Hey Greenpeace - what if I tell you that it is less environmentally friendly to make iPhones in the way you are suggesting? Does it matter to you? Will Greenpeace hear that argument and think it over? Let me know.
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.
Greenpeace Criticizes Apple's 'Daisy' Recycling Robot, Says Focus Should be on 'Repairable and Upgradeable Product Design'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Nailed it. Because of the resale value of used or even broken Apple devices, very few people are going to be foolish enough to give it to Apple to recycle for free. Now if Apple made it at least worth the effort monetarily for us it might be different. But that’s not going to happen.
The average life of 5 years is an eternity in the tech world. One of the reasons Apple doesn’t have removable batteries is they are a point of failure. It’s why the iPhones last so much longer. Are they asking TV makers to allow upgrades too? Not likely.
People generally react negatively to dishonest misanthropes.
I mean in a theory that makes sense as a good idea but electronics get beat up, chips get smaller. It's not very practical to constantly repair or upgrade electronics. I think electronic recycling machines is about as good as it can logically get.
Well, they are relentless, but if you think someone could do better, why not tell them? They quite often praises Apple and have ranked them on top or among top among tech companies when it comes to their environment program in the last few years.
Which means being able to take an Old/Outdated/broken/underpowered component and replace it with a new/updated/functional/powerful component, would make the computer last longer and lead to less eWaste.
But that's exactly what Apple has systematically removed from their machines, while claiming how green they are.
They absolutely should complain about the Macs. The soldered and nonstandard components are utter nonsense. iMac with its integrated display is the worst offender. But the iPhone is fine.
[doublepost=1524185947][/doublepost]
Yep. People make those "innovative" modular phone concepts that never go anywhere, and for good reasons. Modularity comes at a cost. Very expensive on a phone.
Seriously, what's so bad about the iPhone? Battery breaks, you replace. Screen breaks, you replace. SIM is removable. That's all you need. People in my family have had the same iPhone for 6 years. The nonreplaceable components never die.
And for some people, if Apple starts building atomic bombs they would agree because "Apple" is what gives them an identity to their shallow and empty lives.
"Oh, mommy look, I have an Apple product, I am finally someone".
[doublepost=1524186172][/doublepost]
I had an iPhone 5 and now I have an iPhone X. I had to drop the iPhone 5 not because it was "3 years old" but because Apple screw it up. I am running the same exact application on my X, I didn't want to upgrade, I had to. There was no reason for me to upgrade.
They do but can you honestly disagree with them this time? This time their view point is far from their regular extremes.
How many phones (Apple or other) are recycled? Most non-repairable electronic waste goes into landfills. This is pure, vainglorious PR from the company that mastered the art.
Greenpeace isn't a 'corporate entity', it is a nonprofit society. Most people who randomly and unthinkingly rail against Greenpeace usually do so about many environmental organizations and issues. It's not a stretch to suppose the person I was replying to was one of those people, given his vitriol.
Greenpeace originated in Canada, and its first few campaigns were against nuclear testing, not whales. Its founding members were not 'squeezed out' they simply left to do other things, or grew too old to participate, or started their own organizations. Most nonprofits and charities have relatively well paid administration staff in order to retain people, though not nearly as well paid as in the corporate world. Nobody at Greenpeace is getting rich, if that's what you're insinuating.
Core parts of the device are repairable. The parts most likely to break are the glass.
This idea of upgradability in the future illustrates a complete lack of understanding of the underlying engineering. All the pieces work together. You cannot any longer unbolt RAM or a processor in the future and replace it with something faster. The SoC contained everything in one module and external parts are highly matched and tuned including the battery. It's the tight integration of all the pieces including the firmware that gives the performance and value.
I don't even want to touch the whole issue of thermal engineering in these tight packages.
This is also why adhesives are often more attractive that screws.
It's like buying a horse in the old days, when done you put it out to pasture or made soa. You did not have the expectation to put high performance kidneys into it two years after purchase.
This idea of upgradability in the future illustrates a complete lack of understanding of the underlying engineering. All the pieces work together. You cannot any longer unbolt RAM or a processor in the future and replace it with something faster. The SoC contained everything in one module and external parts are highly matched and tuned including the battery. It's the tight integration of all the pieces including the firmware that gives the performance and value.
I don't even want to touch the whole issue of thermal engineering in these tight packages.
This is also why adhesives are often more attractive that screws.
It's like buying a horse in the old days, when done you put it out to pasture or made soa. You did not have the expectation to put high performance kidneys into it two years after purchase.
Oh good, a thread about Greenpeace. This will surely bring out the very best in thoughtful internet posting.
Doubt it. I have 10 years old Acer laptop still being used as Linux machine. Ordered IDE based SSD, brought 2GB RAM. Runs acceptable speed. I also have a Lenovo laptop which I purchased at 2012 with first generation Core i5. Ordered first generation Core i7 processor, upgrade to 6GB memory, brought 250GB SSD. Running Windows 10 like a champ. Also have old ThinkPad T430S.
With all these machine, little bit upgrade will extend use age for next couple years. Upgradability helps reduce landfills.
Of course Apple want charge you ridiculous amount of RAM for RAM upgrade and other ridiculous amount of money for SSD. Apple just can’t Igorne these profit!
[doublepost=1524191650][/doublepost]
F Apple I say
Only Greenpeace would have a problem with a company that’s on 100% green energy and a robots designed for recycling......
Maybe Apple needed two robots.
Maybe Apple needed two robots.
Is your phone constantly burning fossil fuels? If yes, then you should absolute get latest and most eco-friendly phone, because older phone does not burn gasoline as efficient as newer car. But your phone is not burning fossils fuels. Do you even know how much harmful material being used to create PCB, Processors, Batteries etc? If we can do repairs rather than tosss it out, then we can effectively reduce amount of PCB goes to landfil. If phone has more user replaceable parts, then we can have lesser phone being dumped simple becuase screen doesn’t work anymore.
[doublepost=1524192231][/doublepost]
Do you really believe Apple is 100% green? Don’t make me laugh. Do you manufacture these iPhone is 100% green energy?
Having high standards is a problem? What’s the alternative? Set the bar low?
[doublepost=1524192481][/doublepost]
Does capitalism understand the environment? The environment is infinitely more important.
I mean, that's kind of the job of such an organization. The environment is still critically threatened by industries including the tech industry, so pushing them to do better is what they should be doing (it's not like they aren't pushing other companies too, but as the biggest kid in the pool Apple can have an outsize influence.)
That said, at least when it comes to mobile devices I'm not sure the argument holds versus consumer trends. I've been using my iPhone for three-and-a-half years, and will at least make it to four before I upgrade; I hope to be able to use the one after that for even longer given that tech is maturing. But batteries and maybe storage (for phones with external slots) are all that you can reasonably expect to replace. You're asking people to stop buying new stuff, and while they really should, that's not a great strategy.
If you really want to hold onto your phone until it ceases to function, that's an option. Just like you can run a vintage Mac far longer than Apple's parts supply timeline.
Yeah? There's some legal consequences for lying about it.
Does that make Apple "100% green"? Of course not, because there are still external partners who probably aren't using green energy, and they're still consuming finite resources to make their products.
One of the best ways to recycle is to actually resell it to someone else. And Apple products have more resale value which surely helps this cause.
Greenpeace is kidding itself if it thinks people are keeping devices longer because of the environment. And is Greenpeace going to go after Samsung and others who sell tens of millions of non user upgradeable devices?