Discussion

niek_pas: Does anyone know of a trustworthy third party that scrutinizes Apple's claims? I'm accusing Apple of lying, but I'd like to get more context than "100 percent recycled cobalt". That sounds great, but what about all the other metals? What does 'recycled' mean here, exactly? And so on.

saagarjha: Not sure if it's trustworthy, but they ran into trouble advertising this in Europe: https://9to5mac.com/2023/10/24/carbon-neutral-apple-watch-cl...

evilduck: They include their auditor's reports in their document, around page 100: https://www.apple.com/environment/pdf/Apple_Environmental_Pr...Do you also distrust those?

latexr: > Do you also distrust those?I suspect the OP made a mistake and forgot the word “not” in “I'm accusing Apple of lying, but I'd like to get more context than” (otherwise the “but” makes little sense).I expect they are asking in good faith if there are audits, not accusing the auditors of being corrupt.

neya: Can we stop posting Apple's PR pieces here? Everyone knows they score the lowest on repairability so this really means shit.

tasoeur: I really appreciate their effort to go towards more recycling, but to me a lot of this is completely moot as long as they don’t provide a stronger incentive to surrender your old devices for recycling. It’s actually really simple to reach $0 trade-in value due to absolutely silly things like a scratched display. Why would I be giving you back my iPhone for free when even glass bottles are $0.5 when recommissioned…

Someone: [delayed]

vrganj: This sounds like classic greenwashing PR.

markstos: From the company that popularized completely unrepairable earbuds with non-replaceable batteries.

robertjpayne: What other company has ever sold wireless earbuds with a replaceable battery?

markstos: Fairphone. https://www.fairphone.com/fairbuds

bombcar: Since they offer the EDU discount they might as well offer a blanket “it boots get $100 off” deal for returned machines.Though the cost of responsibly recycle and dispose of an old computer might make the $0 offer actually a decent one.

latexr: > Everyone knows they score the lowest on repairabilityTell that to iFixit.https://www.ifixit.com/repairability/smartphone-repairabilit...I’d trust their assessment more than a vague “everyone knows”. There’s nothing “everyone knows”.Should Apple be better at repairability? Absolutely! But let’s criticise accurately and in good faith. When we don’t, points are easily dismissed and no one takes the valid parts seriously.

ezst: Not op but that's missing the forest for the tree. Those devices are not meant to be e-waste conscious at all, which is the undertone here: you can't replace the battery yourself, you can't expand storage when you need, you can't safely expand their life when they are outside of Apple support period because they are soft and hardware black boxes. Instead, you just buy anew.True, Apple is no more no less guilty of this than the competition, but they are also not shifting the needle while pretending to do so, with so many untaped opportunities.

latexr: > you can't replace the battery yourselfNot true at all. I have a close friend (not an electronics or programming nerd in any way) which has replaced the battery (and a screen) on multiple iPhones with nothing more than iFixit instructions.> you can't safely expand their lifeAgain, not true. See above.> with so many untaped opportunities.Which is obvious I agree with, since I said they absolutely should be better at repairability. But consider the dismissive tone of the original comment, which is justified with false information.To give you an exaggerated example, let’s say someone is telling you about all the awful practices Nestlé engages in. All of them are true, but then they end with “and their CEO is literally Hitler, who survived and changed his face due to an agreement with the Beelzebub, and is going to control humanity through chocolate”. At that point most people would dismiss them as a nut job and ignore the other true valid points as fabrications too.Which is why we should criticise, yes, but based on truth, not lies and rage bait.

alexandrehtrb: How about stop making planned obsolence products? How about not charging outrageous prices when their computers need repair?

ambicapter: > Why would I be giving you back my iPhone for freeAs opposed to what? trashing it? You'd rather throw your iPhone in the trash than just hand it to them when you're in the store already?

bogdan: Excuse my ignorance, I have always been an Android user, but are iPhones not resalable?

jasonpbecker: Of course they are, and the order "reduce, reuse, recycle" are in that order for a reason-- reuse (via resale) is superior to recycling the product itself.

