Apple Shareholders Meeting 2005

[alms]

Apple and E-Waste

I have been a Mac user since 1984, I was an Apple employee, and I'm now a consultant at Green Century Capital Management, the investment firm that spoke out at the Annual meeting.

I'm as much a Mac fanatic as anyone on this board. But I have to say, Steve Jobs was selling a bill of goods on this shareholder meeting, and most of you apparently bought it. Just to set the record straight on a couple of points:

1. Apple is not the first company to be approached on this campaign. Dell was hit very hard by activists starting about three years ago. After about a year, the company responded. At this point, their policies are much, much better than Apple's. Since June 2004 they have been offering free recycling of an old computer to anyone who buys a new Dell. If you're not buying a new Dell, they will recycle your old computer for between 10 and 20 dollars.

2. Steve was very proud of the 1,500 tons of computer equipment that Apple recycled last year. Dell recycled 33,000 tons of equipment last year. Their efforts included a national recycling tour, with free collections in towns and universities around the country.

3. Similarly, HP has had free recycling programs in place with Staples around the country.

4. This is a national problem, and right now localities are footing the bill for it. E-Waste is toxic, and it can't be put in landfills. Towns and cities are paying tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars to dispose of this waste. They can't tell their residents to pay a fee to dispose of a computer, because if they try to do that, residents just leave the item in front of someone else's house. There is pending legislation addressing the e-waste problem in states around the country. Contrary to what Steve said at the meeting, Apple <i>is</i> lobbying on this issue, and their lobbying is not helpful.

The most frustrating thing about all of this is that Apple should be leading the way on this issue. No other computer manufacturer has a retail point of presence in 125 locations (and counting) around the country. It would be very easy for Apple to take back old computers at the stores for free. Heck, they should even give you a $10 coupon towards a new Mac if you bring an old computer back in. Apple's been trying for years to get people to switch. Why not give someone $5 off the price of a mini if they bring in their old PC? Think of the photo-ops they could get out of that? Steve Jobs standing next to a 10-ton pile of Windoze e-waste, collected from people who have switched to Macs.

The only thing standing in the way of this is that Steve doesn't like it when other people tell him what to do. In this case he should listen. This is a winning issue for Apple. They should get in front of it, rather than swearing at the people who are bringing them the message.

 

[rockthecasbah]

Dude, you're gettin' a Dell?!?!

1. Apple is not the first company to be approached on this campaign. Dell was hit very hard by activists starting about three years ago. After about a year, the company responded. At this point, their policies are much, much better than Apple's. Since June 2004 they have been offering free recycling of an old computer to anyone who buys a new Dell. If you're not buying a new Dell, they will recycle your old computer for between 10 and 20 dollars.

2. Steve was very proud of the 1,500 tons of computer equipment that Apple recycled last year. Dell recycled 33,000 tons of equipment last year. Their efforts included a national recycling tour, with free collections in towns and universities around the country.

Alright first of all, i don't think Apple EVER said they were the first to do recycling campaigns, so i don't know where the heck you pulled that out of...

Second, look at the stats. Dell recycles a lot of PCs, but why? It has been proven Microsoft machines have a shorter lifespan than Macintosh computers (in fact, my mom still uses her Performa 630CD from '93 or '94). It works as well as it did 11 years ago when we got it!! Secondly, there is such a different number comparison of windows to mac ratio that you can't really compare the two. However, considering Macs make up about 4-6% of all computers, those numbers of recycled tons are on par. Good try though...

 

[albert g]

Smokescreen

The way to change the direction of the environmental movement is to get involved. Otherwise, you're just blowing smoke...and we've got enough pollution...especially when it's coming out of your a...

 

[martman]

I'm really sick of this particular fallacy: "THEY are worse so WE don't have a problem."
I repeat this is a fallacy.
We have a problem and we should clean it up.
As for your Dell numbers: "IDC had Dell's share at 18.2 percent" while Apple is around 1.75% of the market.


So if you do the math you find that Dell recycles 1813.19 tons per percent of market share while Apple recycles 857 tons per percent of market share OR you can look at it like this: if Apple had the same market share as Dell and had the same success recycling as they do now they would have recycled 15,600 tons VS Dell's 33,000.

Sorry your argument falls flat.

