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…
It's all just marketing fluff, their 2030 goal is carbon neutrality but their gross emissions are 15 million tons a year and they only offset 70 thousand. They'd probably achieve more just by putting HDMI, DisplayPort and Target Display Mode into their monitors and iMacs.
Not having a phone in the first place is the best for the environment. Failing that, having someone else reuse that phone is best. 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I 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.
Recycling is mostly greenwashing. I mean, it is good, but the order is Reduce, Reuse, Repair, Recycle. Recycling is the last option, when everything else has failed and the thing is heading for the landfill (or worse).
Every device they take for "recycling" is a failure of the first 3 "R"s, especially if it is still working or it is just a dead battery, but is good for their business, so no wonder they insist on recycling.
I really like their work on packaging though. Not just because it reduces the plastic waste produced by Apple, it is not much in the grand scheme of things, but it also sets an example. Apple has always been a trendsetter when it comes to design, and their packaging is given a lot of attention.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
To see previous ones, simply change the year in the URL.
You can get to that from apple.com/environment or apple.com/2030 (which redirects to the former). Near the end, right before and in the appendix you can find third-party independent reviews and assessments.
Now, are those trustworthy? I don’t know. But it gives you the context to start looking. The broader document will also probably help answer the other specific questions.
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.
It really comes down to whether we trust Apple to do the work; auditors can be found that will certify anything you need even if not at the fraud levels of Arthur Anderson.
And this kind of thing can be hard to independently verify.
Given Apple’s track record I suspect they actually do care about this internally and spend the effort to make sure it is “real”.
I don't expect absolute perfection from Apple but I think they are putting in good faith effort towards these improvements and are just proud of their accomplishments.
If it was strictly a feel-good PR effort then that would have the complete opposite effect if their environmental claims were found to be fabricated, and it would just take one whistleblower anywhere in their own staff, their auditing teams, or anywhere in their global supply chain to bring down that whole facade.
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.
Heres the part list for the iPhone 17 Pro tool kit:
Case 1
661-17619 - Heated Display Removal Fixture
661-52832 - Heated Display Pocket
Case 2
923-02657 - Battery Press
661-08916 - Display Press
923-01092 - Adhesive Cutter
922-5065 - Nylon Probe (Black Stick)
923-0248 - Black Torque Driver Kit
923-00738 - Gray Torque Driver
923-00105 - Green Torque Driver
923-0448 - Blue Torque Driver
923-01290 - Micro Stix® Bit
923-02066 - Super screw Bit
923-02995 - Adjustable torque driver (10-34 Ncm)
923-09176 - Adhesive Removal Tool
923-09177 - JCIS Bit for Adjustable Torque Driver
923-09962 - Superscrew Bit for Adjustable Torque Driver
923-08085 - Teal Torque Driver
923-08131 - Orange Torque Driver
923-07594 - Torx Plus 4IP 25mm bit
923-09721 - Housing Protective Cover
923-10961 - Display Protective Cover
923-12855 - Repair Tray
923-13313 - Back Protective Cover
Magnetizer
ESD-safe tweezers
Case 3
923-13470 - Logic Board Dock
923-12856 - 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!”
Apple also has a long history of making repair difficult for third party repair companies.
Meanwhile, the battery replacement process for the Fairphone only requires one tool:
Also, at a moment when "AI" appears in practically all tech marketing, in this environmental impact report they manage to not mention at all the impact of their ChatGPT integration or their plans for an upgraded Siri.
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.
So no, it’s not what the above scores tell, because you were actively selective. If you scroll down the list in good faith (with is sorted from Newest to Oldest) what you see is that Apple is not the worst and has been getting better starting with the 15.
> Polite reminder that companies don't care about us if we love them or support them or not. Especially online.
You don’t have to tell me that, I’m an active critic of Tim Cook and the current state of Apple.
I’m also pretty vocal about not shilling for corporations and billionaires which would sell your nuts in a heartbeat. But I do care about criticism being valid, because when it’s not people ignore the valid points.
Again, Apple should absolutely do better and so should other companies. But lets call them out on what they actually do (or don’t), false accusations don’t help.
How do those numbers look with similar products from Huawei, Samsung, etc...? Fairphone/HMD are competitors focused on repairability above other factors so it's not really a fair comparison.
> 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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
Not 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 life
Again, 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.
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!".
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.
> 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.
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.
If I never have to open it up and repair it before it’s genuinely obsolete, then repairability is much less important to me. Part of why I buy Apple products for decades is that they seemingly never break and I take good care of my stuff. I don’t even bother getting AppleCare anymore because I never end up using it.
Apple products last longer, retain their value longer, and are supported longer than their peers virtually across the board.
AppleCare is extremely cheap and comprehensive. I have had one Apple product fail in at least fifteen years and it was replaced without hesitation. It’s been nearly a decade since I’ve had an iPhone screen crack from dropping, and that used to be a regular occurrence. And if I do, again, it’s covered under AppleCare.
There are many harsh criticisms to be leveled against the company. This is not one of them.
Of all the major phone and computer manufacturers Apple is the least guilty of planned obsolescence IMO. Their hardware lasts forever if you take good care of it. And they provide software updates for much longer than anyone else.
There's nothing wrong with planning for a certain device lifespan, provided it's long enough. But there's a bell curve here: it doesn't make sense to plan for 20 years of support if 99% of the devices are broken or replaced by their users by then.
Also, Apple repair prices are high, but not outrageous. There will always be someone claiming they can do it for less, but not many that will give the same guarantees Apple does.
reply