Apple sues recycler for allegedly reselling 100,000 devices it was hired to scrap

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 33
    dewmedewme Posts: 6,106member
    I do understand why some people are offended by Apple discarding and recycling devices that may in fact still have useful life left in them. I suffer from the affliction of keeping tech crap around way beyond its intended lifetime. I take care of everything I buy and can usually keep it running in some manner long after its been declared vintage, obsolete, silver series, over the hill, or whatever term you want to assign to things that are no longer worthy of the mainstream store sales channels, but still show up in flea markets, EBay, yard sale fodder, friend’s garages, etc. Part of this pattern is caused by sunk cost bias, i.e., I paid a lot of money for it and want to get it all back, and then some, by keeping it until it absolutely no longer runs, not even with a slim Linux build. I also love the notion of recycling and repurposing, at all levels from cities to buildings to machinery to tech gadgets, and to some extent, people. 

    But that’s just me and my personal beliefs and it can lead to clutter. Apple on the other hand has many other concerns that they must deal with. They’ve made product design choices that are not necessarily, or affordably, compatible with service life extension through component level replacement and upgrades. They also strive to improve the performance and usefulness of their products year over year to the point that not upgrading to their latest and greatest products really costs their customers a lot in opportunity and productivity costs. In other words, they probably believe that waiting too long to upgrade from an older product is not cost effective in a macro sense. With the pace of change in technology and performance, a lot of volume buyers agree with Apple’s philosophy. So rather than trying to extend older product’s service lives beyond their peak years and avoid other issues associated with older products, like energy use, hazardous materials, landfill, etc., they proactively support recycling of the products in their possession rather than repurposing and service life extension. That is their choice and their approach, and I guarantee that it is fully supported by their financial and economic data, whether we agree with it or not.

    I felt the same angst when the US Navy decommissioned and scrapped ships (surface and submarine) that had 2 or 3 decades of service life remaining in them, many after having undergone extensive technology upgrades that cost hundreds of millions of dollars within a couple of years of their demise. The US could have sold these ships to foreign navies like they’d done in the past, or repurposed them for reserve use, or converted them to power plants. But for reasons known only to those who make the decisions, almost all of them were sunk as targets, broken up for scrap, or entombed as floating hulks until we can figure out how to properly dispose of them. As someone who sees value in repurposing and is afflicted with sunk cost bias it’s painful to see, but I trust that those who had to make the hard decisions, like Apple, were justified in their choices.
     
    Bart Ywatto_cobramuthuk_vanalingamDetnator
     4Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 22 of 33
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    elijahg said:
    Surely if these devices were good enough to resell, it would be better to resell them than recycle them. It's always more eco-friendly to keep using an existing phone than buy a new one.
    Exactly reuse is the smartest form of recycling.   This is just another reason why I’ve significantly reduced my exposure to Apple products.    Their “environmental policies” have little to do with The environment and a whole lot to due with providing Apple with repeating sales.  

    This is frustrating because I see Apple doing a lot of things right like the move to ARM, but then you have to weigh their hostile environmental policies and treatment of their customers.  
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 23 of 33
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    mknelson said:
    elijahg said:
    Surely if these devices were good enough to resell, it would be better to resell them than recycle them. It's always more eco-friendly to keep using an existing phone than buy a new one.
    Yup!

    Reduce > Reuse > Recyle.

    But, that's not what Geep was contracted to do so it's still a violation of that agreement.
    True but this just puts Apple in a bad light.  
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 24 of 33
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    sflocal said:
    This is due to Apple's repair policies more than anything else. Apple tells customers that their iPhones must be replaced even if they could be repaired by a competent technician. This is why all of Apple's claims of being "green" are rubbish. Reuse is the best form of recycling. This recycling firm was actually doing its job. It just happened that the way they did it was not in Apple's best interest even if it was in the best interest of the planet.
    You're basing that off of what?  This article?  

    No one knows the conditions of these items when they were to be recycled.  Obviously, they could have been repaired since they're working, but it doesn't mean they would have been up to Apple's standards for Apple to sell directly to consumers.  

    Apple does not want to repair an EOL'd iPhone5 and re-sell it, let alone give it to some 3rd-party technician to refurbish.  Why?  Because the customer that buys that "recycled" iPhone5 will blame Apple for it not working properly, or not being able to update it to a current OS.  You know that will be the case... but no.... it all has to be about you.
    If you buy a used car do blame GM for the broken parts?   Your reasoning can be likened to the soft stuff found in a cow pasture.  
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 25 of 33
    elijahgelijahg Posts: 2,904member
    mknelson said:
    elijahg said:
    Surely if these devices were good enough to resell, it would be better to resell them than recycle them. It's always more eco-friendly to keep using an existing phone than buy a new one.
    Yup!

    Reduce > Reuse > Recyle.