 

[rockthecasbah]

So if you do the math you find that Dell recycles 1813.19 tons per percent of market share while Apple recycles 857 tons per percent of market share OR you can look at it like this: if Apple had the same market share as Dell and had the same success recycling as they do now they would have recycled 15,600 tons VS Dell's 33,000.

Sorry your argument falls flat.

What are you doing to get these calculations

 

[zac4mac]

martman - numbers are wrong, should be 1813.19*1.75=3173.1 tons. Steve said 1500, that's close - factor of only 2. You're off by almost an order of magnitude.

I like Steve's comment. Concise and to the point.

BTW - am and always have been('cept for 6 yrs in the Navy) a long haired hippie. Recycling is a necessary thing, but these guys are nutzos.

 

[plastree]

I have no idea what this has to do with Apple. Here in Alberta, Canada, the provincial government set up an electronics recycling tax, to fund the proper disposal of all electronics. So, televisions, monitors, computers, dvd players, etc. all are broken down into categories based on the cost of disposal, and taxed accordingly at purchase. Then many of the retailers act as collecting locations for the old stuff.

Plus, the environmental mantra I learned as a kid was:
1. Reduce
2. Reuse
3. Recycle

I think Apple's done a good job in the past of reducing its marketshare, and selling expensive computers that force reuse, as no one can afford new ones, so it's probably the consumer's job of ensuring recycling.

( Ok, I admit I'm just bitter that the Mac mini came out soon after I bought a second-hand PowerMac G4 )

 

[whatever]

Cemeteries

I think before anyone starts complaining about Apple, I think we should look around at our own communities. Every cemetery should be considered a wasteland (pun intended). Let's not only bury our dead, but lets put them in cement tombs so that their corpses don't biodegrade!

Unlike the dinosaurs, we're not willing to fuel future generations!

Whatever

 

[iGary]

2. Steve was very proud of the 1,500 tons of computer equipment that Apple recycled last year. Dell recycled 33,000 tons of equipment last year.

Gee, I wonder how many more computers Dell sold than Apple?

Go hug something.

 

[willhclark]

My Apple stock is down 21.2 % since it split and they're talking about Recycling.
sigh

 

[gwangung]

I'm really sick of this particular fallacy: "THEY are worse so WE don't have a problem."
I repeat this is a fallacy.
We have a problem and we should clean it up.
As for your Dell numbers: "IDC had Dell's share at 18.2 percent" while Apple is around 1.75% of the market.


So if you do the math you find that Dell recycles 1813.19 tons per percent of market share while Apple recycles 857 tons per percent of market share OR you can look at it like this: if Apple had the same market share as Dell and had the same success recycling as they do now they would have recycled 15,600 tons VS Dell's 33,000.

Sorry your argument falls flat.

Well, maybe if you assume that Dell computers and Apple Computers weight the same. Not sure they do. And is Dell including things like printers which they sell but Apple does not (at least, not as much as?) (and I would argue that they could count as "computer equipment")? And CRT monitors (which are heavier than LCD monitors)?

Not sure a simplistic count of tonnage is all that useful....

 

[alms]

Counting Tonnage

Not sure a simplistic count of tonnage is all that useful....

This is correct. Companies include all sorts of material in their "recycled" numbers. They sometimes include computers that were returned as defective, bad parts that were found during manufacturing, old computers used by Apple employees, etc.

Unless companies provide a lot more info, a simple number like "1,500 tons" really doesn't mean a whole lot.

 

[gwangung]

This is correct. Companies include all sorts of material in their "recycled" numbers. They sometimes include computers that were returned as defective, bad parts that were found during manufacturing, old computers used by Apple employees, etc.

Unless companies provide a lot more info, a simple number like "1,500 tons" really doesn't mean a whole lot.

Or 33,000.

 

[alms]

Actually

Or 33,000.

Dell gives all the details on their recycling program in their annual sustainability report, which you can download from this page . The relevant information about their recycling program is on page 58.

 

[Maestro64]

1. Apple is not the first company to be approached on this campaign. Dell was hit very hard by activists starting about three years ago. After about a year, the company responded. At this point, their policies are much, much better than Apple's. Since June 2004 they have been offering free recycling of an old computer to anyone who buys a new Dell. If you're not buying a new Dell, they will recycle your old computer for between 10 and 20 dollars.

2. Steve was very proud of the 1,500 tons of computer equipment that Apple recycled last year. Dell recycled 33,000 tons of equipment last year. Their efforts included a national recycling tour, with free collections in towns and universities around the country.

