You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Guess they figured the bad publicity from getting caught fibbing was less expensive than losing sales to cheap recycled phones.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/10/07/apple-geep-iphone-recycle-shred/
They aren't lying they just define "still able to be used" in their own way.
Can't read link without signing life away so, for that reason, I'm oot.
Perhaps more a precis of the article rather than just a quick cut and paste?
They aren’t lying they just define “still able to be used” in their own way.
Key bits.
At least 100,000 Apple devices, including iPhones and iPads, that were destined to be destroyed are actually in use, according to a new lawsuit by Apple that accuses its recycling partner of violating its orders.
Apple claims in its lawsuit, filed in Canada, that Canadian recycling company GEEP violated its contract by reselling the devices, instead of shredding them. Apple is seeking $30 million Canadian (about $23 million U.S.) from GEEP, according the lawsuit, which was filed in January but only recently came to light.
But the lawsuit raises new questions about the iPhone maker’s environmental practices, because Apple says it never destroys electronics that are still suitable for use. Apple said in the lawsuit that the devices sent to GEEP had been “repaired.” But Apple didn’t explain how they were repaired or make any specific allegations in the suit that the devices were damaged or unsafe to use. Apple spokesman Josh Rosenstock declined to say whether any repairs were made to or what was wrong with the devices Apple sent to GEEP.
The recycling company is saying that employees stole the phones rather than shredding them. My guess is that Apple is legally justified here because their property was stolen, but it's also pretty obvious that they were destroying phones that were still usable. Problem for Apple is that they are a profit-driven company and having millions of recycled phones on the market is less profitable than selling new ones, but they don't want to advertise that they scrap usable phones that aren't profitable to recycle because they are trying to push an image of environmental responsibility.
Can’t read link without signing life away so, for that reason, I’m oot.
Basically Apple phones can be used in the Atacama desert, the drier parts of death valley and summers in parts of the sahara.
Anywhere with >1% humidity and they are no longer fit for use. (based on taking one to apple for a battery that they refused to do because of "water damage"). According to Apple water damage cannot be repaired and I think there is a small anti-matter device inside that powers the phone that if exposed to moisture will destroy the earth.
They recycle these to Canada where humidity is over 1% hence by apple's definition they can't be reused. They are actually saving the planet as if the anti-matter device explodes it could take out not only earth but pretty much most of Mars as well.
Apple is that they are a profit-driven company and having millions of recycled phones on the market is less profitable than selling new ones,
It's a bit like the piracy argument, just because some is pirated or in this case resold doesn't mean if that option was available the person would have bought the iPhone / album brand new or at all. Many, arguably the majority would buy a different phone, or a secondhand iPhone from a different source.
but it’s also pretty obvious that they were destroying phones that were still usable.
I've handed in all our old iPads / iPhones at the local Apple Store to be recycled as they probably stand a better chance of being recycled than dumping at the local tip in the electrical waste skip. Technically they all still 'work' but are too slow / knacked batteries to be of any real use to anyone (in the UK).
Very few consumer electronics companies provide recycling facilities, so Apple are doing well offering a service.
So the key bit here Apple are paying a company to recycle their products, Apple alleges they haven’t done this so are suing them?
The whole use of the word ‘shred’ is over emotive language.
The devices are ‘shredded’ so the metals can be extracted and reused. Not so they can just dumped in landfill. My read on the article is that the GEEP employees were nicking the phones to sell them on as well as GEEP pocketing the cash Apple were paying them to recycle them. I can understand Apple getting a bit annoyed at that.
Devices aren’t recycled by reselling secondhand as a whole working device into a less demanding market, or even by breaking them down into saleable parts. They’re recycled by breaking them up in constituent materials so the raw materials can go back into the supply chain.
Another article here with the media dramatics.
My guess is that Apple is legally justified here because their property was stolen
Not from them it wasn't, surely it stops being their property the moment they hand it over for disposal? Presumably the claim is for breach of contract or similar?
Three employees stole / resold over 100,000 devices in a two year period. How did no-one notice?
My read on the article is that the GEEP employees were nicking the phones to sell them on as well as GEEP pocketing the cash Apple were paying them to recycle them. I can understand Apple getting a bit annoyed at that.
My take as well...
Three employees stole / resold over 100,000 devices in a two year period. How did no-one notice?
I suspect the company was complicit and once caught is trying to blame it on a few ex employees.
