[HN Gopher] Apple will use 100 percent recycled cobalt in batter...
___________________________________________________________________
Apple will use 100 percent recycled cobalt in batteries by 2025
Author : feross
Score : 407 points
Date : 2023-04-13 12:18 UTC (10 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.apple.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.apple.com)
| bobse wrote:
| They won't. Sage.
| endisneigh wrote:
| Next thing Apple needs to do is setup MagSafe batteries to act as
| the primary battery for iPhones.
|
| Right now using a magsafe battery charges the built in battery
| which is then drained by iPhone usage. Ideally what would happen
| instead is iPhone usage would use the magsafe battery first,
| _then_ the built in battery.
|
| The result of this is that magsafe batteries effectively are
| equivalent as replaceable ones.
| JustSomeNobody wrote:
| This would be cool.
| vlovich123 wrote:
| I'm confused. Isn't that what happens? Some portion goes to
| operating the phone and the rest to charging the battery? How
| does it work differently?
|
| It doesn't hook into the same charging system the phone uses
| for normal? Is that special for MagSafe? I don't really
| understand how it's different and can't find anything online to
| read more about this.
| endisneigh wrote:
| To my knowledge if you had a dead battery, and used magsafe
| you still wouldn't be able to use your phone.
| vlovich123 wrote:
| Correct, just like with a power cable. The phone needs to
| have some charge for basic operational safety. e.g. what
| happens if the user suddenly unplugs. Or are you saying
| MagSafe can't charge a dead phone?
| Gigachad wrote:
| The internal battery is replaceable though. The store will put
| a new one in for less than the cost of one of those MagSafe
| batteries.
| ezfe wrote:
| I don't think the current setup is notably different from what
| you're proposing.
|
| The phone _does_ use the MagSafe battery first, it just uses it
| _through_ the internal battery, but that is just a matter of
| semantics. It shouldn 't have a notable impact on battery
| health.
| JustSomeNobody wrote:
| Why wouldn't it?
| endisneigh wrote:
| The critical importance here is if you plan on keeping your
| phone for a long time, a degraded internal battery is
| fundamentally the limit under the current scheme.
|
| Or to put it another way, imagine you had a battery that only
| lasted a single minute, and a magsafe battery that lasts a
| full day. How long is your phone going to last? What will
| happen is that both your internal battery and magsafe will be
| drained, with the magsafe being drained the most. Eventually
| your internal battery will die, and so will your phone.
|
| The other issue with using the internal battery (pass
| through, or charge) is that you're wearing it down more.
|
| Maybe the behavior is different in an iPhone 14?
| mardifoufs wrote:
| Li-ion battery degradation is minimal, or even negligible
| when they aren't cycled across different capacity ranges
| AFAIK. What that means is that current charging the battery
| while it is getting discharged at a similar rate (which
| usually means a constant battert voltage) doesn't induce
| wear in the same way as charging the battery from a
| capacity of 10% to 100% (or even from 75% to 80%) does.
|
| But that could be different when that constant
| charge/discharge is happening at high capacity levels,
| lithium-ion batteries are weirder when they are at their
| maximim voltage. My knowledge is rusty at this point so let
| me know if I got any of this wrong.
| madmads wrote:
| But doesn't using one battery through another effectively
| mean that you're using both batteries in terms of wear and
| tear? If the phone drains the internal battery and the
| magsafe battery is charging the internal battery, to me that
| sounds like both batteries are in use experiencing normal
| wear. If that's not how it works, I'd be curious to hear how
| it does work.
| nerdponx wrote:
| > It shouldn't have a notable impact on battery health.
|
| Is that actually true? Lithium batteries seem kind of fussy.
| layer8 wrote:
| MagSafe wastes energy due to its inefficiency. It's hard to
| believe Apple's eco-friendly aspirations when they introduce
| such features.
| Gigachad wrote:
| The energy used to power your phone is completely trivial.
| Just one trip in your car would use more than your lifetime
| phone usage.
| somehnguy wrote:
| People want wireless charging, that isn't changing. MagSafe
| is a more efficient version of that compared to basic Qi
| charging like every other device offers because the magnets
| ensure perfect alignment.
| layer8 wrote:
| People want a lot of things. I doubt that Apple would have
| lost significant market share for not providing wireless
| charging.
| somehnguy wrote:
| My thought here is that the same people complaining about
| wireless charging efficiency would be the ones
| complaining if Apple didn't offer it.
|
| Can't win.
|
| They offer a more efficient version of a feature everyone
| wants. Complain that everyone else is doing it worse.
| layer8 wrote:
| If they "can't win" anyway, they might as well have
| chosen the more environmentally-friendly option. The
| criticism is that they didn't.
| somehnguy wrote:
| I disagree. There is _always_ something to criticize, and
| some people will _always_ want to do it. Might as well
| have a nice feature.
| fortran77 wrote:
| Think of all the extra money they can make replacing batteries
| more frequently!
| JanneVee wrote:
| So I'll just leave this, it seems that people aren't aware of it:
| https://us.macmillan.com/books/9781250284297/cobaltred
| mdp2021 wrote:
| Well, in this page a member shows that copper is used three
| time as much as cobalt in car batteries, and only a few days
| ago a documentary emerged about the copper extraction industry
| in Chile as a barricaded enclave causing high human costs.
|
| And even more recently the moves in the geopolitical game made
| the extraction of rare earths and its environmental (and
| social, etc.) costs a renewedly current topic.
|
| I am not sure that cobalt has a specially bad place in the
| whole context of extraction. (Apart from the non irrelevant
| fact that 'cobalt' comes from "kobold", because its ore is
| toxic.)
| wuming2 wrote:
| With 70% of revenues from hundred million battery powered devices
| a year is a big deal.
| mocko wrote:
| Well, hmm - is it? I'd naively imagine cobalt content is
| proportional to battery size, and while Apple sells a lot of
| devices they aren't large energy-hungry ones.
|
| Surely far more of the world's battery production (by watt-
| hours or kg, take your pick) goes into cars and grid storage
| than iPhones?
| rootusrootus wrote:
| > goes into cars
|
| Most EVs worldwide are powered by cobalt-free LFP batteries.
| A decent fraction of EVs sold in the US are also LFP powered
| (all standard range Model 3 & Y). Cobalt is a short-term
| problem that'll be a memory a few years from now.
| ben_w wrote:
| Hmm...
|
| > 232 million iPhones, 61 million iPads and 26 million Mac
| and MacBook...
|
| - (last year) https://www.businessofapps.com/data/apple-
| statistics/
|
| I'll assume the batteries are 8 Wh for iPhone, 30 Wh for
| iPad, 52 Wh for the Macs[0]:
|
| = (232 * 8) + (61 * 30) + (26 * 52) = 5038 MWh = 5 GWh
|
| Which is more than I was expecting, but at the same time
| Tesla is on track for 1.8 million cars this year at a minimum
| of 54 kWh each = 97.2 GWh
|
| So, yeah; good on Apple, more of this please from other
| electronics companies, still tiny compared to automotive.
|
| [0] plausible guesses only because I don't have a breakdown
| of sales by model and I don't care enough to go looking
| xxs wrote:
| >I'll assume the batteries are 8 Wh for iPhone
|
| 8Wh is exceptionally low (even guessing), it's just 2.22Ah
| for a Li-Ion (cobalt based). IPhone battery is 3.2Ah ~
| 11.5Wh.
|
| 52 Wh for the Mac; that's a rather low estimate for a Mac,
| it has 3 cells in series, likely 2 or 3 in parallel.
| 2.8-3Ah per cell (at 3.6 nominal voltage)
| ben_w wrote:
| Depends on the model, the SE is 7.82 Wh and that model is
| still on sale.
|
| But even doubling the combined total, let alone a mere
| extra 3 Wh * 232e6 = 696 MWh = 0.7 GWh, Apple is still a
| small battery user compared to Tesla cars.
| xxs wrote:
| I didn't doubt the conclusion, just the estimate was
| extremely low, I'd just not call it 'plausible'.
| bayindirh wrote:
| When run at full-steam, MacBooks, iPads and iPhones can churn
| significant amount of data for their sizes, and use
| significant amount of energy. The batteries sold by Apple are
| pretty dense for their sizes, and they sell _a lot_ of them.
|
| It will definitely add up.
| mocko wrote:
| Sure, I'm not hating on Apple - it's a perfectly reasonable
| thing for them to do. But I'd question how much of global
| cobalt production was ever going into macbooks/iphones
| rather than electric cars, lawnmowers, hoovers and whatever
| else.
|
| This sets a good precedent but we'd need other
| manufacturers (who I'd guess are more cost-conscious) to
| follow suit before it changes much.
| alfor wrote:
| The applications that don't need the highest energy density
| are shifting away from cobalt.
| lockhouse wrote:
| Apparently an iPhone uses about 8 grams of cobalt.
|
| Considering how many units are shipped annually, that adds up
| to quite a lot actually.
| detourdog wrote:
| Efficiency is always a big deal and at Apple's scale any slice
| of a percent is great. The supply chain for these materials
| seems to have predominately shifted to an internal resource as
| opposed to an external cost variable. This process also started
| small and slow but is starting to snowball. Apple has developed
| a supply chain that is efficient and still gaining
| efficiencies. Not to mention all the social and environmental
| issues.
