Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Almost Nothing About the 'Apple Harvests Gold From iPhones' Story Is True (vice.com)

Posted by msmash on from the eye-opener dept.

Jason Koebler, reporting for Motherboard: You may have seen a viral headline floating around over the last few days: Apple recycled $40 million worth of gold last year, which was extracted from iPhones. Almost none of what was reported is true. [...] Here is the truth: Apple paid independent recyclers to recycle old electronics -- which were almost never Apple products, by the way -- because it's required by law to do so. Far from banking $40 million on the prospect, Apple likely ended up taking an overall monetary loss. This is not because Apple is a bad actor or is hiding anything, it's simply how the industry works. All electronics manufacturers that sell products in the United States are required to do e-waste recycling under laws enacted in 25 states. The laws are different in each state, but none of them require Apple to recycle Apple products. Instead, they usually require manufacturers to recycle a certain amount of pounds of e-waste, which is linked to either their market share or to the overall weight of products they sell. That's why you see Apple noting that it recycled "71 percent of the total weight of products we sold seven years earlier."

29 of 45 comments (clear)

  1. Who cares what products they recycle? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As long as they do it, it's a good thing.

    1. Re:Who cares what products they recycle? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Almost nothing about the "Almost Nothing About the 'Apple Harvests Gold From iPhones' Story Is True" story matters.

    2. Re:Who cares what products they recycle? by alvinrod · · Score: 2

      Yes, but you don't get a claim good karma just for following the laws. I followed the traffic laws today and didn't blow through any intersections, etc. but that doesn't mean I should go around bragging about what a great person I am. We're not going to celebrate you for paying your taxes, so let's not toot Apple's horn for fulfilling their obligations.

      I'm sure they release this information in the hopes that idiots take the bait and Apple gets some good press, but if they want praise for being virtuous they'll need to go beyond the requirements. Recycle more waste than you contribute into the system because even though it costs them to do so and there is no one to force them to do it, they still do it anyways and we can start talking.

      Businesses rarely behave altruistically and typically when they appear to be acting that way it's for the sake of good publicity to market themselves.

    3. Re:Who cares what products they recycle? by alvinrod · · Score: 2

      Where are people buying iPhones that cost 20% more than where they are available for purchase elsewhere? Also, who's going to rationalize that instead of returning it and getting it from the cheaper source?

    4. Re:Who cares what products they recycle? by BasilBrush · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It seems to be you who's keen to rationalise buying something else. Insecure that you bought something not as good, but 17% cheaper.

    5. Re:Who cares what products they recycle? by nhat11 · · Score: 1

      The issue is how the story misinform readers, otherwise yes it is a good thing and I don't think anyone is arguing that.

  2. Huh? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How does the author take a statement such as "Apple recycled $40 million worth of gold from phones last year" and basically end up with "that's not true because it wasn't $40 million in profits"?

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's not this author's claim. The claims are "Apple did not recycle anything, they paid other companies for 'recycling credits' (think carbon credits)" (so "Apple recycled" is false)

      and

      "Apple refurbishes and resells used phones instead of recycling them. The e-waste is mostly old CRT TVs, computers, and other equipment" (so "from phones" is false)

      Leaving "$40 million worth of gold" and "last year" to be the only parts of the sentence that are true.

    2. Re:Huh? by cdrudge · · Score: 1

      Basically, Apple is required by laws in various states and countries to recycle e-waste because they are a manufacturer of electronics. The waste that they collected, which included cell phones but likely included far more non-cellphone electronics, went to many different recyclers for processing. Most of the articles implied that only Apple's phones/devices/gadgets where involved but would have included a lot of non-Apple products as well. Any e-waste would qualify to meat their requirements, not just their own products.

      Apple paid the recyclers to process the electronics. As part of that recycling, $40m worth of gold was recovered. It is very likely that the total cost of the recycling exceeded $40m (plus whatever else was made on other materials recovered). If that is indeed the case, it wasn't $40m in profit, it would be some expense offset by the $40m that was recovered.

    3. Re:Huh? by bloodhawk · · Score: 1

      did you fail at even reading the summary? The statement is false because it WASN'T apple phones and wasn't apple doing the recycling. $40 million in gold may have been extracted but it wasn't by apple.

    4. Re:Huh? by vux984 · · Score: 1

      Apple recycled $40 million worth of gold from phones last year"

      Apple has in its possession or (has sold) 40 million in gold as a result? Well no.
      But the gold was from phones? Well mostly no.
      And it was last year? Well... mostly. Sure.
      But 40 million in gold was recycled? Yes. That part happened.

      So it should have read:

      In the last fiscal year Apple paid recylers to process various ewaste from which the recyclers extracted 40 million worth of gold. It cost more than that to process the ewaste.

      Yeah.

    5. Re:Huh? by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      How does the author take a statement such as "Apple recycled $40 million worth of gold from phones last year" and basically end up with "that's not true because it wasn't $40 million in profits"?

      Not, he said it wasn't true because Apple didn't do it, and it wasn't gold and it wasn't worth $40 million dollars. In other words: Almost none of it was true.

    6. Re:Huh? by macs4all · · Score: 1

      Because most if not all was ever in apple's hands. By the same form of logic, the US recycled $40M worth of gold from phones last year. And the US is a representative republic, so I recycled $40M worth of phone gold last year. Can't quite seem to remember where I left it.

      So, since the population of the U.S. Is basically 320 Million, and the amount claimed was $40 Million, that works out to 40000000 / 320000000, or roughly 12.5 CENTS per human in the U.S.

