No. That's just wrong. First, just the contract itself should be enough. The customer wants these devices destroyed, and the recycler agreed and took the money to destroy them - they can't just renege on that deal. They took the money to destroy them. Full stop - we're done here.

Why would Apple want these devices destroyed? Well .. many reasons. Maybe they can't guarantee safety of those devices. Electronics, especially with high-capacity batteries need to pass rigorous standards to be sold on the market. If Apple expects these devices to be destroyed, they will not be performing any safety checks. If one of these devices blows-up and kills a customer - who is liable?

There are other reasons why Apple may want them destroyed. Maybe these devices will put pressure on their support and warranty services. Or maybe many of these devices have structural issues that cannot be fixed fully leading to bad end-user experience with the product. Or maybe those devices on the market will eat into their market share. Or a bunch of reasons (good or bad) that neither you nor I can come up with because we don't know actually know that business (so why are you arm-chair quarterbacking this?)

>Force the company to ship them to a developing country or somewhere else where it won't hurt your sale of new phones as much, but stop destroying the planet for $$$

You can seriously impact a local or a national economy of a developing nation when a rich nations dumps crap it doesn't want on your market. Most developing nations will have anti-dumping laws as well.

In any sustainable system Apple should either be the first interested in repairing those devices or forced to do it.

You can create a policy to price the externalities of recycling the electronic device (and that may be a necessary policy), but to be clear, it will be shared between Apple and the consumer through higher-prices - which will impact the poor disproportionally. Maybe that's a good thing, but I always find it interesting that people just point the finger at the manufacturer and not the consumer that ultimately buys the products and tosses it (usually without properly recycling it). It's the same kind of garbage as trying to blame Exxon for extracting petroleum and ignoring the SUV in your driveway.

>In any sustainable system Apple should either be the first interested in repairing those devices or forced to do it.

You don't even know what's wrong with these devices.

Why would it be wrong to make this practice illegal going forward? There are clear environmental impacts in desctroyiing functional devices.

Of course Apple has all kinds of reasons why this makes sense for them. Doesn't mean those reasons are necessarily in the interest of the public, so the public doesn't have to accept them.

Because it's a poorly thought-out policy created and pushed by people that may not (and clearly do not) understand the market, the space or the unintended consequences that arise from it.

>There are clear environmental impacts in desctroyiing functional devices.

And we also have clear liability and legal reasons for destroying 'functional devices'.

>Doesn't mean those reasons are necessarily in the interest of the public

Preventing devices that the manufacturer has not certified as safe from being distributed to the public is also in the interest of the public.

Every device that is currently made will end up in a landfill. Having the manufacturer and consumer responsible for these externalities is not a terrible policy, but this is not how you do it.

Then the batteries should be replaceable -- who pioneered non replaceable phone batteries?

Or maybe those devices on the market will eat into their market share.

Bingo. Profits before planet.

You missed the point because you have a narrative you want to fit this situation into. The big picture is that there are valid reasons for sending devices to a landfill.

Every device that is currently made will end up in a landfill. Having the manufacturer and consumer responsible for these externalities is not a terrible policy, but this is not how you do it.

>Bingo. Profits before planet.

You're just a one-trick pony, aren't you? That you are writing this insightful commentary on a computing device that will end up in a landfill within the next 2 to 5 years, I'm sure, is lost on you.

I agree, but a dangerous battery should not be one of them because batteries should be replaceable.

Not the parent, but I am writing this comment on Pinephone, which definitely will not end up in a landfill within the next 2 to 5 years, because it's openness enables unlimited support. See also: Librem 5 with lifetime support.

I am confident in arguing, however, that in whatever regulatory regime we are in, there will be times and good reasons for destroying or landfilling devices.

I'm happy you have a secondhand Thinkpad. And I'm happy you got an endorphin rush for telling people on the internet that you have a secondhand Thinkpad - but you are going to landfill that device. Also, I hate Apple devices. I think OSX is overrated, and both OSX and iOS have terrible ergonomics. And yes, Mac computers and laptops are overpriced and their quality varies from year to year.

> Apple contracted a recycler to destroy the devices, and those devices made it out to the market, breaking contractual obligations.

There are definitely broken obligations, but who invented those obligations in the first place and why? Apple did it for profit and user control, against environment and ethics. This is the actual problem here.

Contract law. If you want to change the entire legal regime underpinning these kinds of contracts, that's a big (and separate) discussion.

>Apple did it for profit and user control, against environment and ethics

You don't know that. You're speculating. It's not clear that this policy against environmental initiatives or it is unethical. Besides, environmental concerns need to be balanced with other factors. Our company contracts IronMountain to destroy old disk drives - our interpretation of this is that IronMountain will in fact securely destroy those drives and not resell them on the market, EVEN IF that would be more friendly to the environment.

