could go on and on and on. There's a reason Apple is a $1T company: they can demand that you buy another $1000+ smartphone just because the screen cracked. And we have a legal system that is stupid enough to entertain an argument like that. The court should have stamped their filing "DENIED" as soon as it was received. Instead, it'll waste everyone's time listening to Apple's lawyers make inane arguments about "consumer safety" in front of an overburdened court system.
Show me some reference to how Apple demanded that you buy another $1000+ smartphone just because the screen cracked.
It never happened. There is a thriving market for parts and you can repair no problem.
Re: Would we put up with... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, they're fighting independent repairshops and parts manufacturers in court. Getting hiod of parts is a hassle. Opening the devices is a hassle too, though that's true for most glue-age phones.
I've never had a problem finding parts, Amazon is full of them.
I've always done my own repairs, but there are multiple repair shops near me now as well as an Apple store.
You're right that disassembly is a bit tedious. I think it's a byproduct of how much they can stuff into such a small package, it's a tiny 3d jigsaw puzzle. Fortunately there are lots of videos to help.
I'm sure Apple is trying to reduce competition by clamping down on 3rd party parts and service but in fairness a lot of the available parts
Re: Would we put up with... (Score:2)
So fucked that there is not even a need for a big censorship system because people proudly oppress *themselves*.
We know you said "fucked". Every child knows. So what but censorship is the purpose of those stars?
Re: (Score:2)
What he should have said is: Fuck the fucking fuckers.
User data (Score:2)
While I'm not a fan of throwing out hardware that is still working, what are the guarantees that this company scraped all personal data from the devices before selling them?
Re: (Score:2)
For any laptops that I own, I can replace the hard drive, increase the RAM (subject to physical limit), and it's like having a new computer again.
Re: (Score:2)
If the hard drive/SSD were replaced, that would take care of that question..
Not really, unless you can show that the previous drive was then destroyed or wiped. Taking a drive out of a device doesn't mean that the data on that drive ceases to exist.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't even know where to start (Score:1)
The Canadian government needs to intervene (Score:2)
Apple is legally in the right (probably) but certainly in the wrong ethically. The Canadian government needs to step in and make it illegal to destroy recyclable goods if a legitimate buyer can be found who will refurbish them and the refurbishing will cost the owner less than destruction. I realize there are 10000 details that need to be covered in drafting such a law, but the basic principle should be codified.
It should also make it illegal to sell devices that use technological means to hinder the ab
T series chip (Score:2)
Apple will put their T series chips into every product they sell to prevent this in the future.
They'll claim it's for our security, but it also will prevent or make it difficult for people to truly recycle and keep out of the landfill Apple hardware.
To be fair ... (Score:2)
Did Apple pay the company for the recycling of the 100k phones that weren't actually recycled? If so, then they have a valid complaint about services paid for but not rendered. The 100k potential lost new sales is another matter -- it's not a given that those people would pay for a new iPhone.
Re: To be fair ... (Score:2)
Re: To be fair ... (Score:2)
active (Score:2)
Re: active (Score:2)
How exactly would apple find the devices active on other carrier networks if they were not tracking you ?
Phone breaks down, is taken to a store for repair, they look up the serial number (which would give the repair history and whether the phone is under warranty, both kind of important), and the number comes back as âoedestroyedâ. Then they ask the owner - who has no idea that anything untowards is going on where he bought the phone.
If an Apple store told me that the iPhone that I bought good money for was destroyed, Iâ(TM)d help them and hope theyâ(TM)d help me to get my money back.
Re: (Score:2)
The iPhone maker found 18% of devices shipped to GEEP were active on wireless carrier networks.
So Apple clearly got the information from elsewhere, not from phone repair shops.
Re: active (Score:2)
Exposes on of Apple's greatest evils (Score:2)
Apple positions itself as "progressive" and "green" and wants its fans to see it a planet-friendly, but it's actually one of the worst companies on the planet (in part because its scale amplifies the effects of its bad actions, and in part because of its totally in-your-face hypocrisy). This recycling activity PROVES that most of what's in an iProduct is fully usable long after Apple wants you to throw it into a landfill. Their business model DEMANDS that eco-unfriendly forms of mining obtain rare-earth mat
Recycling? (Score:2)
Reduce, Re-use, Recycle. If you reduce demand and re-use parts then you're doing an excellent job environmentally. If you're a "recycling firm" and are scrapping devices, then you're not only not very good at recycling, you're also doing a terrible job environmentally.
Apple Should Just Make Better Phones (Score:2)
"safety issue" (Score:2)
They always say that.
But if the device was a safety issue after it was recovered from the recycling bin, wouldn't it have been a safety issue beforehand also?
PR nightmare (Score:3)
It may be that Apple is in the "right" in the legal sense... but when (if?) this hits the mass media, it's bound to be an absolute nightmare for Apple's PR department. I mean, the very definition of "recycling" is to reuse something, instead of casting it into a landfill... it seems to me, the Canadians have the high ground here, so to speak.
Interestingly, Apple also sells refurbished products on their website; if even a small percent of the devices that they shipped off to be destroyed by this recycling firm could instead be profitably put back into service, than that forces us to wonder as to the true nature of Apple's refurb program... among other things.