Wow. A company spends massive amounts of intellectual energy and hundreds of millions of dollars recovering materials and helping to better the current state of sustainability and some people just want to criticize. It makes me tired.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple's Recycling Initiatives Recover $40 Million in Gold
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I think it is mostly better because you are keeping a computer in use that otherwise might have ended up in a landfill. Of course if the other option is recycling it then buying used may not be as great of a reduction of your footprint.
Kinda connected but also not. The Apple recycle Brightstar site can't find my iPhone 6 Plus. I've put in both the serial and the IMEI and it says device not found and check failed. Why does my phone not exist in their data? I will add that it was a replacement device from Genius Bar when my first 6 Plus went bad.
Yes Cuba hasn't seen a new car since the revolution. Everyone is so happy about that /s
I buy a new iphone every year.
Every year I give my 1 year old phone to my wife.
Every year I give my wife's phone to my another family member.
Every year they give their phone to someone else.
Haven't returned or disposed of an iphone in years.
Full disclosure - I suspect that my original iphone 3g, 3gs, and 4 have been retired.
I'm fine with Apple making money on recycling (assuming they do after costs). What's important to me is that my iProduct isn't just rubbish in landfill.
Yes, and picking up things at the dumpster even more so, assuming that consumption and emissions are comparable to that of a new product (that's not always true, for example, of used cars)
A useful if simplified model to look at this is the following:
If you and your neighbor buy two new Macs (and his old Mac goes to the dumpster), the the energy and raw materials that go into making those is 2K
If you buy your rich neighbor's used Mac for $200 and he goes and buys (let us assume for simplicity) an iPod - which takes 0.1 energy and materials - with that money, that's 1.1K
If you pick up at the dumpster the computer your neighbor throws away, that's 1K.
[doublepost=1460727720][/doublepost]
Yes: a fraction of the money can find its way into the maker's pockets, which roughly corresponds to a fraction of energy being bought with it and a fraction of materials extracted from a mine.
If you happen to find a blood diamond on the street without paying a penny for it, you are not financing wars.
On one hand, Apple reused those thing into your gold Apple Watch and sells for couple thousand dollars... Quick return isn't it...
Or they reuse all these crap and make iPhone SE selling for 399 and you guys feel it is bargain...
I'd imagine it equates to an almost break-even as they pay for the system itself. Eventually profitable though perhaps. This isn't about the money.
How about "Apple reused those things and they didn't end up in a landfill."?
BTW, the gold Apple watch sells for around $10,000.
Isn't that the point, either way they would put those parts in their new products, would you rather they refine the raw materials and leave the land fills full of useable materials. They would make the same profits no matter how they do it, this way the customer pays less.
Would you pay more for an iPhone if it was made from 100% non-recycled parts?
Cost also needs to be factored in. How much did it cost to "recover" all that gold...
Sounds like the rich neighbor would toss it anyway. they could also recycle it where they buy their new computer.
But from the sounds of it someone is going dumpster diving to save the environment.
My used computers are usually never more than 2 years old. Usually some family member or college student gets it. They are not using the computer for what I need it for.
If the computer is dead it gets recycled where I buy the new one.
Apple is not the only company that recycles old computers. Perhaps they are one of the only companies that performs the service themselves.
Last edited:
Exactly, and your $200 are the incentive that prevents your neighbor from doing exactly that.
Which, just so that we are on the same page, is not as bad as simply throwing it away, but still bad: you can't recycle the embodied energy in the machine, which is not an afterthought, especially if integrated circuits are involved.
You're right, it doesn't necessarily matter (although it can).
The common assumption here is that someone who buys used products is rescuing them from landfill. That's not always the case.
What does matter is whether the product is used beyond its expected life, or if it's prematurely trashed. It doesn't much matter whether one person owns it for five years, or five people own it for one year each.
I think what matters is having a culture of conservation. The Disposable Economy is clearly wasteful. A person who cares about his/her impact on the environment will, hopefully, behave in a less wasteful manner than he/she may otherwise have done. Less waste/consumption in total, not just saving here so that it can be spent over there.
If you avoid buying new technology products you can mitigate your footprint.
When you buy a new thing, generally that makes the company make two new things to replace it, cause they know they can sell one, maybe they can sell two!
The downside to buying used is you are probably helping someone else buy new, but whatever. I've been only using old Apple stuff since 2012 and things are pretty swell.
Eh, I'm not so much worried about producing more products as long as it's a positive impact on environment.
See if we can make it an international law that all lighting must be LEDs, the impact that would make alone would help reduce pollution by reducing energy costs needed to run all these bulbs. It'll be like taking 20% of the cars in the world of the roads.
[doublepost=1460741022][/doublepost]
Have fun wearing the same underwear over and over and over again
Recycling (and I mean recycling the aluminum, plastics and some metals, not the insane amounts of energy and raw materials that went into making the chips, which are the dominant term) is still a worse option, environmentally speaking, than active usage for a machine that is still viable.
The definition of "viable" varies, holding on to a "web browsing" machine - or any use case where the CPU is usually idle - makes far more sense than holding on to a rendering machine, where instructions per watt do actually matter in the equation.
The rest of your post is obviously spot on, especially the last paragraph.
It's too easy to buy grocery from local farmers, hang Vandana Shiva posters and then, I don't know, [insert any energy and waste-intensive activity that hipsters do].
[doublepost=1460746444][/doublepost]
That remains to be seen.
- The energy went into making a product, from the mines to the factories to the WalMart shelf, usually overshadows the energy that the device uses over its lifetime
- Interestingly, more efficient bulbs can result in... well, many more bulbs turned on at a given time, which leads to this paradox.
However, things are more complicated than just "let's just ban incandescent bulbs".
Last edited:
Economists have equations for that. Will more energy and resources be saved by replacing an incandescent prior to failure, or by using it until it fails? There are many inputs to that equation, many possible outcomes.
If the LED retrofits into the existing lamp socket, then you're not wasting the resources that went into making the lamp assembly. The only "waste" is the unexpended life of a short-lived incandescent bulb, which is offset to some degree by energy savings. If the bulb costs $2 and was just installed last week, will you save more than $2 in energy by immediately replacing it with an LED?
If, however, the entire lamp assembly needs to be replaced (wiring, reflector/shade, fluorescent ballast, socket, etc.), then the waste generated by that replacement becomes a significant mitigating factor.