| ho_schi wrote:
| I think the title should say ,,Apple will order from 2025 only
| batteries with 100 percent recycled cobalt"?
|
| I'm not aware that Apple has noteworthy production facilities.
| Other than IBM, Dell, Lenovo, TSMC, Intel, Samsung. With Samsung
| as exception, which produces literally everything.
| coldtea wrote:
| Well, title doesn't say "make", says "use".
|
| Then again, if we're to talk about hypocrisy, the cobalt impact
| on environment (not to mention child, including slave-slave,
| labor) is downplayed towards token "green" PR.
|
| (And "recycled" cobalt can just be any previous cycle's "new"
| cobalt, meaning still driving cobalt mining forever - it's just
| an accounting trick to make it appear less impactful. Except if
| they promise to only use cobalt mined before 2025 in
| perpetuity).
| kergonath wrote:
| > Except if they promise to only use cobalt mined before 2025
| in perpetuity
|
| They're not in a situation to promise anything like this,
| though. Nobody is going to ask when the cobalt was mined when
| you bring a device for recycling. Of course, recycling is not
| perfect and not using any would be better. But it's still
| much, much better than not doing any recycling.
| jmull wrote:
| > just an accounting trick
|
| I think this should create a substantial market for recycled
| cobalt, which will drive up the level of cobalt recycling,
| which means there would be less actual cobalt mining.
|
| That's not just an accounting trick.
| brookst wrote:
| How is it an accounting trick? Are you saying there would be
| no change in the amount of cobalt mined annually if Apple
| instead said they would use only newly mined cobalt?
| robocat wrote:
| Let's say the world currently uses 90% virgin Cobalt, and
| 10% recycled Cobalt.
|
| Let's assume Apple decides to only use recycled Cobalt.
|
| Q1: Is there any change to the amount of recycled Cobalt?
|
| Q2: Is Apple a kind, environmentally-friendly, generous,
| caring corporation?
|
| Q3: If Apple decided to use batteries without Cobalt, would
| that decrease Cobalt mining?
|
| Q4: Could Apple reduce the number of phones they produce
| (decreasing Cobalt usage), and would Apple do that for
| environmental reasons?
|
| Q5: Let's assume their new policy actually makes zero
| difference to the amount of Cobalt mining: would Apple
| still claim to be environmentally conscious in their
| marketing?
| coldtea wrote:
| Also, will Apple even continue to use "100% recycle
| cobalt" if their production grows in some market segment
| (say the "Apple car" eventually arrives) and their cobalt
| needs increase beyond that? Not a chance.
| astrange wrote:
| I think EV batteries don't use cobalt anymore? Tesla's
| doesn't.
| brookst wrote:
| That's a lot of hand waving and moralizing to dodge the
| question. I'm fine hating Apple, but I don't feel the
| need to insist that them increasing the average number of
| proudest a cobalt atom goes through will have no impact
| on demand for newly mined cobalt.
|
| 100% fine if you choose to see this policy as further
| evidence of their moral irredeemability. But let's be
| honest with the math and how supply chains work?
| robocat wrote:
| I am wondering whether this is smoke-and-mirrors
| greenwashing with a side of deflection, versus a
| significant boost to Cobalt recycling.
|
| Economics:
|
| (A) If 10% of Cobalt is already recycled, but only 5% is
| used by companies that want to advertise their green
| credentials, then there is unlikely to be much extra
| demand for recycled Cobalt so approximately zero extra
| production of it,
|
| (B) If corporations are only willing to pay a little
| extra for recycled Cobalt, then there is little extra
| production of recycled Cobalt. The price will clear near
| the 10% usage mark.
|
| (C) Even at a high price for recycled Cobalt, if there is
| a high marginal cost for increasing recycling then little
| extra Cobalt will be recycled (e.g. if we are already
| recycling most of what economically can be).
|
| (D) Without very detailed PhD level analysis, the dollars
| spent is the best proxy for ecological damage. A high
| price for recycled Cobalt might be doing nothing for the
| environment, or even be damaging the environment _more_.
|
| > But let's be honest with the math and how supply chains
| work?
|
| I am trying to be. I do question whether Apple Inc is
| trying to be.
|
| I do hope that Apple's efforts do improve the world.
| Apple are one of the biggest economic actors on the
| planet, so they have the real capacity to make a true
| positive ecological difference.
|
| Longer software updates to extend device lifetimes would
| be a true signal they cared about the environment. For
| example I have seen too many iPads that become obsolete
| even though the hardware is still working great. If Apple
| don't use signals like that, we can presume that they
| care more about profits. I am 100% fine if Apple choose
| to see profits as policy, so long as they are honest
| about it.
|
| I am definitely not a specialist in this area, yet to me
| there are obvious gaping holes in their narrative which
| make it seem like they are performing environmental
| theatre instead of ecologically sound engineering. It is
| carefully constructed advertising - whether there is any
| meat in it is the question.
|
| Whether we can discover the underlying truth is another
| matter.
|
| > hand waving
|
| Perhaps you could criticise my points, rather than make a
| hand waving argument.
| coldtea wrote:
| I'm saying "100% percent recycled" still means new cobalt
| will continue to be mined, including for future Apple use.
| Apple just offsets using the newly mined by 1-2-3 years and
| calls it a green solution.
| brookst wrote:
| An, with you there. To the extent Apple claimed this
| policy would result in the total cessation of all cobalt
| mining, they were wrong to do so. It is merely a
| reduction in demand for newly mined cobalt, not a
| complete elimination across the entire economy.
| neom wrote:
| I like buying supply chain stocks, I went to find out who apple
| is buying cobalt from and apparently it's mostly directly from
| the miners, pretty cool!
| ihucos wrote:
| [flagged]
| devoutsalsa wrote:
| If you want to be edgy, switch from a carbon based to silicon
| based diet. Personally I just gnaw on my iPbone.
| samwillis wrote:
| You're not a publicly traded company making "forward looking
| statements" about 18 months out.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _not a publicly traded company making "forward looking
| statements" about 18 mounts out_
|
| Moreover one that successfully launched a decades-long
| product plan in M1. If long-term planning is fundamentally
| shocking to you, it might say more about you than whatever
| you're criticising.
| aziaziazi wrote:
| Nice move. Let's not forget their cobalt supply chain was
| involved in child labor in DRC [0] 4 years ago. Hope the next
| dozens of precious ressources will follow soon, starting with
| lithium.
|
| [0] https://www.theguardian.com/global-
| development/2019/dec/16/a...
|
| Edit:typo
| hammock wrote:
| Still is. You cannot get cobalt from Congo without child
| slavery, and 3/4 of all cobalt comes from Congo. No matter what
| the phone and car companies tell you
| txsoftwaredev wrote:
| Recycling cobalt batteries can have environmental impacts if not
| done properly. The process can result in the emission of
| pollutants, including greenhouse gases, toxic metals, and
| hazardous waste. Improper disposal of the waste generated during
| recycling can also have harmful effects on the environment. Not
| to mention recycling cobalt batteries requires a significant
| amount of energy. The process of recovering cobalt from batteries
| involves crushing, shredding, and melting the battery components,
| which can consume a lot of energy and contribute to carbon
| emissions.
| 2bitencryption wrote:
| What's "100 percent recycled cobalt"?
|
| The cobalt is either recycled (100%), or it's not (0%).
|
| How much of this "100% recycled cobalt" makes up a single
| battery?
|
| Is it 10%? 1%? 99%?
|
| Is the battery 10% made of 100% recycled cobalt, and 90% made of
| non-recycled material?
|
| I hate this "100% recycled" wordplay. Any reasonable person would
| interpret it to mean "the batteries are 100% recycled" which
| seems to not be the case, given how sly they are being with the
| description.
|
| Still, kudos to the recycling effort, but don't try to trick me.
|
| It's the same trick nearly every company in the US plays with
| "made from 100% reclaimed ocean plastic."
|
| Sure, it is made from plastic that 100% was reclaimed from the
| ocean. But if that plastic only makes up 1% of the item, and the
| rest is 99% non-recycled plastic, then you're effectively just
| tricking any individual not paying attention.
| Someone wrote:
| If you click the header of this page, you can read an entire
| article titled _"Apple will use 100 percent recycled cobalt in
| batteries by 2025"_ , and find the answer to your question.
|
| Also, the phrase "use 100 percent recycled Foo", though in
| principle ambiguous, AFAIK is only used to mean "100% of the
| FOO we use is recycled".
| ye-olde-sysrq wrote:
| It seems to read reasonably unambiguously to me, I think. I
| interpreted it to mean:
|
| Of the cobalt that is used in making the batteries, all of it
| came from sources that had previously been used in something
| else, subsequent to it having been mined originally. None of it
| came from cobalt where it was mined and then this is its first
| use in a product.
|
| And then there being no other claims about the recycled-ness or
| lack thereof about the rest of the battery.
| geewee wrote:
| Really? I feel like the interpretation is pretty obvious, that
| all of the cobalt in the batteries is recycled - but no
| promises or indicators about how much of the battery consists
| of cobalt.