3. Similarly, HP has had free recycling programs in place with Staples around the country.

First, I do not understand why Apple has you meet with you all and negotiate. You have not authority to tell anyone what they should do. Next, yes you met with dell first since they were not doing a thing, and Apple already was. Second, do not fool yourself into thinking Dell and HP did this because they were being good corporate citizens. They did it because it made business sense. I know for a fact they did this because they wanted the old used computer off the market, they did not want them being handed down to someone's son or daughter. Their recycle program is about sell more new computers not meeting your objective. Oh BTW, by telling people they did it for the environment it makes them look all that much better.

4. This is a national problem, and right now localities are footing the bill for it. E-Waste is toxic, and it can't be put in landfills. Towns and cities are paying tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars to dispose of this waste. They can't tell their residents to pay a fee to dispose of a computer, because if they try to do that, residents just leave the item in front of someone else's house. There is pending legislation addressing the e-waste problem in states around the country. Contrary to what Steve said at the meeting, Apple <i>is</i> lobbying on this issue, and their lobbying is not helpful.

This is an industry problem it has nothing to do with Apple or any other company. The fact that "you" the consumer want things that are made of things that are not easily recycle has more to due with the problem then the company. Also, Apple is not the only company lobbying against these laws ever company who makes a product made of things that are not easily recycle do not want these laws, because it makes the company responsible for recover and disposal. As such they too have the same problem of disposal since no land fill wants it.

BTW, instead of using a word like toxic e-waste, tell people what is toxic. In the case of Apple and many manufactures of electronics it is the Lead in the solder that is the issue. To date, no one including the people complaining have developed a non-toxic replacement for lead solder. Do not let them fool you and say there is a solution. There are proposed solutions, but non have been proven reliable enough, and the ones that exist require major changes in material properties which people do not know the long term affects will be form the changes.

Apple's been trying for years to get people to switch. Why not give someone $5 off the price of a mini if they bring in their old PC? Think of the photo-ops they could get out of that? Steve Jobs standing next to a 10-ton pile of Windoze e-waste, collected from people who have switched to Macs.

Again, why would Apple want to deal with someone else's problems, first they have no ideal where the machine was made and what materials are used inside the computer, what if they used plastics which could not be ground up and recycle. So now they are sitting on a mound of trash that no one wants and they can not do a thing with.

I tell you this as fact since I work at Apple and was part of many discussion in the late 80's and early 90's about material selection for use in the computer and much of the conversation was around was it easily recycled. Apple change their plastic and metal parts a long time ago to ensure that it could be recycled. They were one of the first companies who used packing material that could be recycled. They were one of the first company who stopped using freon to clean PCBs when it was discovered it did to the environment.

So Apple has done all this, so why hasn't consumers recycled their Macs. I tell you why because no one has local resources to do it. The same reason people no longer recycle paper in most of this country, they found it not cost effective to recycle.

Face it, the US is a use and throw away society and to hold companies responsible might be a noble thing to do, but you have to change people's mind set.

And before you get on my case, more stuff in my house goes out in the recycle bins then in the trash bin, and I tend to find good homes for old things I no longer want. But I am responsible for the waste I create, I do not point fingers at the other guy

 

[alms]

Because...

First, I do not understand why Apple has you meet with you all and negotiate. You have not authority to tell anyone what they should do.

Apple is a publicly traded company. As a shareholder, I have every right to ask the company questions and to voice my opinion when I believe it is acting in a way that will hurt its long-term business prospects.

Again, why would Apple want to deal with someone else's problems

If someone comes into an Apple Store with an old Gateway and walks out with a new Macintosh, Apple hasn't taken someone else's problems, they have taken someone else's customer.

 

[gwangung]

Dell gives all the details on their recycling program in their annual sustainability report, which you can download from this page . The relevant information about their recycling program is on page 58.

Reading that, the 33,000 tons is still not particularly useful for comparison with Apple. As you well know, the product mix for the two companies are significantly different, as Dell includes more CRTs and printers in their product mix. Also, it is not clear how comparable the lease programs are for the two companies (which would have a significant impact on comparisons; if Apple doesn't count leases, then Dell's numbers are to a certain extent padded). Thirdly, quality control differences may artificially inflate one company's total if they count (as Dell apparently does) recycling from customer returns. Fourth, differences in international sales may account for differences in tonnage, as Dell excludes totals from countries who do not distinguish by product brand (if, say, Apple has a greater proportion of sales in those countries, then their totals will be artificially depressed, and vice versa if Dell has a greater proportion of sales).

