iPhone X report shows device with less environmental impact than any other Apple product

AppleInsider

Apple has rolled out an iPhone X-specific environmental impact, with the page suggesting that the high-end OLED device is more recyclable with less impact on the environment than any of the company's devices that have come before.

Reiterating what it said during the reveal of the iPhone X, Apple notes that the device is absent of beryllium, brominated flame retardants, mercury, and polyvinyl chloride. The glass is arsenic-free, and the frame it recyclable stainless steel.

All of the device's packaging fibers come from 175 grams of bamboo, managed forest, recycled paper, or waste sugar cane. The packaging has cut down on plastics, with it using 56 percent less than the iPhone 5s at 8 grams of plastic films.

The battery itself is mercury-, lead- and cadmium-free. According to the report, it is designed to deliver up to 500 full charge and discharge cycles before it depletes to 80 percent of its original capacity.

Apple predicts that over its entire lifetime, the iPhone X will produce 79 kilograms of carbon dioxide, with 80 percent of it generated during production, 17 percent in energy needs from consumer use, two percent from transport, and one percent from recycling.

The OLED iPhone X will sell for $999 for 64GB of storage, with the 256GB model listed at $1149. Color options are silver or space gray.

Pre-orders start on Oct. 27, with the first wave of devices scheduled to arrive on Nov 3. It is not clear how constrained supplies will be when they start shipping, or when any will appear at retail.

suddenly newton

"Over its entire lifetime"
Wonder what average lifetime they used for their calculations...?

CapeTown1652

Good to know that we have a earth friendly phone that can be recycled. It has my attention as a Environmentalist. 

radarthekat

CapeTown1652 said:

Good to know that we have a earth friendly phone that can be recycled. It has my attention as a 

Environmentalist. 

Mine too as a conservationist.

tipoo

I like their environmental goals, but this part 

"
The battery itself is mercury-, lead- and cadmium-free. According to the report, it is designed to deliver up to 500 full charge and discharge cycles before it depletes to 80 percent of its original capacity." 

Is still my sore spot. 

Why can the Macbook Pro and iPad, down to the Apple Watch, all get 1000 charge cycle batteries, while the iPhone, their single biggest seller, is still at 500? Clearly it can scale up and down from the Watch to the rMBP 15...

king editor the grate

I had rationalized my way to replacing my 5S with the X. Now I'm imagining dropping it in a blue bin and carrying it out to the street.

brucemc

Funny how in a world that has become obsessed with "caring about the environment" (at least as it pertains to what people say, not necessarily do) - that Apple, as the most environmentally friendly consumer electronics company, never gets much recognition in the media / blogs for their leadership.

cali

Will this get as many headlines as Phil’s “fail” on stage?

something that will affect our planet forever Vs. a small 3-second blooper that affects nothing. 

lkrupp

But the iPhone X will still be made by slaves with suicide nets around the factory where they toil for food and water.  And this won’t sit well at all with the Right to Repair crowd who claims repairability is the touchstone for recyclability. I can see it all now on Forbes, Business Insider, The Verge, Gizmodo, MacRumors. Apple, those bastards.

RacerhomieX

tipoo said:

I like their environmental goals, but this part 

"
The battery itself is mercury-, lead- and cadmium-free. According to the report, it is designed to deliver up to 500 full charge and discharge cycles before it depletes to 80 percent of its original capacity." 

Is still my sore spot. 

Why can the Macbook Pro and iPad, down to the Apple Watch, all get 1000 charge cycle batteries, while the iPhone, their single biggest seller, is still at 500? Clearly it can scale up and down from the Watch to the rMBP 15...

Because iPhone Batteries need to made on a very different scale. 250 Million a year ,compared to 20 million a year for Macs. Plus, larger batteries last longer.Thats why iPads & Macs get better batteries.Apple Watch is not selling like iPhones. 250 million means using a lot of standard batteries. Apple Watch , Macs ,iPads have custom batteries because they sell less. Only on the $1000 iPhone X Apple is using a Custom Battery of L shape.

grifmx

so glue is recyclable?

radarthekat

grifmx said:

so glue is recyclable?

It might be biodegradeable.

foggyhill

tipoo said:

I like their environmental goals, but this part 

"
The battery itself is mercury-, lead- and cadmium-free. According to the report, it is designed to deliver up to 500 full charge and discharge cycles before it depletes to 80 percent of its original capacity." 

Is still my sore spot. 

Why can the Macbook Pro and iPad, down to the Apple Watch, all get 1000 charge cycle batteries, while the iPhone, their single biggest seller, is still at 500? Clearly it can scale up and down from the Watch to the rMBP 15...

Not even sure were they got the 500, seemed like it was 800 a few years ago (or maybe its 800 before hitting 70%, the decline is not linear). Depends on operating conditions and recharge. Maybe it gives you 500 if you use fast charge for example and much more if you use the normal charger.

Most people don't do full 0 to 100% charge,s if instead you charge your phone when it is at 20-30%, you'd get 800 cycles easy, if you always keep the battery between 20-80% (taking it off the charger before its full) and never use battery intensive apps when its on the charger at 100%, you'd likely get well over 1200 charge cycles (nearly 4 years).   That explains why Ipads batteries tend to last a lot longer than Iphone batteries. They get a lot less deep discharges than Iphones (from my own experience),

AluminumPhone

Why on apple's official website list the iPhone 8 and iPhone X with the same soc. Shouldn't the iPhone X have a faster soc? But if they do overclock the iPhone X they should have a power saving option if this is the case

Mike Wuerthele

tipoo said:

I like their environmental goals, but this part 

"
The battery itself is mercury-, lead- and cadmium-free. According to the report, it is designed to deliver up to 500 full charge and discharge cycles before it depletes to 80 percent of its original capacity." 

Is still my sore spot. 

Why can the Macbook Pro and iPad, down to the Apple Watch, all get 1000 charge cycle batteries, while the iPhone, their single biggest seller, is still at 500? Clearly it can scale up and down from the Watch to the rMBP 15...

There are physics and chemistry involved. Simplified, a physically larger battery can handle more charge and discharge cycles than a smaller one.

colinng

tipoo said:

I like their environmental goals, but this part 

"
The battery itself is mercury-, lead- and cadmium-free. According to the report, it is designed to deliver up to 500 full charge and discharge cycles before it depletes to 80 percent of its original capacity." 

Is still my sore spot. 

Why can the Macbook Pro and iPad, down to the Apple Watch, all get 1000 charge cycle batteries, while the iPhone, their single biggest seller, is still at 500? Clearly it can scale up and down from the Watch to the rMBP 15...

Is it stated at what percentage of its original capacity remains after 1000 charge cycles? If it's less than 80% (and I'm almost certain it is less than 70%, but from what I see in the real world - maybe 50%) then the iPhone battery isn't inferior.

Also the replacement cost of the battery is very different, and because phones are still evolving so quickly, and encountering far more impacts and often with much less protection (pocket vs laptop backpack) I think their expected lifetime is shorter. 

I happily use a Mac from 2011, but would have a noticeably different experience using an iPhone from the same timeframe.