Why not? If it’s because they’re a trillion-dollar company, then it’s a matter of scale, and every business from Apple down to the corner lemonade stand needs to be held to the same standard.

Would you have been glad to see those 14 mpg cars shipped to Mexico to be reused and the emissions just sent overseas?

It's not clear to me that 'clunkers' were a net benefit to society. Maybe getting rid of them was the correct choice. I don't know what the answer is, but I think there is probably more to consider than car emissions.

This really impacts poor / low-income families and individuals- lots of people can barely afford to feed, clothe, and house themselves, and the increasing costs of transportation can really really sting, and may make it harder for them to find stable employment.

The financial stimulus of Cash For Clunkers is now long-gone, but poor people- and, for that matter, teenagers buying their first vehicle- are still feeling the aftershocks of it in the form of higher vehicle prices across the board.

> Would you have been glad to see those 14 mpg cars shipped to Mexico to be reused and the emissions just sent overseas?

If it means better lives for the people the vehicles are going to, then yes, I do.

(yes 2 tenths of a percent, 2 vehicles out of 1000)

~170,000,000 new cars have been sold in the meantime (so assume tens of millions of used car transactions related to that).

It was a blip. It's more likely that other factors are driving the change in the market.

I'm fine with making companies pay for externalities of manufacturing, but if you own something, it's yours to do with as you wish.

Counterpoint: This may not actually cause companies to change their behaviour, it might simply create market barriers, which will be beneficial for companies with the necessary capital - i.e., it will just mean you have to be rich enough to be allowed to pollute the environment.

> but if you own something, it's yours to do with as you wish.

This is not true. We put restrictions on all kinds of actions if they have a high likelihood of causing damage. This is why you're allowed to own fertilizer but are still not allowed to build a bomb with it. This is also why you need a driver's license to operate a vehicle.

You're technically mostly right, but you're also comparing building a bomb to Apple recycling old phones. Your rights end where my rights begin. Driving a car without a license is an example of that. You don't have a right to an iPhone.

By sending to a "country of need" we immediately run the risk that end up in the countryside or disposed of improperly and that unless you just happen to land in a country with sufficient infrastructure to even support the devices they just end up as curiosities.

It is very easy to be altruistic when no analysis is involved in determining the true cost of such actions. As in, many ideas sound great on paper but are so unfeasible to actually worse than doing nothing.

That's perfectly fine and I agree, but this has zero bearing on the current case.

Wouldn't it be worse for the planet? First - shipping these across the globe is also destroying the planet. Secondly - many developing countries are not really recycling old electronics, they just dump them into the wasteland, which makes it even worse for the planet.

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2019/03/china...

What I don't support is when people think that existing laws and rights in contracts should just be suspended or ignored because the outcome favors their side.

Go put what you want into laws. Don't take pleasure in having laws ignored. It will come to bite you sooner than you think.

So we can complain when we disagree with such behavior we consider is very bad and ask for legal changes? I think Apple does has enough money to hire lawyers and PR people to defend itself from some complaints and can also lobby against better laws - so they don't need fans to spend effort trying to shift the topic into what is legal or not from what should be legal and fair.

But in the meantime, respect existing laws and rights in contracts.

so let's share this not because it is illegal now but to debate if it should be illegal to prevent recycling and repairing.

A great way of changing laws is to purposefully break them and undermine them, actually.

If people really do not like a law, then we can encourage others to break them, and make these bad laws difficult to enforce.

If a bad law can't be enforced, then it may as well not exist.

Unless there is a risk in using these devices which outweigh the environmental and economic benefits, this seems to not be a good move by Apple.

Apple filed that suit in January, and GEEP filed a suit against Apple in July that GEEP didn't steal the devices but three rogue employees.

Not in this case. Only when they could have prevented that employees were reselling the devices.

It looks like GEEP agrees with Apple and they are going after the people who resold the devices.

If the company were instead offering secure data disposal this would be surprising. General disposal no.

The judicial point appears to be about whether or not the company was reselling devices or if (as they claim) some rogue employees were doing it for their own benefit. If they're telling it true, I wonder what (if any) laws the employees were breaking.

It is "stealing garbage" after all, and possibly beneficial environmentally.

Maybe this should be our point. I'm certainly not outraged that someone resold apple's recycle stuff. If they get away with it, great.

In one scenario, a device keeps being used, it just changes hands. In another, it is recycled, using up energy and materials into making new products out of it, and throwing away what can't be salvaged. And you think it's wild speculation to claim the first scenario is less taxing on the environment than the second?

