Greenpeace are morons. They had a go at Apple years ago under Steve Jobs only to then have it thrown back in their face that Apple had been doing more than any company on the planet to reduce their environmental impact over the then 20 year period but then Greenpeace had the nerve to spin that as they had made Apple change.
As far as I'm concerned Greenpeace has done nothing to better the planet but Apple consistently does. Who cares if they can't have parts replaced easily by humans? They've to date built to freaking robots to do that for them. That stuff then gets ground up and recycled into new products anyway. Sure, it would be cool to have robots that do that to iPads and Macs/MacBooks as well but iPads and Macs in general get held onto and used longer than an iPhone so it makes sense to build the robots for them first.
Dear Greenpeace, no forests have even been cut down to make an iPad but how many were cut down to make the books and paper that your people use to try and sign people up? Also you go on and on about recycling and yet you produce glossy pamphlets that can't be recycled.
In order to make things thinner Apple do things like gluing components together. Would it be possible (or even interesting to Apple's designers) to design a new set of fasteners/adhesives that enable things to come apart easily without adding additional thickness?
Isn't it counter to the idea of glueing things together to provide contact and rigidity with minimal amount of material used?
That is why the best driving and handling cars use ADHESIVES, instead of just welding or fasteners that connect different parts of the chassis together into more or less rigid structure..
I'm not sure what the best current ways are of doing it, maybe adhesives from the car racing industry would work. I was thinking maybe everything is held together by special magnets, but then you apply some kind of electrical current to it, and all the magnets immediately demagnetise and you are left with a pile of 1000 parts ready to recycle. Something like that. Or more generally whatever Apple's excellent designers can imagine.
Greenpeace are morons. They had a go at Apple years ago under Steve Jobs only to then have it thrown back in their face that Apple had been doing more than any company on the planet to reduce their environmental impact over the then 20 year period but then Greenpeace had the nerve to spin that as they had made Apple change.
As far as I'm concerned Greenpeace has done nothing to better the planet but Apple consistently does. Who cares if they can't have parts replaced easily by humans? They've to date built to freaking robots to do that for them. That stuff then gets ground up and recycled into new products anyway. Sure, it would be cool to have robots that do that to iPads and Macs/MacBooks as well but iPads and Macs in general get held onto and used longer than an iPhone so it makes sense to build the robots for them first.
Greenpeace aren’t morons. It goes for Apple because it will maximise the publicity. Mission accomplished.
There is a special place in hell for greenpeace. Their opposition to GM golden rice condemned children to poor nutrition. You can’t call people out for not accepting the science of climate change and then deny the science of GM foods.
Green Peace has no say in Apple's designs and that has nothing to do with environmental impact. Apple gives you plenty of options to get your devices repaired. Far more than any other companies. Apple is leading the tech industry for the planet and that deserves two thumbs up. Way to go Apple!
So Greenpeace, just out of curiosity, how's that ban on whaling coming? Banned nukes yet? So just what HAVE you done in the last four and a half decades? I mean other than collecting donations from the gullible. Because I sure and heck can't think of anything you've actually accomplished to benefit the environment. That's why my donations to environmental causes go to other organizations. Never Greenpeace.
It’s odd to see people claiming Apple’s sole priority is making devices thinner when they have many recent YoY releases that are thicker than the previous year, which means that being “thinner” not only wasn’t a priority, maintaining the same thickness wasn’t either.
Maybe, just maybe, their priority is engineering the most attractive device to appeal to their consumer base within a specific price range and profit margin that can be manufactured at capacity. Is that such a strange priority?
Not to mention that iPhones, iPads and Macs already have very long useful lifespans. My current desktop is a 2011. I certainly couldn't imagine using a seven-year-old Dell. And iPhones get much more use in secondary markets... So no idea why GP is going after Apple rather than the disposable knockoffs and their shorter lifespans.
I have 5 phones around here someplace that I don’t want to throw away due to toxic batteries. Most people just throws them away...
We need a place the take them, or a pre-envelope to send them to be recycled.
Kudos to Apple for being better than everyone else.
But, Apple’s solution of a few robots doesn’t really solve the problem...
How about legislate a solution. Everyone that sells electronics needs a recycling program. If it’s Amazon etc. they need prepaid envelopes. If it’s a T-Mobile Store, BestBuy, Walmart etc. they need to accept dropoffs.
Best Buy and Apple already accept old devices for recycling. (You should probably check these things before complaining about them)
Dear Greenpeace, no forests have even been cut down to make an iPad but how many were cut down to make the books and paper that your people use to try and sign people up? Also you go on and on about recycling and yet you produce glossy pamphlets that can't be recycled.
