Hacker News Reader

Comment by dev_tty01 | Hacker News Reader

>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.

View on HN

> 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.

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.

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.

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.

> 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/

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.

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.

Ah yes. The perfect is the enemy of good approach. That has worked so well.

> 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.

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.

> 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.

>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?

> They've not reduced waste, they're just producing less waste than they were before.

This is quite a sentence.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com