Hacker News Reader

Comment by alexfringes | Hacker News Reader

I say to you: “mind throwing this battery in the recycling on your way out, I care about its harmful materials not seeping into the environment” and you say “yes” but then decide “this battery could still power my nephew’s toy car for a bit”.

But then your nephew throws it in the regular trash eventually.

You’ve broken your promise to me. If you’re also the world’s most valuable public company you’ve made that promise to your shareholders and used it to increase your brand perception. It seems reasonable that you’d like to make sure you keep it, no?

View on HN

Isn't that still better than your nephew buying a brand new battery and then throwing it in the trash? Even if he only got a week's worth of use out of the old battery.

Reusing things doesn't change the overall recycling rate. It just reduces the demand for new things (which is why Apple dislikes it). Knowing how to Reduce, Reuse, Recycle (in that order!) is much better than some sort of cargo cult destruction of working devices.

The argument isn't that its better than buying a new battery, the argument is that it isn't conveyed in the contract.

EDIT: Also, knowing this happens without Apple adjusting their own terms may be grounds for fraud, so somebody has to change their language anyways.

Not quite. You now end up with an extra battery in the trash. Though you were able to get more life out of one item, you reduce the likelihood that it’ll be recycled again. So the metal parts like antennas, aluminum, that could have been reused for future devices, are now sitting in the trash after the device dies. There is a slight chance the device could be sent to recycling again after it completely dies. Let’s say Apple had assumed a 15% recycling rate, and 3 tons of aluminum in return, you now have a much lower return rate in materials than anticipated because the devices were essentially “stolen” and resold. Seems like fraud to me.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com