H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-S
I would imagine GP's paper materials are certified by the responsible forestry sources, groups like the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC). These are responsibly managed forests for the purpose of paper harvest. It's not like they're clear cutting the Redwoods.
Also, my city recycles glossy papers. You should write your local city rep to demand better recycling options for your tax dollars.
I have 5 phones around here someplace that I don’t want to throw away due to toxic batteries. Most people just throws them away...
We need a place the take them, or a pre-envelope to send them to be recycled.
Kudos to Apple for being better than everyone else.
But, Apple’s solution of a few robots doesn’t really solve the problem...
How about legislate a solution. Everyone that sells electronics needs a recycling program. If it’s Amazon etc. they need prepaid envelopes. If it’s a T-Mobile Store, BestBuy, Walmart etc. they need to accept dropoffs.
Best Buy and Apple already accept old devices for recycling. (You should probably check these things before complaining about them)
Staples, Office Depot, Lowe's, and Home Depot, too. I've kept a little bucket in the house for years which would hold all the spent batteries that would collect. With Eneloop batteries that's mostly become a thing of the past, but it's good to know where these things can be properly handed off (although I can't say I fully trust the office stores to properly dispose of old hardware, which is based on my customer service experiences over the years).
In order to make things thinner Apple do things like gluing components together. Would it be possible (or even interesting to Apple's designers) to design a new set of fasteners/adhesives that enable things to come apart easily without adding additional thickness?
Isn't it counter to the idea of glueing things together to provide contact and rigidity with minimal amount of material used?
That is why the best driving and handling cars use ADHESIVES, instead of just welding or fasteners that connect different parts of the chassis together into more or less rigid structure..
I'm not sure what the best current ways are of doing it, maybe adhesives from the car racing industry would work. I was thinking maybe everything is held together by special magnets, but then you apply some kind of electrical current to it, and all the magnets immediately demagnetise and you are left with a pile of 1000 parts ready to recycle. Something like that. Or more generally whatever Apple's excellent designers can imagine.
If that was the case, wouldn't it be great to walk into the crowd of owners of such devices, holding a LARGE NEODYMIUM magnet? That would be fun! You could destroy a lot of phones within seconds without even touching them...and that would be legal.
In order to make things thinner Apple do things like gluing components together. Would it be possible (or even interesting to Apple's designers) to design a new set of fasteners/adhesives that enable things to come apart easily without adding additional thickness?
Isn't it counter to the idea of glueing things together to provide contact and rigidity with minimal amount of material used?
That is why the best driving and handling cars use ADHESIVES, instead of just welding or fasteners that connect different parts of the chassis together into more or less rigid structure..
I'm not sure what the best current ways are of doing it, maybe adhesives from the car racing industry would work. I was thinking maybe everything is held together by special magnets, but then you apply some kind of electrical current to it, and all the magnets immediately demagnetise and you are left with a pile of 1000 parts ready to recycle. Something like that. Or more generally whatever Apple's excellent designers can imagine.
If that was the case, wouldn't it be great to walk into the crowd of owners of such devices, holding a LARGE NEODYMIUM magnet? That would be fun! You could destroy a lot of phones within seconds without even touching them...and that would be legal.
Yes, lots of pranking potential! Instant magnetic disassembly was just an example anyway.
Here is how 99% of consumers recycle user replaceable batteries...
1. Remove old battery 2. Install new battery 3. Throw old battery in trash
Even a broken iPhone with a bad battery is worth money. Rarely is anyone going to just toss it out an iPhone unless it's completely destroyed, which means it gets disassembled for parts and/or recycled.
Comments
As far as I'm concerned Greenpeace has done nothing to better the planet but Apple consistently does. Who cares if they can't have parts replaced easily by humans? They've to date built to freaking robots to do that for them. That stuff then gets ground up and recycled into new products anyway. Sure, it would be cool to have robots that do that to iPads and Macs/MacBooks as well but iPads and Macs in general get held onto and used longer than an iPhone so it makes sense to build the robots for them first.
H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-S
So just what HAVE you done in the last four and a half decades?
I mean other than collecting donations from the gullible.
Because I sure and heck can't think of anything you've actually accomplished to benefit the environment.
That's why my donations to environmental causes go to other organizations.
Never Greenpeace.
Best Buy and Apple already accept old devices for recycling. (You should probably check these things before complaining about them)
Also, my city recycles glossy papers. You should write your local city rep to demand better recycling options for your tax dollars.
That would be fun! You could destroy a lot of phones within seconds without even touching them...and that would be legal.
1. Remove old battery
2. Install new battery
3. Throw old battery in trash
Even a broken iPhone with a bad battery is worth money. Rarely is anyone going to just toss it out an iPhone unless it's completely destroyed, which means it gets disassembled for parts and/or recycled.