Oh but it's explained by the completely sensible deduction that, if you sell someone a working device, they might throw it in a landfill. Why is the 2nd owner more likely to landfill it than the 1st? Does Apple vet buyers for environmentalism before it'll sell phones to them?

In a third scenario, the devices are sold overseas to people who recycle less often than Americans. In a fourth scenario, they’re sold to business that are tearing the devices apart, pulling out a couple of tiny components and scrapping everything else.

> Why is the 2nd owner more likely to landfill it than the 1st?

This question is irrelevant because 100% of the devices that ended up at GEEP were supposed to be recycled, contractually. If there’s any non-zero chance at all that the second owner won’t recycle, then it’s guaranteed that more devices will end up in landfill due to GEEP breaking it’s contract and illegally reselling used devices.

I see you didn’t bother to address my question why you think Apple has a bad record on the environment, compared to other companies that make similar products. I realize their environmental responsibility report is part marketing, yet they have in fact been putting some of their money where their mouth is. Some manufacturers don’t produce any such reports, and haven’t bothered to even try to make their products recyclable. https://www.apple.com/environment/pdf/Apple_Environmental_Pr...

Why would anything different happen to a "resold" than a "sold" device? Is there any market that Apple doesn't sell to because their consumers don't recycle enough? No, there is not, and I am beyond tired of dealing with the pretzel-like contortions of reasoning you twist yourself into to believe continued use of a device is somehow more harmful than stripping it for parts, for the sole reason that money changed hands without Apple getting their cut.

And whether Apple on the whole is better for the environment than other companies is a different question than whether this practice is bad. But with introducing wasteful technologies like AirPods, soldering SSDs and RAM to motherboards, and fight against right to repair, I'll take their environmentalism with a massive grain of salt.

Did you miss the other possible scenarios I offered, or are you certain they cannot happen? (If so, then why?) Did you not understand the point that recycling 100% of the devices might outweigh some reuse plus some portion ending up as landfill? Do you believe that devices ending up in landfill is worse than devices being recycled?

Why are you assuming the same thing would happen to a device on resale, compared to first sale? Do you know who GEEP was selling them to, and what for? I would guess that statistically the second life is much shorter, especially for devices that Apple decided couldn't be resold by their refurb program. I don't know that for certain, and I won't insist on it because I don't like to make wild assumptions, but if you believe otherwise, I'd love to hear what evidence you've got.

> for the sole reason that money changed hands without Apple getting their cut.

This speculation doesn't stand up to a reality check. Apple already re-uses devices: they sell refurbs! The second life you're advocating already happens to all the devices they can, and they already make money doing that and it's better for the environment. Why are you assuming that Apple is recycling devices for financial reasons, when it costs them money to recycle, and it would net them more money to resell these devices if they could? Why are you assuming these devices even have a second life in them, when Apple already sells used devices?

> I am beyond tired of dealing with the pretzel-like contortions of reasoning you twist yourself into to believe continued use of a device is somehow more harmful than stripping it for parts

This makes it pretty clear that you haven't understood my questions. I have not claimed that recycling is better than re-use. In fact I believe re-use is better than recycling, environmentally speaking. So I think we agree on that. What I'm asking is why you're so certain that this specific case is one where Apple is doing the wrong thing environmentally. That's not clear to me at all. It seems very possible that recycling here is much more environmentally responsible than re-selling. It really depends on more specifics than we have at hand; it matters what the condition of the devices is, it matters who they're being sold to, it matters what they'll get used for, how long they'll last, and what happens after that. What do you know that I don't know? I haven't seen anything yet to convince me that your certainty is backed by any evidence.

> I'll take their environmentalism with a massive grain of salt.

Could you please identify computer brands that are better, and link to their environmental records? What are the actionable alternatives that are more environmentally friendly?

Because finding the laws that protect the environment is much harder than seeking the limits of the law?

This is turbo capitalism gone wrong. Unfortunately destroying the planet is only morally wrong, but not legally in many cases. It just tells me that I am right never buying any of Apple's products.

In France they intended to make it illegal to destroy new products. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/04/france-to-ban-... No idea whether that is still current, I am not from France.

It will be, for all products outside of food, starting in 2022.

https://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2019/12/13/loi-antiga...

Its not beside the point at all.

The reason is because, even if we say that the current behavior was against current laws, knowing what should happen tells society how we could change the laws.

Furthermore, if Apple is doing something that society doesn't like, individual people can talk about that, condemn Apple for it, and encourage others to take actions that negatively affects Apple or Apple employees, in retaliation for the bad behavior.

> why shouldn't the company sue for breach of contract?

The reason is because, as a society, we want things to be reused. So maybe we could make a law, that makes this reselling behavior legal, and removes Apple's right to sue anyone for this.