Tade0: > But let’s criticise accurately and in good faith.Apple pioneered some huge anti-repairability measures like e.g. soldered-in RAM.Wasn't always that way though. I recall repairing a late 2011 MBP, so contemporary to the first soldered MBAs. Really easy to work on, with the battery held in place with just two triangular screws. That was four years ago and the user is still using it.

bzzzt: I consider soldered-in RAM a reliability win. It's more shock resistant and a connector that doesn't exist can not fail.

hnhg: Was that ever an issue for you?

sanitycheck: They didn't say "nobody can replace the battery themselves", and "you" here was probably intended to mean "a normal consumer". Relative to items with replaceable batteries (a TV remote control, a camera, a pre-iPhone mobile phone), the batteries are extremely hard to replace.The batteries are also not safe to replace, relative to items with replaceable batteries. There is a very low chance of me accidentally damaging my TV remote control while replacing the batteries.None of the information you're responding to is false, and it's perhaps worth asking yourself why you're here defending Apple.There's an easier argument that is simply "But Samsung!".

latexr: > and "you" here was probably intended to mean "a normal consumer".Which is why I used a normal consumer as an example.> None of the information you're responding to is false, and it's perhaps worth asking yourself why you're here defending Apple.I’m not defending Apple, I’m defending accuracy. When someone says something inaccurate about someone or something I oppose, I try to correct that too. It’s important that arguments are based on truth, because when they are not people start dismissing the true with the false.My comment history shows I’m an Apple user but am constantly criticising its current state and Tim Cook. You’ll find more comments of mine criticising than praising them.https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...Perhaps it’s worth asking yourself why you see someone making an argument once and immediately assume they may have ulterior motives, and why you’re actively ignoring the arguments which do not feed your view, including my clear and repeated assertions in the thread that Apple should absolutely do better.> There's an easier argument that is simply "But Samsung!".Which was not once my argument. I abhor whataboutism.https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...I’d appreciate if you didn’t straw man.

some_random: Resale or sticking it in a drawer "just in case"

bilbo0s: Not throwing it away is a win though.It's the throwing it away that is the problem.Not having a phone in the first place is the best for the environment. Then having someone else reuse that phone. Only if all else fails is recycling the preferred option.So of course people are going to concentrate on the problem of people just throwing these things away. And that's for anything. Not just phones.

zero_k: If they want "eco progress" they should make their devices repairable.Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. *In that priority*Reduce & Reuse by making it repairable!See: https://www.epa.gov/recycle

bilbo0s: Well Reduce is really more "Why do you need this (device/pair of shoes/car/shirt/whatever) in the first place?"But the Reuse part is definitely served, at least in part, through repair.

orwin: I know this is mostly marketing, but I appreciate the discourse and effort they seems to put into this. Companies are a poor choice for governance/directions to avoid a tragedy of the common anyway, the answers should come from a governmental body, so any unforced effort put on recycling by companies are good.

bdcravens: In doing an "everyone knows" assessment, you should analyze iFixit scores over time, which is what reputation is built on, rather than a point in time. Additionally, we're talking about Apple as a whole, not just one product. They've had several Macbooks that had scores of 1/10, and the Airpods received a 0/10. Even a recent iPhone had its score reduced from a 7/10 down to a 4:https://www.ifixit.com/News/82493/we-are-retroactively-dropp...(I'm a happy Apple user across all of their products, but I have no illusion that they're easily repairable)

lotsofpulp: Are there tradeoffs to repair-ability?I have machine washed my Airpods multiple times and they still work, and I use them for 3+ years. Seems like a good enough product, based on the alternatives available in the market.

bdcravens: Absolutely. Durability, size, etc.However if we're going to talk about "eco progress" specifically we do have to talk about repairability. To be fair though, a long lasting product is probably more "green" than any easily repaired one in many circumstances.

jonhohle: If they’re recycling it, what does it matter if it boots? The aluminum is worth nothing? I’m sure there’s bits of gold and other things.

bombcar: It could be a low bar for "you can't bring in a destroyed remains of a Mac Classic and get the discount" - but actually, allowing that would be a net good for the world, and wouldn't cost more than the (easily gamed) EDU discount anyway.

roryirvine: They already do that in the UK https://www.apple.com/uk/shop/trade-inGoogle do similar, as do most electronics retailers.Is that not not a thing in the US? Perhaps it ought to be.

bombcar: Only in some areas, and only voluntarily (perhaps except for CA) - Apple will take a computer I believe, but sometimes you get $0 'value' from it.If they offer even anything, you'll get a lot more pickup - everyone will learn "get a discount at the Apple Store if you bring in an old PC" and reduce the amount of electronic waste.However, done too well or for too much, and you could greatly reduce the availability of older still-working machines.

benoau: The equivalent reduction would be device consolidation, with the folding iPhone having the greatest capacity since it could replace an iPad and with cheap peripherals be at least as good a computer as a MacBook Neo. Of course, being Apple, it's reportedly only able to run iPhone apps heh.