    But, that's not what Geep was contracted to do so it's still a violation of that agreement.
    Absolutely, I don't deny this, but it does take the edge off Apple's green drive, somewhat. Profit before environment, right?
    muthuk_vanalingam
     1Like 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 26 of 33
    elijahgelijahg Posts: 2,904member

    n2macs said:
    elijahg said:
    Surely if these devices were good enough to resell, it would be better to resell them than recycle them. It's always more eco-friendly to keep using an existing phone than buy a new one.
    That’s not the point. The phones could’ve had unseen damage or other problems. They were probably repaired then sold. The company is responsible for its employees actions. There is no way that much product left their warehouses without management’s knowledge. This should be a open and shut case.
    You are assuming for some reason that my statement implies it's fine for the recycling company to violate its agreement with Apple. It's not, nor did I insinuate it was ok. You've missed my point entirely which is it's better to repair and resell phones than it is to recycle them. The company repairing them takes on the responsibility if they're faulty, not Apple. "Unseen damage or other problems" is the the risk you take when you buy used products from a third party.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 27 of 33
    elijahgelijahg Posts: 2,904member

    sflocal said:
    This is due to Apple's repair policies more than anything else. Apple tells customers that their iPhones must be replaced even if they could be repaired by a competent technician. This is why all of Apple's claims of being "green" are rubbish. Reuse is the best form of recycling. This recycling firm was actually doing its job. It just happened that the way they did it was not in Apple's best interest even if it was in the best interest of the planet.
    You're basing that off of what?  This article?  

    No one knows the conditions of these items when they were to be recycled.  Obviously, they could have been repaired since they're working, but it doesn't mean they would have been up to Apple's standards for Apple to sell directly to consumers.  

    Apple does not want to repair an EOL'd iPhone5 and re-sell it, let alone give it to some 3rd-party technician to refurbish.  Why?  Because the customer that buys that "recycled" iPhone5 will blame Apple for it not working properly, or not being able to update it to a current OS.  You know that will be the case... but no.... it all has to be about you.
    Unless the fault is obvious, much of the time it's simply cheaper to give the customer a new phone than replace various components. It costs Apple quite a bit to do a repair,  probably more than the assembly cost of the entire phone when you factor in time spent by a tech diagnosing and fixing the issue, replacement parts, testing etc. But that doesn't mean EOL'd iPhones couldn't be resold. There's a huge market on eBay for such devices, as spares or for older people for example who just want a basic smartphone for facetime with family etc.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 28 of 33
    Beatsbeats Posts: 3,073member
    elijahg said:
    mknelson said:
    elijahg said:
    Surely if these devices were good enough to resell, it would be better to resell them than recycle them. It's always more eco-friendly to keep using an existing phone than buy a new one.
    Yup!

    Reduce > Reuse > Recyle.

    But, that's not what Geep was contracted to do so it's still a violation of that agreement.
    Absolutely, I don't deny this, but it does take the edge off Apple's green drive, somewhat. Profit before environment, right?

    Apple is still recycling. I don't know what more you want Apple to do.
    watto_cobra
     1Like 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 29 of 33
    elijahgelijahg Posts: 2,904member
    Beats said:
    elijahg said:
    mknelson said:
    elijahg said:
    Surely if these devices were good enough to resell, it would be better to resell them than recycle them. It's always more eco-friendly to keep using an existing phone than buy a new one.
    Yup!

    Reduce > Reuse > Recyle.

    But, that's not what Geep was contracted to do so it's still a violation of that agreement.
    Absolutely, I don't deny this, but it does take the edge off Apple's green drive, somewhat. Profit before environment, right?

    Apple is still recycling. I don't know what more you want Apple to do.
    Reduce > Reuse > Recycle
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 30 of 33
    Rayz2016rayz2016 Posts: 6,957member
    elijahg said:

    sflocal said:
    This is due to Apple's repair policies more than anything else. Apple tells customers that their iPhones must be replaced even if they could be repaired by a competent technician. This is why all of Apple's claims of being "green" are rubbish. Reuse is the best form of recycling. This recycling firm was actually doing its job. It just happened that the way they did it was not in Apple's best interest even if it was in the best interest of the planet.
    You're basing that off of what?  This article?  

    No one knows the conditions of these items when they were to be recycled.  Obviously, they could have been repaired since they're working, but it doesn't mean they would have been up to Apple's standards for Apple to sell directly to consumers.  

    Apple does not want to repair an EOL'd iPhone5 and re-sell it, let alone give it to some 3rd-party technician to refurbish.  Why?  Because the customer that buys that "recycled" iPhone5 will blame Apple for it not working properly, or not being able to update it to a current OS.  You know that will be the case... but no.... it all has to be about you.
    Unless the fault is obvious, much of the time it's simply cheaper to give the customer a new phone than replace various components. It costs Apple quite a bit to do a repair,  probably more than the assembly cost of the entire phone when you factor in time spent by a tech diagnosing and fixing the issue, replacement parts, testing etc. But that doesn't mean EOL'd iPhones couldn't be resold. There's a huge market on eBay for such devices, as spares or for older people for example who just want a basic smartphone for facetime with family etc.
    That’s a whole lot of speculation with nothing to back it up. 