|
| It doesn't feel like trickery to me, but it certainly doesn't
| paint the full picture.
| dpkonofa wrote:
| Is English your first language? This is pretty clear to mean
| that 100% of the cobalt used in the production is recycled and
| not sourced from outside their supply. If their production used
| some recycled cobalt and that filled in gaps using sourced
| cobalt, then that wouldn't be 100% recycled.
| Wingman4l7 wrote:
| More greenwashing garbage from Apple, a company that has been
| building devices with notoriously and deliberately poor
| repairability for years, and more recently, has been taking a
| giant shit on first-sale doctrine by refusing to provide any way
| for the new *legal* owners of decommissioned corporate hardware
| to de-list said hardware from MDM (org. device management),
| leading to entire laptops becoming soft-bricked e-waste well
| before the end of their reasonable lifespan.
| [deleted]
| kitsunesoba wrote:
| From what I've read, Apple can and has worked with third
| parties to unlock MDM-associated and activation locked devices,
| but only after a certain period of time and reasonable proof of
| legitimate ownership to try to avoid creating a pipeline to
| "legitimize" stolen hardware, which doesn't seem particularly
| unreasonable. There's no point in having a locking feature if
| they'll roll over and unlock it for just anybody.
| desksplosion wrote:
| We've had trouble since they retired of some MDM and Server
| OS services in recent years. We can only get support for
| serial numbers we can prove we purchased, and our Apple
| corporate accounts manager rep says that their corporate
| purchase history back-end software only goes back 18 months.
| I'm with 'Wingman4l7' on this being greenwashing nonsense.
| Wingman4l7 wrote:
| "Reasonable proof of legitimate ownership" translates to
| "record of first-sale purchase directly from Apple" _only_ ,
| from every example I have seen.
|
| They have steadfastly refused to differentiate between the
| concepts of abandoned/donated devices vs. stolen ones -- very
| convenient for them, as it drives more sales of new devices
| and increasingly hamstrings the used market.
| kitsunesoba wrote:
| > They have steadfastly refused to differentiate between
| the concepts of abandoned/donated devices vs. stolen ones
|
| This is a valid complaint, but at the same time that
| differentiation can be messy and difficult to systematize
| in a way that's not enabling thieves.
|
| Something I've advocated for in the past is a feature in
| the firmware that allows new owners to request an unlock
| from the original owner, which could be as simple as an
| email and/or SMS that the original owner can answer yes/no.
| This isn't a perfect fix, but it takes Apple out of the
| loop outside of acting as a relay, and if the original
| owner in fact abandoned or donated the device in question
| they'll have no qualms with unlocking it for the new owner.
| philistine wrote:
| So what would you have Apple do instead when a device is
| attached to an account? Allow Apple a backdoor inside every
| device they sell to remove MDM and/or Find My?
| Wingman4l7 wrote:
| Activation locks are all server-side; they control if these
| expire or are enabled -- so they already have a backdoor
| inside every device, essentially.
| gumballindie wrote:
| By that time they would sold, and thus damaged the environment,
| so many phones that they can just recycle them and still turn a
| good profit.
| [deleted]
| whitepaint wrote:
| [flagged]
| Mashimo wrote:
| What makes you think slave labor stops in 2 years?
| bb123 wrote:
| Realistically what would Apple have to do here to satisfy you?
| retrac98 wrote:
| This is a brilliant response.
| whitepaint wrote:
| No idea. But I am also no better than them, I use the
| products, don't I.
| Maursault wrote:
| What exactly is the battery chemistry of the batteries Apple is
| using? LiCo?!? LiNiMnCoO2? LiNiCoAlO2? I can't find the answer
| anywhere other than "Lithium ion."
| HPsquared wrote:
| I don't know the answer, but probably NCA or NMC. Won't be LFP.
| Maursault wrote:
| That really settles it.
|
| We shouldn't have to guess. It should be known, within the
| first couple search results. What's the point of not
| revealing that?
| HPsquared wrote:
| Draws attention to the cobalt content, I guess. What
| benefit is there to Apple in publishing this information?
| known wrote:
| Lithium car battery weighs 450kg. It has about 11 kg of lithium,
| 14 kg of cobalt, 27 kg of nickel, more than 40 kg of copper, and
| 50 kg of graphite as well as about 181 kg of steel, aluminum, and
| plastics.
| HPsquared wrote:
| LFP batteries are becoming much more common in EVs, mostly due
| to lower cost. They are a bit lower performance than NMC and
| NCA cells, but cheaper - and they don't use cobalt.
|
| EDIT: for example Tesla Model 3 Standard Range uses LFP
| chemistry.
| jillesvangurp wrote:
| There are also some sodium ion batteries on the road now.
| Their performance isn't stellar but it keeps cost down. LFP
| is indeed getting more popular. A lot of the more advanced
| chemistries also don't use cobalt, or use less of it.
|
| Cobalt sourcing is of course an issue. But it's worth noting
| that it's usage is not unique to just lithium batteries. A
| lot of cobalt is consumed and not recycled in the oil
| industry and it's used in a variety of other industries as
| well. Why is it that child labor is only ever an issue in the
| context of batteries?
|
| And another point is that of course not all cobalt mines are
| operated by child labor. Sourcing responsibly is an option if
| you need cobalt. You might have to pay extra for it.
|
| And another point is that cobalt isn't by far the only thing
| that is commonly sourced in ways that perhaps aren't that
| nice. There's a wide variety of minerals, oil, etc. that are
| also produced under circumstances that you might rightfully
| criticize for being similarly inhumane, dirty, etc. And a lot
| of that finds its ways into global supply chains.
|
| There's a bit of selection bias going on here. When it's
| batteries it's an outrage. When it's fuel you buy at the
| pump, you don't give it a second thought. Was it maybe some
| Nigerian oil or did it come from Iran, Russia, or some
| Canadian tar field? Did they use some Cobalt from the Congo
| to refine it? Most people neither know nor care. The point
| isn't whether there is or isn't child labor involved but that
| mostly people don't care enough to bother finding out.
| alwayslikethis wrote:
| They are also notably much safer, at a cost of much worse
| energy density.
| steve_adams_86 wrote:
| As I recall they can also last many more cycles than other
| lithium or lead acid batteries.
| AdrianB1 wrote:
| True, but lead acid is not even in the same league - deep
| discharge will kill it like flies.
| RaoulP wrote:
| I find this section on the elimination of plastic from their
| packaging interesting as well:
|
| > _The development of fiber alternatives for packaging components
| like screen films, wraps, and foam cushioning has kept Apple on
| track toward this ambitious goal. To address the remaining 4
| percent plastic in the company's packaging footprint, Apple is
| innovating to replace labels, lamination, and other small uses.
| In the last year, Apple developed a custom printer to introduce
| digital printing directly onto the boxes of iPhone 14 and iPhone
| 14 Pro, eliminating the need for most labels. And a new overprint
| varnish found in iPad Air, iPad Pro, and Apple Watch Series 8
| packaging replaces the polypropylene plastic lamination found on
| boxes and packaging components._
| lloydatkinson wrote:
| Sounds like Apple's previous work with printers has come in
| handy again
| philistine wrote:
| In the _Steve Jobs Lost Interview_ , he was extremely proud
| of having made Apple the number one company in printers in
| terms of profit when he was kicked out. He remembered all the
| business deals he made with Adobe and others to start Apple's
| laser printers. You can tell he was sour they pissed away
| that advantage.
| troymc wrote:
| I was curious about that and found this nice Wikipedia list
| of all Apple printers:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Apple_printers
| dmix wrote:
| It's been 25.84 years since Apple introduced a printer.
| Their institutional knowledge is likely long gone.
| alberth wrote:
| Most people don't realize how much machinery Apple creates for
| their vendors to use.
| michelb wrote:
| Indeed. I would love to see all the specialised equipment
| they've designed.
| kennywinker wrote:
| I would like them to publish the designs and allow others
| to use these machines, materials, and tech. It's not really
| an improvement until the tech is available to all product
| producers.
| kube-system wrote:
| We're mostly talking about things that are just
| industrial jigs using existing technology. These things
| are just bog standard industrial engineering.
|
| Printers that print directly to boxes or products without
| labels are already commonly available and commonly used.
| dev_tty01 wrote:
| >It's not really an improvement until the tech is
| available to all product producers.
|
| Sorry, that's not true at all. When they ship a couple
| hundred million phones a year its an impactful
| improvement regardless of where else the tech goes.
| Having said that, don't you think these recycling
| contractors are using that knowledge for other customers?
|
| Is it really that hard to say that its great that such a
| large vendor is working so hard at these goals, good on
| them? There are plenty of things to criticize about
| Apple, but these changes represent real corporate goals
| and serious investment.
| zdragnar wrote:
| It's empty virtue signaling if they retain some patent or
| otherwise contractually obligate their vendors to not
| share the technology.
|
| Apple sells a lot of kit for a tech company, but it is a
| drop in the bucket of the broader economy... even a
| hundred million phones.
|
| They "did their part" in a way that 99% of other
| companies won't be able to.