jamesnights: thisI absolutely want to see them embrace repairability and such, but kudos to them for the work they're doing and the progress they've made. They make it look good, that's good. I'd hate to see them stop. It's not like they're a non-profit.If anything, I want more companies to do what they're doing (and better, duh), but most companies won't because they have no incentive (Apple can do it because $$$). If I want to hold them to a higher standard, I'll vote for someone who will hold everyone to a higher standard by encouraging those kinds of decisions (read "$$$"). I'm fine with my tax dollars going toward indirectly helping me, including my Apple tax dollars.

zelphirkalt: I don't have the numbers of other manufacturers, but 30% doesn't sound like outrageously much to me. That still is an overwhelming majority of non-recycled materials. An improvement is good, but 30% is nothing worth writing home about.

robertjpayne: The shipped nearly 250 million phones last year plus millions of other products. Having 30% recycled materials across a production line of that scale is massively impressive if you ask me.

zelphirkalt: Why is the number of phones of relevance? If anything, wouldn't a higher number of shipped phones just mean, that recycling becomes more worth it? Other than that, I don't see how that number plays a role. It is what is inside each of those phones, that matters, I think.

dangus: Framework is the industry benchmark. To me, anyone doing anything less than full modularity doesn’t actually care about e-waste.Framework has proven that it is possible to make a great machine that is modular as well as forward and backward compatible, and they’ve done it with a comparatively tiny group of employees.Same deal with Fairphone. Apple can brag about sustainability the day they ship a phone, wireless earbuds, or smartwatch with a battery that the user can replace with a basic screwdriver or less.If tiny companies like Fairphone and Framework can manage to put out products like this, imagine what a company with the kind of resources Apple has could do with the same concept.

shuntress: Phone screens dont need to be user-swappable but apple should be forced to sell each module (screen, frame, camera board, main board, etc).

Schiendelman: Please be careful not to argue to "force" a company to do something they already do...https://support.apple.com/self-service-repair

Schiendelman: Based on what we've seen in the last couple of years, they're doing very well on repairability!

tzs: A "normal consumer", at least in most of the US, can take their iPhone to an Apple store, a Best Buy, and probably several small phone repair services that have small stores or kiosks in a nearby mall or inside a Walmart.From an environmental point of view it doesn't matter if you do the repair yourself or you have it done by someone else.

choo-t: > From an environmental point of view it doesn't matter if you do the repair yourself or you have it done by someone else.The added cost and friction will de facto make it less repairable.

changoplatanero: You know the reason why you get five cents back for a recycling a glass bottle, right? It’s because the government taxed you when you bought the drink and now you’re getting the tax rebate for recycling It’s not related to the value of the materials.

tasoeur: I actually didn’t know! Thanks for pointing that out.

dangus: Have you seen how insane the rental tool kit is?https://selfservicerepair.com/en-US/tool-kit-rentalHere’s a video showing how the battery replacement process works:https://youtu.be/3P1kEy--d9EHeres the part list for the iPhone 17 Pro tool kit:Case 1661-17619 - Heated Display Removal Fixture661-52832 - Heated Display PocketCase 2923-02657 - Battery Press661-08916 - Display Press923-01092 - Adhesive Cutter922-5065 - Nylon Probe (Black Stick)923-0248 - Black Torque Driver Kit923-00738 - Gray Torque Driver923-00105 - Green Torque Driver923-0448 - Blue Torque Driver923-01290 - Micro Stix® Bit923-02066 - Super screw Bit923-02995 - Adjustable torque driver (10-34 Ncm)923-09176 - Adhesive Removal Tool923-09177 - JCIS Bit for Adjustable Torque Driver923-09962 - Superscrew Bit for Adjustable Torque Driver923-08085 - Teal Torque Driver923-08131 - Orange Torque Driver923-07594 - Torx Plus 4IP 25mm bit923-09721 - Housing Protective Cover923-10961 - Display Protective Cover923-12855 - Repair Tray923-13313 - Back Protective Cover MagnetizerESD-safe tweezersCase 3923-13470 - Logic Board Dock923-12856 - Logic Board Dock Insert (mmWave)923-13465 - Logic Board Dock Insert (non-mmWave)This is not “self service,” this is service that requires professional level tools and skills masquerading as self-service to satisfy regulators.I think that Apple wants it to be this complicated so they can tell regulators “See? We complied but it’s totally insane, we told you users can’t possibly repair their own equipment!”Meanwhile, the battery replacement process for the Fairphone only requires one tool:https://support.fairphone.com/hc/en-us/articles/245900296211...