    For one thing, Apple hired them to strip down the phone for parts they could recycle, not to resell phones that hadn’t been quality checked to Apple standards then pocket the cash. 
    watto_cobra12Strangers
     2Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 31 of 33
    elijahgelijahg Posts: 2,904member
    Rayz2016 said:
    elijahg said:

    sflocal said:
    This is due to Apple's repair policies more than anything else. Apple tells customers that their iPhones must be replaced even if they could be repaired by a competent technician. This is why all of Apple's claims of being "green" are rubbish. Reuse is the best form of recycling. This recycling firm was actually doing its job. It just happened that the way they did it was not in Apple's best interest even if it was in the best interest of the planet.
    You're basing that off of what?  This article?  

    No one knows the conditions of these items when they were to be recycled.  Obviously, they could have been repaired since they're working, but it doesn't mean they would have been up to Apple's standards for Apple to sell directly to consumers.  

    Apple does not want to repair an EOL'd iPhone5 and re-sell it, let alone give it to some 3rd-party technician to refurbish.  Why?  Because the customer that buys that "recycled" iPhone5 will blame Apple for it not working properly, or not being able to update it to a current OS.  You know that will be the case... but no.... it all has to be about you.
    Unless the fault is obvious, much of the time it's simply cheaper to give the customer a new phone than replace various components. It costs Apple quite a bit to do a repair,  probably more than the assembly cost of the entire phone when you factor in time spent by a tech diagnosing and fixing the issue, replacement parts, testing etc. But that doesn't mean EOL'd iPhones couldn't be resold. There's a huge market on eBay for such devices, as spares or for older people for example who just want a basic smartphone for facetime with family etc.
    That’s a whole lot of speculation with nothing to back it up. 

    For one thing, Apple hired them to strip down the phone for parts they could recycle, not to resell phones that hadn’t been quality checked to Apple standards then pocket the cash. 
    Not really. We know how much techs are paid, we know roughly how long it takes to replace components, and we know roughly how much the replacement components cost. It's well known that it's often not economically viable to repair IT equipment vs replacing it, and things like glued-in batteries, glued on displays and needing to replace entire top cases when a key fails are terrible design decisions from an economy of repair standpoint. 

    And as I said above:
    elijahg said:
    mknelson said:

    But, that's not what Geep was contracted to do so it's still a violation of that agreement.
    Absolutely, I don't deny this.

    muthuk_vanalingam
     1Like 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 32 of 33
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 6,179member
    wizard69 said:
    sflocal said:
    This is due to Apple's repair policies more than anything else. Apple tells customers that their iPhones must be replaced even if they could be repaired by a competent technician. This is why all of Apple's claims of being "green" are rubbish. Reuse is the best form of recycling. This recycling firm was actually doing its job. It just happened that the way they did it was not in Apple's best interest even if it was in the best interest of the planet.
    You're basing that off of what?  This article?  

    No one knows the conditions of these items when they were to be recycled.  Obviously, they could have been repaired since they're working, but it doesn't mean they would have been up to Apple's standards for Apple to sell directly to consumers.  

    Apple does not want to repair an EOL'd iPhone5 and re-sell it, let alone give it to some 3rd-party technician to refurbish.  Why?  Because the customer that buys that "recycled" iPhone5 will blame Apple for it not working properly, or not being able to update it to a current OS.  You know that will be the case... but no.... it all has to be about you.
    If you buy a used car do blame GM for the broken parts?   Your reasoning can be likened to the soft stuff found in a cow pasture.  
    GM will not sell a car that it made obsolete, and no longer sells any parts for.  Your reasoning can be likened to blowing smoke out of your backside.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 33 of 33
    elijahgelijahg Posts: 2,904member
    sflocal said:
    wizard69 said:
    sflocal said:
    This is due to Apple's repair policies more than anything else. Apple tells customers that their iPhones must be replaced even if they could be repaired by a competent technician. This is why all of Apple's claims of being "green" are rubbish. Reuse is the best form of recycling. This recycling firm was actually doing its job. It just happened that the way they did it was not in Apple's best interest even if it was in the best interest of the planet.
    You're basing that off of what?  This article?  

    No one knows the conditions of these items when they were to be recycled.  Obviously, they could have been repaired since they're working, but it doesn't mean they would have been up to Apple's standards for Apple to sell directly to consumers.  

    Apple does not want to repair an EOL'd iPhone5 and re-sell it, let alone give it to some 3rd-party technician to refurbish.  Why?  Because the customer that buys that "recycled" iPhone5 will blame Apple for it not working properly, or not being able to update it to a current OS.  You know that will be the case... but no.... it all has to be about you.
    If you buy a used car do blame GM for the broken parts?   Your reasoning can be likened to the soft stuff found in a cow pasture.  
    GM will not sell a car that it made obsolete, and no longer sells any parts for.  Your reasoning can be likened to blowing smoke out of your backside.
    @wizard69 isn't claiming that it's GM selling the used car, it's a third party seller. No one blames Apple when hardware in a phone they buy used from eBay doesn't function properly, they blame the seller. The recycler wasn't selling these phones under the premise they were actually being sold by Apple, as far as we know.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.