| toolz wrote:
| is your point to criticize apple for doing their part
| because they aren't also doing the work for other
| companies not doing their part? How is that apples
| responsibility? The blame for other companies not doing
| their part is on the other companies. Society won't get
| anywhere if they blame bad things on the only companies
| doing things to correct the bad things.
| zdragnar wrote:
| I'm not blaming them for anything, but I'm also not going
| to pretend that what they're doing wrt. label printing is
| going to make a significant impact when viewing the
| bigger picture.
|
| I am definitely glad to see they're not using primary
| cobalt and instead using only recycled, though, and think
| that part is praiseworthy.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _not going to pretend that what they 're doing wrt.
| label printing is going to make a significant impact when
| viewing the bigger picture_
|
| They're creating a culture of sustainability. That means
| not ignoring the small stuff just because it's small. And
| cutting plastic waste by the truck every few hours [1] is
| not small.
|
| [1] _26,500 iPhones ' plastic covers saved every hour_
|
| [a] _232.2mm iPhones shipped in 2022_
| https://www.businessofapps.com/data/apple-statistics/
| chongli wrote:
| They don't have to give the technology away. They could
| sell it or otherwise license it to other manufacturers.
| Keeping this technology a secret just so they can
| differentiate their packaging for marketing reasons is
| just about the most cynical business move they could
| make.
| dev_tty01 wrote:
| No one has presented any evidence that they are keeping
| it secret. You are arguing against a straw man. Maybe
| they are just using a tech that some other company
| created. If they sued someone for using some of their
| recycling tech then I am right with you. But these
| accusations and projections based on assumptions are
| unfounded.
|
| Setting aside the secrecy assertion, don't we want
| companies to innovate and use reduced eco-footprint as a
| marketing advantage? Companies are profit motivated and
| must be to survive. Don't we want other companies to look
| at Apple and see the market goodwill fostered by eco-
| friendly practices and strive to emulate that? Or strive
| to create even better ways of doing things?
|
| Throwing stones at environmental innovation just seems a
| counter-productive reaction.
| rowanG077 wrote:
| Ah yes. The perfect is the enemy of good approach. That
| has worked so well.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _It 's empty virtue signaling if they retain some
| patent or otherwise contractually obligate their vendors
| to not share the technology_
|
| They've reduced waste more than most users on this site--
| including you and me--combined. But that's "empty virtue
| signaling" because they didn't hand their competitors a
| silver spoon? That term really has lost all meaning.
| zdragnar wrote:
| They've not reduced waste, they're just producing less
| waste than they were before. Meanwhile, the drop in the
| bucket they've "reduced" can't be repeated elsewhere
| across not only their industry but others, so it is a
| relatively unremarkable change.
| dpkonofa wrote:
| >They've not reduced waste, they're just producing less
| waste than they were before.
|
| reduce (n) - To bring down, as in extent, amount, or
| degree; diminish. synonym: decrease.
|
| This is the worst kind of pedantic because it's also
| wrong. They have reduced waste production and they
| recycle existing waste. How is that not reducing waste?
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _not reduced waste, they 're just producing less waste
| than they were before_
|
| Recycling literally reduces the quantity of waste.
|
| > _the drop in the bucket they 've "reduced" can't be
| repeated elsewhere_
|
| You're Zeno's arrowing a big problem by dismissing
| incremental progress.
| Analemma_ wrote:
| > They've not reduced waste, they're just producing less
| waste than they were before.
|
| This is quite a sentence.
| comte7092 wrote:
| > Having said that, don't you think these recycling
| contractors are using that knowledge for other customers?
|
| Maybe? It really depends on how much Apple is willing to
| punish its contractors for not protecting its IP.
| latchkey wrote:
| Here is one example:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqk4XKsf8oM
| dmix wrote:
| For some reason watching him do that makes me nervous.
| I'm not cut out for delicately removing/repairing stuff.
| msoad wrote:
| The amount of plastic you see in an iPhone package is a small
| percentage of how much plastic is used to manufacture the
| iPhone. Every single component is packed inside of plastic
| containers.
| mrexroad wrote:
| Source?
| anonymouskimmer wrote:
| I would guess many of those containers are reused.
| hackmiester wrote:
| Sure, but, they control what happens next. Whereas by
| including plastic in the packaging, it's practically
| guaranteed to go straight into the trash.
| fsckboy wrote:
| This entire discussion is full of very interesting facts and just
| useless opinions.
|
| what's a better way to run an economy? every consumer of food
| goes out into the fields to pick what they will eat? Or there are
| specialized pickers who pick the food and drop it off in bulk
| near the people who will eat it? And on the other end of that
| process, should we all dig our own latrines? Or have a
| toilets+sewer system run by professionals?
|
| cobalt is a commodity product. when you melt chunks of cobalt
| together, you can't tell where the cobalt came from any more. Who
| give a shit how Apple handles its cobalt? If it's doing it on a
| large scale, economics will dictate what is cost effective
| because how the economy handles cobalt is actually important, but
| how individual players do is completely unimportant. If it's
| important how certain waste is handled, yes, set up waste streams
| so that experts can make sure _all_ the parts of an old phone are
| handled, don 't as laypeople discuss the cobalt separately from
| the lithium, lead, etc.
|
| I'm just pointing it out because for a community of people who
| take smug self-assurance in both their technical prowess and
| ability to be rational and unswayed by emotion, you all know
| fuck-all about economics, wear your <3 recycling hearts on your
| sleeves, and have your heads in your asshats.
|
| Being drawn in to this discussion, you've most-all been
| bamboozled by PR/marketing despite all your ad-blockers and
| sophistication. If we've agreed that specialists will pick and
| deliver the food, it's interesting to learn about it, yes, but do
| we need to hear how each other feels about that?
| ThrowawayTestr wrote:
| Fun fact: cobalt is an essential mineral, it's used in vitamin
| B12!
| steve_adams_86 wrote:
| Related fun fact: the two types of B12 you typically find in
| stores are cyanocobalamin and methylcobalamin. Cobalt is
| practically in the names!
| paulkrush wrote:
| They can do this as their percent of world total use of these
| products shrinks and as the market has maturing waste streams.
| AnonMO wrote:
| based on recent shipment data from q4 2022 their global market
| share actually increased it actually bounced of the lows in
| 2020 and is still trending upwards and is at 10 year highs.
| >https://www.counterpointresearch.com/apple-iphone-market-
| sha... >https://www.counterpointresearch.com/global-smartphone-
| share...
| Danieru wrote:
| This is rather brilliant as an announcement.
|
| Cobalt was/is the most conflict associated of the battery inputs.
| Thus R&D has pushed cobalt content lower and lower over the
| years.
|
| The net result is old batteries contain tons more cobalt by
| weight than these new batteries Apple is expecting to use in
| 2025.
|
| Of course I feel remiss not to point out how Apple is the party
| responsible for killing the user replaceable battery.
| azinman2 wrote:
| If Apple hadn't existed, do you think smartphones would all
| have user replaceable batteries now?
| danaris wrote:
| If Apple hadn't existed, "smartphones" wouldn't look remotely
| like they do now.
|
| That's not to say that there wouldn't be some that have the
| general form factor of today's iPhone, but without the iPhone
| as a runaway success to copy, the rest of the market would
| not have standardized on that form factor to nearly this
| degree.
| lancesells wrote:
| It might have been slower. They seem to introduce these types
| of things first (maybe second) and then the industry follows.
| jl6 wrote:
| User-replaceable batteries create a waste stream of "used"
| batteries. I wonder what the recycling rate of those used
| batteries is, compared to the recycling rate of iPhones and
| their embedded batteries? Gut feel here says way lower. If
| true, killing the user-replaceable battery might be a net win
| for reducing consumption of problematic materials.
| wittenbunk wrote:
| Is this satire?
| iamerroragent wrote:
| Instead of replacing a battery people replace the device.
|
| Is that a net win in your book?
| sbuk wrote:
| Depends on what happens to the old device? Reuse? Great!
| Recycled? Just as great! In a drawer, gathering dust?
| Schrodinger's e-waste. Thrown away? Very bad.
| iamerroragent wrote:
| So it's easier to make use of an old device when the
| battery holds a charge.
|
| You can recycle batteries.
| sbuk wrote:
| So get it replaced. You're implying that this is an
| ordeal, when it simply isn't. Using a device until it no
| longer functions is the best option, clearly. If it's
| still functional, reuse it or have it recycled, safely
| and properly. Where is the issue? The option to extend
| the useful life exists where the existing battery can be
| replaced and, if done properly, recycled.
|
| You trying to suggest that user replaceable batteries are
| the best option. I'm not sure that this is necessarily
| true. While it is beneficial that these devices are
| easier to repair, the are downsides to this. The obvious
| one is how many people will responsibly recycle their
| batteries once replaced? A battery left in a drawer is as
| bad as it not being recycled or being irresponsibly
| disposed of. The point is, it isn't as open and shut as
| you are implying.
| iamerroragent wrote:
| "The obvious one is how many people will responsibly
| recycle their batteries once replaced?"
|
| Okay:
|
| The obvious one is how many people will responsibly
| recycle their devices once replaced?
|
| "A battery left in a drawer is as bad as it not being
| recycled or being irresponsibly disposed of."
|
| Okay:
|
| A device left in a drawer is as bad as it not being
| recycled or being irresponsibly disposed of.
