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.
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:
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.
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.
75 comments
https://images.apple.com/environment/pdf/Apple_Environmental...
> Why would I be giving you back my iPhone for free
As opposed to what? trashing it? You'd rather throw your iPhone in the trash than just hand it to them when you're in the store already?
It's the throwing it away that is the problem.
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.
Though the cost of responsibly recycle and dispose of an old computer might make the $0 offer actually a decent one.
Google do similar, as do most electronics retailers.
Is that not not a thing in the US? Perhaps it ought to be.
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.
I expect most of that 30% recycled material is from other sources than traded in devices.
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.
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.
Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. *In that priority*
Reduce & Reuse by making it repairable!
See: https://www.epa.gov/recycle
But the Reuse part is definitely served, at least in part, through repair.
Good job Apple. Now more to do.
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.
https://support.apple.com/self-service-repair
Second of all, have you actually looked at the process? It is very obviously onerous in ways that could be avoided.
Have you seen how insane the rental tool kit is?
https://selfservicerepair.com/en-US/tool-kit-rental
Here’s a video showing how the battery replacement process works:
https://youtu.be/3P1kEy--d9E
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:
https://support.fairphone.com/hc/en-us/articles/245900296211...
For a laptop, nearly everything should be modular.
https://www.apple.com/environment/pdf/Apple_Environmental_Pr...
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.
Do you also distrust those?
> Do you also distrust those?
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.
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”.
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.
Apple has independently clamped down on suppliers without being forced to, iirc.