Having said all that, I read an article on matress recycling and apparently that too is rife with theft. Taking disgusting used matresses and sticking a new cover on them and then selling them on a brand new is big business, so they often get stolen from recycling yards....
Three employees stole / resold over 100,000 devices in a two year period. How did no-one notice?
They were senior executives.
Maybe your thread title should have been “Famous company sues a recycling company for stealing property.”
“Famous company sues a recycling company for elaborate fraud over several years”
Closer.....
Drac
Full MemberSo the key bit here Apple are paying a company to recycle their products, Apple alleges they haven’t done this so are suing them?
That's part of it. The other part is that Apple claim that nothing that can be repaired goes to the recyclers, and this proves it's not true.
Course, there are different levels of "repairable" and to be fair Apple may very well have a meaningfully higher standard than these. And the recyclers could just be reselling crap. But given the volumes it seems pretty likely that Apple have been scrapping stuff that could have been repaired, and lying about it.
Depends how you define usable. if the phone just needed a new battery then Apple might have deemed that as not useable and decided it was cheaper to recycle than to spend money replacing batteries and re-distributing. If it is a working device with no repair or refurbish action needed then fine - just get it back out there again. If you're an individual you might think that for the cost of a battery replacement you are prepared to save the device from recycling. But Apple with have millions of devices to process each with their individual work-scopes to get them back up and running so not only prohibitively costly for them but also nigh on impossible from a logistics point of view. Especially with some older devices where some components might be obsolete now.
Everything is reusable if you are willing to do whatever it takes to repair/refurbish something... How far do you need to go before you have a Triggers Broom situation?
Depends how you define usable if the phone just needed a new battery then Apple might have deemed that as not useable
I booked an appointment for a new battery... drove 30 miles and dropped it off.
The only phone I'd ever not dropped in water ..
Anyway they took the phone into a back room and when I came back they had some photo's of the insides of a iPhone (maybe mine) showing the water sensitive stuff. Mine was put back together (or perhaps had never been apart or maybe they have a tap in the back room?)
So they said they couldn't change the battery because of water damage but they could do me a deal on a £1000 phone and "recycle" the old phone (which worked perfectly well, just needed charging twice a day. I said that they could change the battery but wouldn't but they informed me "the phone wouldn't be safe".
I said that sounded great if it had the same functionality that was important to me as my old phone ... they came out with loads of stuff about megapixels and stuff but when I said the most important functionality for me was a 1/8th" audio jack they gave up.
Not a wasted journey as I got to see a mate in Basingstoke.
Anywhere with >1% humidity and they are no longer fit for use. (based on taking one to apple for a battery that they refused to do because of “water damage”).
Maybe five or six years ago, up to the iP6, but from around the 7/8, the water resistance has been much higher, there are many instances of iphones surviving extended total immersion in sea water at significant depth, without harm. That’s the main reason for ditching the 3.5mm jack socket, which has always been a pita anyway - so many broken plugs and cables over the years.
but when I said the most important functionality for me was a 1/8th” audio jack they gave up.
Not surprising, really, nobody makes a phone with a 1/8” socket. Or headphones with a matching plug, either.
Yeah, I know, pedant alert, it’s a 3.5mm Jack and socket, and they still have their place, but I haven’t used one on a phone for some years, I use the Lightning > 3.5mm adaptor*, which works perfectly well, and avoids the stress placed on the headphone wire when the phone’s in your pocket, particularly when using expensive IEM’s.
Even better, I bought some BT noise-cancelling over-ear headphones, which have a 3.5mm socket in case the battery cops out. My phone doesn’t have a 3.5mm socket, so I bought a rather nice Lightning > 3.5mm cable with remote control and braided outer for about £7, off eBay and it works beautifully.
*NOT A DONGLE! Headphones have come with adaptors for decades, so anyone whining about using a dongle needs a slap, a dongle is a security device for allowing the use of proprietary software, an adaptor allows something to be used with a different size fitting.
But Apple with have millions of devices to process each with their individual work-scopes to get them back up and running so not only prohibitively costly for them but also nigh on impossible from a logistics point of view
Not really. They are all standardized models, so the logistics are relatively simple compared to things like car repairs. The most common repair will be battery replacement, probably followed by screen replacement, then switches/buttons/sensors. If the phones are designed so that it's possible to disassemble them into major sub-assemblies, then the usable sub-assemblies can be rebuilt into refurbished phones with a new battery in an assembly-line type operation. Problem is that Apple appliances are designed with no consideration for disassembly or repair.