|
| Though previously you just called that Schrodinger's
| device, so now I fail to see how device in drawer is
| worse than device and battery in landfill.
| sbuk wrote:
| > Okay:
|
| > The obvious one is how many people will responsibly
| recycle their devices once replaced?
|
| I agree, but my current anecdotal experience proves that
| there is considerably less friction for device recycling.
| Most, if not all, telco's will take an old mobile off
| your hands for recycling or refurbishing. Some will even
| accept trade-ins. Not sure what the situation with
| batteries is.
|
| > ...so now I fail to see how device in drawer is worse
| than device and battery in landfill.
|
| _As bad_ not _worse_. It not being used. That means that
| it either can be recycled or refurbished and /or reused,
| except it's doing nothing. Materials that could be in use
| in some way aren't. In turn, new materials are needed,
| which adds environmental pressure. Small amounts add up.
| I can't see how this _isn 't_ a bad thing.
| RNAlfons wrote:
| Apple could just reward returns of old batteries.
|
| It shouldn't be that hard for a company with so much know how
| and control over their products.
| totalZero wrote:
| By your logic, user-replaceable filters create a waste stream
| of "used" filters, and user-replaceable light bulbs create a
| waste stream of "used" light bulbs.
|
| I personally like nonserviceable batteries because I want my
| devices to be water resistant, but I'd be more hesitant to
| throw a battery in the trash than I would be to throw a dead
| device in the trash.
|
| People have the option of recycling used devices, whether
| they be battery devices or smartphone devices, at a multitude
| of retailers.
| hinkley wrote:
| The light bulb cartels are making lightbulbs that last 18
| months on purpose. We should have had 20 year light bulbs
| fifty years ago.
|
| Only the LEDs I have in table lamps have survived more than
| five years. All enclosed bulbs die from cheap components
| and heat damage.
| iamerroragent wrote:
| "Only the LEDs I have in table lamps have survived more
| than five years. All enclosed bulbs die from cheap
| components and heat damage. "
|
| Part of the problem is trying to make LEDs work in our
| preexisting lighting systems which requires components to
| make a low voltage DC light work with our existing AC
| wiring.
|
| https://hackaday.com/2019/02/05/what-happened-to-
| the-100000-...
|
| https://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/the-l-e-d-
| quanda...
|
| > "My starting point is, get the economics right," Tim
| Cooper, a design professor who heads the sustainable-
| consumption research group at Nottingham Trent
| University, told me. It's already possible to buy durable
| products, he said--Miele washing machines, Vitsoe
| shelving, Jaguar cars. But, because such products command
| premium prices, they remain niche goods; by Cooper's
| estimate they make up less than five per cent of the
| market. To truly change a light bulb will require policy
| changes--whether regulatory, market-based, or voluntary
| within industries--that support longer product lifetimes
| alpaca128 wrote:
| > Part of the problem is trying to make LEDs work in our
| preexisting lighting systems
|
| I would agree if lamps designed from scratch for LEDs
| were any better in terms of longevity, but so far our ~20
| year old halogen lamp has survived more than a dozen
| LEDs.
| iamerroragent wrote:
| This will likely last you:
|
| https://www.dyson.com/lighting
| hinkley wrote:
| * * *
| foooobaba wrote:
| It's annoying but not super hard to replace apple batteries,
| atleast for iPhone you can just buy a $30 kit on amazon and
| replace it, even with a higher capacity one too. It could be
| made easier but it takes less than 30m start to finish, and
| there are plenty youtube videos if you've never done it
| before.
| philistine wrote:
| Are you sure your phone is still waterproof?
| CorrectHorseBat wrote:
| My gut says it's higher since I would expect people who care
| about replacing batteries also care about recycling the old
| ones. Why do you think it's way lower?
| jl6 wrote:
| The example I'm thinking of is when I sat next to someone
| in an airport who had just bought some garbage-tier
| "Samsung compatible" replacement battery from the duty free
| shop, for his garbage-tier phone. He popped in the new
| battery and tossed the old one in the trash.
|
| Meanwhile, I know loads of people who have traded in, or
| simply handed in, their old iPhones in an Apple Store. I
| can't imagine anyone casually tossing an old iPhone in the
| trash the way my feckless bench-neighbour did.
| 908B64B197 wrote:
| > Meanwhile, I know loads of people who have traded in,
| or simply handed in, their old iPhones in an Apple Store.
| I can't imagine anyone casually tossing an old iPhone in
| the trash the way my feckless bench-neighbour did.
|
| Or just get the battery replaced at the Apple Store and
| keep using your phone an extra year or two. It's even
| cheaper than buying a new phone!
| madeofpalk wrote:
| I mean, it is at the airport. People function a lot
| different when travelling. I don't think there's much to
| an extrapolate out of regular behaviour from that
| observation.
| kalleboo wrote:
| I don't even know where I would be able to properly
| dispose of/recycle a Li-ion battery. City recycling only
| takes non-rechargeable batteries, and the drop box at the
| electronics store only takes whole devices with internal
| batteries (like shavers)
| somehnguy wrote:
| In general any big box store that sells devices
| containing lion/lipo batteries will also have a recycling
| point for them. I can't remember if there is an actual
| law governing that, but I assume it isn't out of the
| goodness of the corporations hearts.
|
| Stores like Home Depot, Lowes, Walmart, Wegmans, Target,
| etc all have boxes you can drop bare lithium battery
| cells into. Usually right at the front of the store
| tucked off to the side somewhere. They usually have bags
| provided at the box to put the cells into. I deal with a
| lot of lipo batteries & don't want to be responsible for
| a fire, so I usually electrical tape the +/- terminals
| before dropping off as well.
| kalleboo wrote:
| I don't live in the US so it may be different but the big
| box stores near me all have signs on their dropboxes
| saying you can throw devices with internal batteries but
| not loose batteries
| KronisLV wrote:
| > ...for his garbage-tier phone.
|
| As someone with an arguably garbage-tier phone, sans
| replaceable battery, I don't think anyone would let me
| trade it in for a new one or even some sort of a
| discount, because there isn't a name like Apple behind
| it, nor the support network.
|
| My previous phone that had replaceable batteries has two
| in total that I occasionally charge, so it can act as a
| temporary backup if anything happens to my current phone.
|
| At least once those are used up and no longer hold any
| sort of a charge, I'll be able to dispose of them in the
| supermarket battery collection point or something like
| that. I'm not sure whether I'd want to cram my current
| phone in there with its memory chips intact.
|
| I guess there are a lot of factors to consider, whether
| people can afford a certain device or whether they care
| about disposing of certain types of items responsibly
| being some of them. Some of this probably varies based on
| the region of the world as well.
| freeone3000 wrote:
| Apple offers a financial incentive to trade in your old
| iPhone. That is the pure reason.
|
| And you have to say, tossing out the battery is much
| better than tossing out the _entire phone_ , battery and
| all
| misnome wrote:
| > Apple offers a financial incentive to trade in your old
| iPhone. That is the pure reason.
|
| Is that... a bad thing?
| freeone3000 wrote:
| It's not likely to be offered for random $200 phones.
| das-hinterland wrote:
| [flagged]
| kalleboo wrote:
| > _most legit battery shops will recycle the old battery
| for free_
|
| Will they recycle it, or take it and send it to Asia
| where it ends up in a landfill anyway?
| misnome wrote:
| I don't know when you last travelled, but many airports
| are quite big and have more than one shop.
|
| It also might shock you to hear that other countries also
| have airports.
|
| People might also have bought phones in the past, so they
| might not be considered top-of-the-line any more.
| kitsunesoba wrote:
| > Does Samsung even make "garbage tier" phones?
|
| Some of their lowest end models, between their incredibly
| weak hardware and huge load of preinstalled crapware
| (some of which runs in the background), are pretty
| terrible user experiences. I hesitate to use the term
| "garbage tier" because it's needlessly acerbic but it
| wouldn't be an inaccurate descriptor.
| orf wrote:
| User replaceable batteries also covers "any old phone
| repair shop". It's quite possible that the aggregate
| recycling rates of these are not great.
| safety1st wrote:
| If you want to achieve a very high battery recycling
| rate:
|
| * Mandate that batteries be replaceable
|
| * Mandate that repair shops recycle used batteries rather
| than throw them away
|
| Mandates on consumers don't mean much because they're
| hard to enforce, but mandates on businesses are much
| easier. The consumer will come into the shop to get a new
| battery installed and drop off the old battery for
| recycling in the process.
|
| Maybe throw in a trade-in rebate for the repair shops or
| something to seal the deal.
| danaris wrote:
| You need to go a step further:
|
| * Mandate that the companies/organizations that claim to
| recycle batteries _actually recycle them_ , with severe
| penalties for the ones that bid low and then just send
| the batteries to a landfill in another country.
| ISL wrote:
| We have a battery-recycling bowl at home as well as drawers
| holding old phones.
|
| My guess is that batteries are more-often recycled than
| phones/laptops, even just on data-privacy issues alone.
| sbuk wrote:
| This is a problem I have with the right to repair movement--
| what happens to the replaced part? This is hard to police
| within regulated businesses, but just look at the landfills
| and scrapyards from the times when more items were more
| easily user serviceable; it's not pretty.