    7. Re:Huh? by tom229 · · Score: 1

      The article is just settling down the hype, which I commend. For weeks now the internet has been full of articles about how wonderful Apple is for recycling and how much they're doing. Articles, no doubt, authored by their own PR department and/or paid shills of it. The reality is they paid an outside firm to satisfy their legal obligation. Something that, no doubt, all companies around them do as well. So why isn't there a similar article about Google or Microsoft? Well, as bad as those companies are, there's no one that comes close to Apple in lack of shame.

      --
      If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
  3. Re:But my shit still won't stink if I buy one righ by s.petry · · Score: 1

    Don't think one set of facts will change the original emotionally generated stories. The common view is that facts don't matter, it's what people "feel" that counts.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

  4. So? by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

    And? Most stories reported on the Internet are not true. They are just clickbait. Slashdot is continuing this proud tradition. Click here to see the shocking details of what happens next!

    1. Re:So? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Especially this one. It sounds like basically everything about the story was true: they are indeed recycling electronics, and the numbers are correct.

      The 'errors' were errors of omission: the earlier story didn't mention that Apple is forced to do that by law. But that's not the same as being false.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Believe me, if the name of Apple is associated with a story someone here is going to go over it with a fine tooth comb and try to make everything seem like Apple was making deals with the devil.

      Being a fanboy is no longer about liking something and talking about it all the time. It's about bashing the competition to try to make them look bad. Politics is much the same way and yet people wonder why the public is so polarized and hostile. Nothing good will come of this kind of thinking.

  5. it's not "gold from phones", it's TVs by raymorris · · Score: 2

    > How does the author take a statement such as "Apple recycled $40 million worth of gold from phones last year"

    That's false because the article is based on data that isn't about recycling phones. Mostly it's CRT televisions and monitors. So if we take out the incorrect words "from phones", we get "Apple recycled $40 million worth of gold". Of course "Apple recycled" isn't true either, so take that out. The (possibly) true part is "$40 million worth of gold". So half the words are true, half aren't.

    1. Re:it's not "gold from phones", it's TVs by 14erCleaner · · Score: 3, Informative

      CNN's headline was "Apple recovered 2,204 pounds of gold from broken iPhones last year". But it wasn't recovered by Apple, almost none of it was from broken iPhones, and it was for the 2015 fiscal year, which started on October 1, 2014. But yeah, there was 2204 pounds of gold. Presumably not troy pounds (usually used for gold), though, which are 82% of a "normal" pound. Other than that it was all correct, maybe.

      --
      Have you read my blog lately?
  6. 4 "R"s by Maow · · Score: 1

    Reduce, reuse, repair, recycle.

    It's nice to see some progress on the recycle part.

  7. Great, just great by vee_voojagig · · Score: 1

    Does this mean the smoldering pile of iPhones in my back yard will not make me rich? At least I my vial of tears from former iPhone owners.

  8. Re:But my shit still won't stink if I buy one righ by s.petry · · Score: 1

    I have not trusted TV since monopolization was allowed and the TV all became the same company with the same owners, stories, and spin. Oh, it took a bit to move that way so that it was not too obvious, but as countless journalists warned it happened. The AP with the same spin is intermixed with slightly different fairy stories to claim "we are different".

    Newspapers suffered the same fate, and now primarily have the same owners with the same AP stories and spin. Mixed with some slightly different fairy stories to claim "we are different".

    Funny how well this has worked. I had someone argue with me that my facts, with easily searchable backing, is trope and emotionally driven. While their opinion with zero factual basis is better than facts. I wish I was joking.

    I have very little faith in humanity today. Maybe I should just start taking the drugs and join Facebook....

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

  9. Newsflash by tom229 · · Score: 1

    Almost nothing of any Apple-sponsored story is actually true. This company seems to operate it's marketing department like a propaganda arm these days. A very effective one at that.

    --
    If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
  10. Gold in iPhones by oldsaint · · Score: 1

    iPhones and other mobile phones have more gold per unit weight than almost any other consumer electronics, and they are much more valuable than gold ore ... if, and only if, they can be collected and processed in very high volume. Apple is not in the high volume business of smelting and refining iPhones, so of course it contracts with a subcontract electronics recycling industry that has existed for decades to recover gold. And that industry puts all gold-bearing electronics, e.g. mobile phones, circuit boards, connectors, into large process-efficient batches. A batch is smelted in copper, and after the copper is removed the residue is further refined for precious metal content. After all of this no one can trace a molecule of gold back to a specific source, but It is entirely possible that $40 million in gold from that industry is fairly attributable to recycled Apple iPhones. Whether Apple receives a payment for its collection and delivery of iPhones and other electronic scrap into the electronics recycling industry, or a credit against costs, seems irrelevant to its goal of putting raw materials back into commerce, rather than disposing of them.

  11. Re:But my shit still won't stink if I buy one righ by lucm · · Score: 2, Funny

    Please tell me I can still show off the Apple logo to everyone in the coffee shop.

    Only if t's the latest model otherwise it's worst than having a copy of Mein Kampf with highlighted sections and multiple bookmarks.

    --
    lucm, indeed.
  12. Re:Come anytime You would like by lucm · · Score: 1

    Someone call 911,that person ^^^ is having a stroke

    --
    lucm, indeed.
  13. Re:But my shit still won't stink if I buy one righ by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

    Q. How can you tell if someone has an apple product?

    A. Just wait, they'll tell you.

    --
    Wanna buy a shirt?
    https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
  14. No, Apple sent a check by raymorris · · Score: 1

    No, Apple didn't send the TVs anywhere. Apple sent a check to a recycling company in exchange for X million pounds of their recycling credits, as required by law.