In short, I still find these comparisons simplistic and not particularly useful.

 

[Maestro64]

Apple is a publicly traded company. As a shareholder, I have every right to ask the company questions and to voice my opinion when I believe it is acting in a way that will hurt its long-term business prospects.

I agree as a share holder you want to invest in companies you feel are fiscally responsible, have an understanding of the bigger picture and have a sound business model. So why would you ask a company to take on something that has no real solution. What you told Apple is not to make products unless they are 100% green. At today present technology level this can not be achieved. Next, Apple is not a manufacturing or process technology company. They were in the 80's and contributed lots to todays cleaner PCBA's processes. They are just a user of what is presently the state of the art in manufacturing technologies.

Why are you not going after the companies who make the chips and PCB's which make up the majority of the so called toxic waste. Reason is those companies do not generate headline news, for the most part they are at the bottom of the food chain. Why not go after large companies who replace PCs every 3 years for the latest and greatest look at how many PC they put in a land fill. Or better yet, Microsoft who produces software that obsoletes hardware every few years in order to forces consumers to upgrade hardware to get the next software feature.

No you go after the news worthy consumer of the technology, like Apple. But you should be attacking the everyday consumer since they are the one who are driving Apple to sell them these products.

Face it you can not have it both ways, there are trade offs being made everyday, and I know one that never will happen, which is, would you pay more for a product that is 100% green, and the answer is NO! Customers want to pay less and they will give up green products in exchange for cheaper products.

As you all figured out, you can not change the consumer, they will put things in a land fill and not think twice about how it effects the over all environment.

In my case as long as a company is using the state of art manufacturing technology and are not using things that have been replaced by more environmentally friend products they are doing the correct thing.

If someone comes into an Apple Store with an old Gateway and walks out with a new Macintosh, Apple hasn't taken someone else's problems, they have taken someone else's customer.

Obviously, you missed the point here, and based on your comment above, why would you want Apple to take on something they was fiscally irresponsible like dealing with some other companies or persons waste. Apple is not in the waste management business. The simple fact that Apple is more then willing to recycle their own products is enough. If the consumer chooses to pitch a product verses recycle it is not the company's fault.

 

[Maestro64]

Reading that, the 33,000 tons is still not particularly useful for comparison with Apple. As you well know, the product mix for the two companies are significantly different, as Dell includes more CRTs and printers in their product mix. Also, it is not clear how comparable the lease programs are for the two companies (which would have a significant impact on comparisons; if Apple doesn't count leases, then Dell's numbers are to a certain extent padded). Thirdly, quality control differences may artificially inflate one company's total if they count (as Dell apparently does) recycling from customer returns. Fourth, differences in international sales may account for differences in tonnage, as Dell excludes totals from countries who do not distinguish by product brand (if, say, Apple has a greater proportion of sales in those countries, then their totals will be artificially depressed, and vice versa if Dell has a greater proportion of sales).

In short, I still find these comparisons simplistic and not particularly useful.

Face it, they twisting the numbers to say what they want it to say. Depending on how you want the story to read you can make the numbers say all kinds of things even things which make no sense or are totally meaningless when you try to compared.

The only thing to take away from the fact that Dell publish these numbers is to tell the stock analysis about how many used computer they took out of circulation thus increasing the potential number of new sales they will have in the future. Information published in the Annual report is for investors not environmentalists.

The biggest problem companies who make electronics is how do you continue to grow sales if the market has been saturated. After saturation the only new sales you have are those new to the market or replacement. Well if computers are now lasting longer replacement sales go down, and if those who do replace give the old useable computer to a new person to the market then your new sales potential is decreases.

So how do you increase sales, well get rid of the grey market of used computers. This is a classic example form any business school worth its salt. So now the people who run the company know this and the people who analyze the companies know this. So how to you tell your investors what you are doing, tell them you have a recycle program to recover old computers take them of the market.

So the take away from the 33,000 tons there are that many less computer on the use market leaving a potential for Dell to sell more computers in the future thus driving revenues up. Oh, it also makes them sound like they care for the environment.