|
| I'm all for enforcing user serviceability, however it has the
| potential to be a backwards step for the environment if stern
| statutes are not put in place and actively policed, with the
| onus being on the party performing the replacement.
| alanbernstein wrote:
| How can it possibly be worse to need to manage a replaced
| _part_ vs a complete replaced _device_?
| [deleted]
| signatoremo wrote:
| Not that difficult to imagine:
|
| - Users generally replace a device less often than
| replace a part.
|
| - Users usually throw away a part, but not a device. As a
| matter of fact resales value of Apple devices are higher
| than for other makers.
|
| - Apple have the mean to recycle trade-in devices and not
| landfill them. Users may not.
|
| - Devices with replaceable parts may have shorter
| lifecycle than the ones without, since they are more
| brittle and complex.
|
| About the only argument for replaceable part is user
| freedom to fix their devices.
| alanbernstein wrote:
| That's fair. I'm assuming the majority case is simply:
| device breaks, can't be fixed easily, gets thrown away. I
| think we'd need some actual data to have a meaningful
| discussion about it.
| sbuk wrote:
| That's a reasonable assumption. Anecdotally, on my local
| high street, there are at least 5 places--one official
| Apple service centre (not an Apple Store)--that offer
| battery and screen replacement for _all_ mobile devices
| and tablets. At least 3 have been there for more than 5
| years, including the official Apple one. There must be
| some demand for them all to survive.
| js2 wrote:
| When buying a lead-acid battery or a remanufactured car
| part, there's often a core charge that is rebated when you
| return the old part. The last battery I purchased it was
| $22 (on a $170 battery). Now, I would've returned the old
| battery anyway because it's easy, convenient, and what the
| heck else would I do with it, but $22 was also a pretty
| decent incentive.
|
| So I'd think you just need to get the incentives right:
| make it easy and convenient to return and provide a
| financial reason to do so.
|
| On the other hand, last year I replaced all the smoke
| alarms in my home. It is essentially impossible to recycle
| the old alarms. Here's what my town says:
|
| "Only a single household smoke alarm/detector will be
| accepted with your trash for garbage collection. If you
| have more than one, they must be disposed using one of
| these listed options;
| https://deq.nc.gov/conservation/recycling/general-
| recycling-... or, check manufacturer for take-back
| program."
|
| Here's what my county says (in the "unacceptable items"
| section):
|
| "Smoke detectors contain trace amounts of radioactive
| material. The recommendation is for consumers to return the
| smoke detectors to the manufacturers or contact NC
| Radiation Protection at 919-814-2250."
|
| Here's what my state says:
|
| "The Solid Waste Section recommends that it is safe for a
| single household fire/smoke detector to be disposed of in a
| lined municipal solid waste landfill."
|
| No manufacturer has a take-bake program. The county isn't
| on the same page with the town and the state. So in the
| trash they went, one per week. Took 3 months to get rid of
| them all.
| CorrectHorseBat wrote:
| Next time buy optical smoke alarms, they are better [1]
| and don't contain radioactive materials.
|
| [1] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DuAeaIcAXtg&t=1196s&pp=
| ygUWc21...
| js2 wrote:
| I went with three First Alert SC7010B, one per floor,
| which are photo electric and detect both smoke and CO.
| For the rest of the alarms I used First Alert 9120B which
| are ionizing. I figure I covered all my bases that way. I
| think they have a life span of a decade so it'll be a
| while before I need to replace them again.
| pomatius wrote:
| Sounds nice. I want to believe. But, let's get real...Apple
| doing something good for humanity? I still remember the
| separate charger shitshow. There must be a catch here as well.
| abhayhegde wrote:
| Apple claims carbon neutral since 2020, while its global chain
| are set to be decarbonized by 2030. This measure seems to be a
| huge boost, especially considering the cobalt supply chain was
| quite a significant contributor to the antithesis.
| snvzz wrote:
| And won't let you replace the battery yourself
|
| ... for eco reasons.
| DrThunder wrote:
| Maybe stop making a throw away phone first if you're actually
| interested in being "green".
| rcme wrote:
| Apple has best-in-class device support and lifespan, no?
| [deleted]
| jmull wrote:
| I think iPhones are the least "throw away" of the phones,
| aren't they?
| [deleted]
| iameli wrote:
| I'm sympathetic to waterproofing concerns about easily-
| swappable batteries but this is definitely why Right-to-Repair
| is incredibly important
| morkalork wrote:
| I understand why it wasn't feasible before with the rate of
| progress but now it should be possible. I want to see a LTS
| type of phone. Something like 10 years. Any other appliance,
| car, power tool etc. have much much longer useful lives.
| jl6 wrote:
| iPhones are LTS devices. My 8+ is still going strong and
| fully supported after nearly 6 years - with one battery
| replacement.
| DrThunder wrote:
| Who replaced the battery?
| jl6 wrote:
| The Apple Store.
| sbuk wrote:
| Why is that relevant?
| DrThunder wrote:
| Because you have to ship it somewhere or drive to
| somewhere and pay for it to be replaced.
|
| Does that sound like a "green" way to do things to you?
| The point is they make it difficult for you to replace
| parts, hoping you just get a new phone instead.
|
| The sooner you realize Apple doesn't actually give a shit
| about saving the planet and they only put on this facade
| to sell you more product.... the better off you'll be.
|
| I own Apple products but I'm not buying their bs about
| wanting to make the world a better place. Stop holding
| these companies up as some religious replacement.
| sbuk wrote:
| > Because you have to ship it somewhere or drive to
| somewhere and pay for it to be replaced.
|
| The battery needs shipping to you _or_ you need to drive*
| somewhere to pay for it. What is the difference?
|
| > Does that sound like a "green" way to do things to you?
|
| It certainly doesn't sound any worse.
|
| >The sooner you realize Apple doesn't act...
|
| Blah, blah, blah... Cynicism is easy to the point of
| being lazy. You and those like you want to repair stuff
| on your own, and that is fine. Don't pretend that you
| want to do it because it's any greener. It's as much
| green washing as Apple is being accused of - same at the
| USB-C port enforcement. I don't believe for one minute
| that you give any more or less of a shit about the
| environment that Apple or its employees do.
|
| > I own Apple products but I'm not buying their bs about
| wanting to make the world a better place. Stop holding
| these companies up as some religious replacement.
|
| You made a point, it was challenged and countered, and
| you're doubling down on it. The sooner you're honest
| about your motivations, the sooner we can have a sensible
| discussion.
|
| * Not everywhere is a car-centric as the US--some of us
| can walk or use public transport, which is greener still.
| ajmurmann wrote:
| I had the battery in my iPhone 6S replaced 4 times. Apple
| replaced it and it was no hassle. The first three
| replacements were free due to AppleCare and for the last
| one I think I paid $40 or $50. Just happened during a
| mall visit.
| DrThunder wrote:
| IT IS a hassle for many people. So, they just buy a new
| phone. This is why apple pushes you towards using them
| for something that could easily be made replaceable by
| the owner. The majority of people will not take their
| iPhone in and get the battery replaced and you know it.
| lloydatkinson wrote:
| My previous iPhone 8 lasted from 2016 to 2023. The only reason
| I stopped using it was because I accidentally broke the screen
| and the touch panel under it. It still received new iOS
| versions and updates.
|
| What exactly is throwaway about that when compared to the
| hundreds of variants Samsung and others produce with a 2 year
| lifespan and then no updates after?
| layer8 wrote:
| "Throwaway" may be hyperbole, but the average lifespan in
| terms of iOS versions for an iPhone is about 5-6 years. (On
| the low side, someone who bought an iPhone SE in September
| 2018 only got four years.) The issue is that the hardware
| often works fine for 10 years or more. Nowadays it's usually
| software that makes devices obsolete, without any real
| necessity.
| adesanmi wrote:
| I believe older iPhones still get security updates for a
| very long time. Much longer than 5 years, making them one
| of the longest-term supported devices on the market
| currently.
|
| The 5s got one in 2023.
|
| https://www.makeuseof.com/apple-security-updates-
| for-10-year...
| howinteresting wrote:
| Older Android phones also get security updates for a long
| time via Google Play Services!
| naravara wrote:
| > The issue is that the hardware often works fine for 10
| years or more.
|
| I don't know about that. It technically still works, but
| you will feel it being slow because developers keep
| updating their apps to take advantage of new technologies
| and features. Even browsing the web keeps getting worse
| because web developers seem to cruft up their websites as
| much as the hardware can bear.
|
| I really think around 5 years is the limit to be able to
| use your phone as an general purpose, internet connected
| device. If you want to repurpose it into an iPod Touch or
| Smarthome remote controller or something after that that's
| still doable even if you're using a deprecated version of
| iOS.
|
| The story with iPads is a little different. If all it is
| for most people is a streaming service and article-reading
| machine those can last 10 years or more and the OS probably
| should have a longer life and a higher priority on making
| the batteries easily serviceable. I'd actually love a
| stripped-down, barebones version of iPad OS that makes it
| dumber but more secure. Sort of like booting in safe mode,
| for when people want to repurpose old devices.
| layer8 wrote:
| This is part of the criticism, though: There is no
| inherent need for the software to become slower (and less
| efficient). Throwing the hands up on that front just
| means we'll eternally keep churning, in the name of
| "progress".
| Gigachad wrote:
| I think you are forgetting what phone apps 10 years ago
| looked like and the features they had. It's not useless
| bloat that's slowing them down, it's the addition of
| actual features people like and take advantage of.
| DrThunder wrote:
| [flagged]
| selykg wrote:
| > I never mentioned Samsung, so that's just a useless
| strawman argument you're making.
|
| I was with you to some extent in your original post... sort
| of.. But this last response made me go from with you to
| thinking you have some sort of agenda, with a real bias and
| aren't actually interested in a real conversation, you just
| seem to want an argument that you feel you can win.
| ericpauley wrote:
| The slowing down was necessary to not overload the
| batteries (very obviously necessary since phones were
| resetting otherwise), and apple offered replacement
| batteries almost at cost. What more do you want??
| meragrin_ wrote:
| Apple did not communicate to users they were slowing down
| the phone to prevent issues. They did it silently so
| users would upgrade rather than replace the battery.
|
| > apple offered replacement batteries almost at cost.
|
| Only after they were caught slowing down phones without
| informing users.
| easeout wrote:
| Apple has a long record of making decisions for users
| without presenting options about them. Having these
| problems solved for us rather than being bothered with
| them is part of what we've paid for all these years. But
| their audience is broader now, they're much more
| successful, and when this practice rubs people the wrong
| way we all hear about it in the press as if it's some
| Antennagate-level flaw or scandal with which they were
| "caught." So they put in an option to make the phone
| worse but the user happier and move on. I would say "but
| the reputation damage is done" if it wasn't a foregone
| conclusion to so many that Apple must be up to no good.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| > They did it silently so users would upgrade rather than
| replace the battery.
|
| That's a deliberately uncharitable interpretation. It
| could just as easily be explained by them wanting the
| customers to not have a crashing phone tarnishing their
| opinion of the brand. If it were about money, they should
| have popped up a message saying "The phone is going to be
| slower because the battery is dead, contact your Apple
| Store to buy a new battery."
| kube-system wrote:
| It was not and still is not commonplace for any company
| to discuss the deep engineering details of a product's
| battery management logic with customers. The majority of
| products just stop working, some have an indicator of
| "bad battery".
| alexdbird wrote:
| It was a perfect engineering solution, poorly
| communicated to users.
|
| I'll take a slightly slower phone (in reality not
| noticeable on most tasks) over unplanned restarts. My
| partner only just stopped using the iPhone 6 I bought in
| 2014, original battery all the way, and she had the
| throttling turned on for years without knowing or caring.
| DrThunder wrote:
| Ok... and if I could replace the battery myself easily
| then that would not be a concern would it?
|
| I told you, I want the ability to replace the battery
| myself. Do you like losing your phone for a few
| hours/days so you can get the battery replaced?
| throwaway2990 wrote:
| It's not a useless straw man argument. iPhones typically
| have a longer life cycle than android phones. That is a
| fact. User replaceable batteries lower the quality and
| aesthetics of the phone. So there's no benefit to having a
| better replaceable easily. Just take it to an Apple Store.
| jackmott42 wrote:
| >User replaceable batteries lower the quality and
| aesthetics of the phone
|
| That is an often repeated lie. Companies like Framework
| have proved it a lie and appear to be making good money
| by doing it.
| throwaway2990 wrote:
| The visual aesthetics of the framework don't leave much
| to be desired. The build quality is a fraction of
| MacBook.
|
| So I'm unsure how it's a lie? Framework made an
| incredible device. But it pales to a MacBook.
| DrThunder wrote:
| I did not make a comparison to Samsung, the op did. I am
| not arguing which phone is better, that's you and OP.
|
| I was discussing apple's flaws and OP/you decided to talk
| about another company that was worse in an attempt to
| convince everyone that it's ok for apple to act a certain
| way.
| sbuk wrote:
| Re Samsung, they sold 258.3M phones last year;
| approximately 60 SKUs--with < 3% having user replaceable
| parts. They are _equally_ responsible. Do you hold them to
| the same standard?
| GeekyBear wrote:
| > have been caught multiple times slowing phones down
|
| Both Apple and Google found themselves in a situation where
| phones would suddenly go dead when the device was under
| high load despite the battery reporting that it had a
| charge, although with the Nexus 6P it was happening to
| devices that were only a year old.
|
| > your phone will randomly shut down and completely die,
| even though your battery indicator might have said you had
| plenty of juice left. It's not a simple system crash,
| because your phone will stay dead until you connect it to a
| charger. We've seen reports of the battery dying from a
| charge as high as 67% to as low as 15% on both Android
| Marshmallow and Android Nougat.
|
| https://android.gadgethacks.com/news/nexus-6p-battery-
| random...
|
| Google's solution to the problem was to tell users they
| were out of warranty and to buy a new phone.
|
| A class action lawsuit eventually forced them to issue
| refunds.
|
| > Google, Huawei Agree to Pay Nexus 6P Owners Up to $400
| for Faulty Devices
|
| https://www.droid-life.com/2019/04/11/google-huawei-
| nexus-6p...
| powellzer wrote:
| Not to be pedantic but the iPhone 8 came out in late 2017.
| Still a good lifespan!
| trevcanhuman wrote:
| I'm using an iPhone 6S, I changed the battery after around
| three years. The only issue is it gets pretty hot
| sometimes, still not sure what it is but it's manageable.
| tgv wrote:
| To offset that: I'm still using an iPhone 7. I'm stuck on
| iOS 15, but that doesn't matter to me.
| cmsj wrote:
| To which it is worth noting that Apple is still issuing
| security updates for iOS 15, the most recent was ~3 days
| ago.
| tcmart14 wrote:
| That is why I left the google Pixel for iPhone. I liked
| my Pixel, but at the time, they only did 3 years of
| support and security updates, I understand they recently
| upped it to 4 or 5 years? Sure, my iPhone costs more, but
| if I use a phone for its total life span (when it stops
| getting security updates), the iPhone comes out cheaper
| if you divide the cost of the phone by the number of
| years it gets supported.
| alex_sf wrote:
| It's not 'throw away', it's just (over a couple generations,
| admittedly) they are objectively better. People want them. The
| fact that they are being recycled mitigates the horrors of
| technology improving.
| [deleted]
| vezuchyy wrote:
| I still have an iPhone 5s that is intact as well as a 2013
| MacBook Pro. They both are pretty outdated devices but fully
| operational. Apple is definitely not the company to be blamed
| for making "throw away" devices.
| JaggerJo wrote:
| Name a brand thats better in providing software updates and
| security patches for their fleet of phones.
|
| Repairability is a fair complaint - but the initial lifespan of
| $android is max 2 years. I consider it broken once it does not
| receive security updates. So $android phone is "broken" after 2
| years.
| DrThunder wrote:
| This isn't a comparison. I'm making the point that they're
| bullshitting you about being some big proponent of "saving
| the planet". They do nothing that doesn't increase the money
| in their pockets.
|
| I have an iPhone. I'm just sick of their hypocrisy. This is
| nothing but marketing to get you to buy more product from
| them. "oh apple is so good to the planet, so security
| oriented, they really value your privacy"
| rootusrootus wrote:
| Exactly this. I spent more on Android phones over time than I
| ever spent on iPhones. Between the better resale value and
| longer support, it just turns out to be cheaper to spend a
| few extra bucks at time of purchase.
| input_sh wrote:
| > but the initial lifespan of $android is max 2 years. I
| consider it broken once it does not receive security updates.
|
| If that's your definition of a lifespan, "max 2 years" is
| absolutely not true. Android has two types of support: new
| major releases and security patches.
|
| An average Android usually supports new major Android
| releases for 2 years, but security patches usually go longer.
| Not as long as an iPhone, but more like 3-5 years.
| JaggerJo wrote:
| iPhone 6s (released September 2015) - ~ 8 years and going
|
| Nexus 5X & Nexus 6P (released September 2015) - last update
| January 2019 [1] ~ 2.25 years Pixel & Pixel XL (released
| October 2016) - 2019 (can't find a good reference) ~ 3
| years Pixel 2 (released October 2017) - December 2020 [2] ~
| 3.3 years
|
| [1]:
| https://9to5google.com/2018/11/07/nexus-6p-and-5x-final-
| guar... [2]:
| https://www.androidpolice.com/2020/10/05/pixel-2-and-2-xl-
| re...
|
| My conclusion: an iPhone outlives (at least) 2+/3+ android
| phones
| input_sh wrote:
| > Not as long as an iPhone, but more like 3-5 years.
|
| Pixels starting from 6 -> 5 years.
|
| Recent Samsungs -> 4 years.
|
| Fairphone 2 (Dec 2015) -> lost support last month.
|
| Things have improved since Nexus 5X, and even that one
| had a year longer support than your "max 2 years". I'm
| not saying it's better than an iPhone, I'm saying make a
| fair comparison.
| theshrike79 wrote:
| Apple has a track record of supporting phones for half a
| decade.
|
| Pixel 6 came out last year, the 5 year promise is still
| just a promise.
|
| Samsung's 4 years isn't 4 years of major Android version
| updates. IIRC it was 2 years of Android updates + 2 years
| of security patches.
|
| We'll see in 6 years whether the Nexus 6 can get the
| latest Android version. I'm pretty damn sure my iPhone 14
| will still get updates in 2028.
| JaggerJo wrote:
| Ok, nice to see this is improving for the big brand
| android phones.
|
| A lot of people buy cheap $no-brand phones that probably
| don't get (any) updates.
| philistine wrote:
| The common complaints against Apple in this thread are echoed,
| but no one is criticizing Apple while being pragmatic. Everybody
| is dogmatic.
|
| Apple will not provide user replaceable batteries. That's clear.
| It's probably too expensive and complicated for them to do that
| _and_ have waterproof devices. They instead offer replacements,
| and third-party shops know how to replace batteries too. With the
| airpods, Apple needs to be roasted endlessly for creating time-
| bomb trash though.
|
| But staying realistic, Apple massively improved the repair
| ability with the iPhone 14 by sandwiching the phone instead of
| fitting it on the back plate. They also improved the
| repairability of their laptops recently.
|
| The worst excesses of Apple's poor internal design seems to be
| behind us.
| jollyllama wrote:
| There are phones targeted at construction and emergency workers
| that manage waterproofing and removable batteries, they just
| have the opposite form and aesthetic of the iPhone.
| alpaca128 wrote:
| Did people already forget that Samsung made their flagship
| phones waterproof back when they still had removable
| batteries, headphone jacks and SD card slots? And looking at
| Tim Cook's favorite metric - just 0.2mm thicker than the
| current iPhone.
|
| Not long ago we heard the same PR garbage about glue and
| solder being necessary for slim laptops but somehow the
| Framework isn't that much of a brick either.
| jollyllama wrote:
| Good points. They're now running commercials ridiculing
| people with S5s to get them to trade them in.
| alden5 wrote:
| iPhone batteries are user replaceable though! Apple will sell
| you the battery for $91 (only $45 if you send your old battery
| back) and will rent you all the equipment you need packed in
| two pelican cases for $49/week, shipping included!
|
| https://support.apple.com/self-service-repair
| mcast wrote:
| Who's the target demographic for this? Surely they don't want
| a 16 year old who has never used a screwdriver before.
| Gigachad wrote:
| Why is it expected that you should be able to swap an
| internal component if you haven't used a screwdriver
| before? Try swapping the brake pads in your car or fixing a
| blockage in your dishwasher and you'll find that fixing the
| iPhone is comparatively quite easy.
| Spivak wrote:
| Actually no that's exactly the target market. Who do you
| think is working in the back of an Apple store? Not a 35
| year old EE that's for sure.
| hra5th wrote:
| I am surprised to see the same user post
|
| > no one is criticizing Apple while being pragmatic [...] it is
| expensive and complicated for them to do that and have
| waterproof devices
|
| and
|
| > with the airpods, Apple needs to be roasted endlessly for
| creating time-bomb trash
|
| I feel like every discussion of airpods and e-waste on HN
| totally misses the mark. The average lifespan of a pair of
| airpods (across all users) is probably not very different than
| the average lifespan of a pair of wired headphones -- people
| lose/replace stuff all the time, and wired headphones fail
| because of stress! Just because 1% of eco-conscious power users
| are now forced to throw away usable headphones doesn't actually
| make a big difference in terms of total e-waste. Also, it takes
| ~4000 pairs of airpods being thrown away to match the by-weight
| e-waste of throwing away a single 70 inch TV. Even if you are
| just worried about batteries, a single e-bike battery is like
| 2000 times larger than an airpod battery. If one was trying to
| minimize e-waste through by improving the reusability, Airpods
| just seem like totally the wrong target compared to the
| hundreds of much larger products with slightly worse rates of
| reuse / recycle
| Ntrails wrote:
| Yeah, I definitely only expect my wired earbud headphones to
| last 2-4 years, which sounds consistent with airpods. Often
| one of the ears goes in that time because the wire breaks.
|
| Ofc I refuse to believe airpods would last 6months before I
| dropped/lost/etc them. But that is just me rather than a
| criticism :D
| audunw wrote:
| > Apple needs to be roasted endlessly for creating time-bomb
| trash though.
|
| Honestly I feel like they should just be much cheaper and have
| a trade-in program for it to make sure they're properly
| recycled.
|
| Other than the battery, what are there of valuable components
| in it? A tiny chip and a speaker with a tiny bit of copper? If
| they can fully automate the recycling and production of them,
| that almost seems the more sensible thing to do. But right now
| they're just too expensive for that to be reasonable.
| easeout wrote:
| Environmental impact is one of the few kinds of news they
| announce while it's still a plan and not yet an accomplishment.
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| [flagged]
| outside1234 wrote:
| Apple has a return program that could be one source - glad to
| hear that this isn't just thrown out in China!
|
| https://www.apple.com/recycling/nationalservices/
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| Yeah, but once they go 100% renewable they'll need to source
| from elsewhere.
| phire wrote:
| I found one page that suggested 65% of recycled cobalt came
| from recycled batteries. Most of the rest came from heavy
| metals.
| nrvn wrote:
| That's all cool. And then I go to a supermarket to buy an eco-
| friendly toothbrush and the cheapest one will cost twice as the
| best plastic-made. And I vote with my wallet and my perception of
| what is good for the longevity of my teeth.
|
| Turn around and you'll notice the same pattern in packaging of
| candies and biscuits, water and milk bottles, pretty much
| everything. There will be products packaged or made of non-
| plastic of some sort but they will be in the minority, niche and
| more expensive.
|
| While plastic and other non-recyclable materials are more
| favorable from the economic and regulatory perspective any type
| of "eco-friendly" material and production cycle will be losing
| this race.
|
| Kudos to Apple though for setting up their own standards and
| continuously raising the bar!
| tacynicaltake9 wrote:
| Here is a cynical take: Cobalt shortage.
|
| "Battery technology and recycling alone will not save the
| electric mobility transition from future cobalt shortages"
| https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-29022-z
|
| Nothing drives a corporation to recycle and reuse more than the
| shortage of raw materials.
| why_only_15 wrote:
| why is this bad? if there's a shortage it sounds actively good
| because that means more cobalt for other people.
| tacynicaltake9 wrote:
| Cynical take: Greenwashing.
|
| They don't mention cobalt shortage at all. Making it sound
| like the environment is their primary goal.
| kube-system wrote:
| The primary goal of any public for-profit company is to
| make money, by design. Any other goals roll up to that no
| matter their secondary motivations.
| froggertoaster wrote:
| "Greenwashing" - never heard that term. Gonna use that one!
| jkestner wrote:
| There's also pinkwashing, for nominal support of the
| LGBTQ community or breast cancer awareness (sometimes
| literally just putting pink on a product). But in either
| case it is superficial.
| aksss wrote:
| A finer point - it's mere marketing attempting to
| influence consumer buying decisions with platitudes that
| distract from pure capability evaluations or other
| considerations. Which obviously works on getting a lot of
| people over the purchasing hurdle.
| troymc wrote:
| I looked it up in the _Oxford English Dictionary_ (via my
| local public library).
|
| greenwash
|
| _verb, transitive_. (a) To mislead (the public) or
| counter (public or media concerns) by falsely
| representing a person, company, product, etc., as being
| environmentally responsible; (b) to misrepresent (a
| company, its operations, etc.) as environmentally
| responsible.
|
| The earliest source the _OED_ found was in 1989, in _The
| Daily Telegraph_ (London).
| Taywee wrote:
| I'm a cynic at heart, but I'm also a pragmatist. Somebody
| doing the right things for the wrong reasons is still doing
| the right things.
|
| I care about effects more than motivations.
| digging wrote:
| I'm with you on this. They're misrepresenting themselves
| in a way that even may encourage others to make similar
| moves.
|
| The real problem with secret economic motivations is when
| they either prevent or undermine meaningful effort. But
| Apple is enacting meaningful effort here. It's good.
| bilbo0s wrote:
| Meh.
|
| None of this matters really.
|
| If I get someone to do the right thing, for the wrong
| reasons, then score one for me!
| alex_sf wrote:
| If everyone was dedicated to greenwashing, would that be
| better or worse than the current situation?
| jutrewag wrote:
| That's the opposite of greenwashing since it's having a
| tangible benefit on the environment.
| meepmorp wrote:
| Maybe the environment is actually their primary goal. Your
| cynical take necessarily invents a hidden motive,
| uncharitable to attribute to Apple.
| s3p wrote:
| Still doesn't matter. Results are results.
| kevincox wrote:
| Also by announcing it loudly now they are probably helping
| recyclers to get funding and start increasing production.
|
| Of course 2025 isn't very far away so it is probably only a
| small impact.
| asmor wrote:
| I was already wondering how this applied to their recycled
| aluminum claim, but is there actually enough recycled aluminum /
| cobalt of sufficient quality to go in laptops in the world that
| it would be feasible to scale beyond just Apple? Is it just a
| matter of price, or has Apple - as with some components/materials
| - completely taken the option off the market?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-04-13 23:03 UTC)