>>30It's funny that you say that, because I just read an article detailing how--surprise, surprise--Apple shreds the majority of the hardware returned to them, and, of course, Apple much prefers to simply throw out and replace hardware than just fix it no matter how novel the issue. It's funny in light of the adverts they made and the memos they've been known to circulate about how eco-friendly their business is. Obviously, they repurpose the core resources, but just like petrol-based materials like plastic, it takes labor, resources, and energy to do that recycling. My local facility doesn't even recycle plastic. When you add up the cost of water, labor, and the pollution that's a product of recycling, some agree that's it's probably better the environment just to throw it in a landfill--many agree that it's way more economical to just throw all that plastic out. Recycling is just an amendment to a system that's fundamentally wrong. That's why people recycle, to feel better about perpetuate a system that's unethical.
People might criticize me for various reasons, mostly out of the fact that I'm using is as a change to antagonize Apple, warranted or unwarranted. And they'd be right to do so. I don't think you can hate Apple for this. Can you blame a publicly-traded company to try and satisfy their shareholders by any means possible? Pretending like Apple is absolutely perfect and green and they treat their workers perfectly and there's just no possible way to critique over specifics like those, just like recycling, the overarching trajectory is the same: Apple needs to expand and suffocate their competitors, and we all know how sensitive shareholders are at the slightest set back, like recently when an airline decided to raise their workers' wages at the expense of a minor drop in value. One of the notes circulated among shareholders was literally in the vein of (I paraphrase) ``how could they possibly value the wellbeing of their workers before us?'' They basically have cartoon dollar signs in their eyes.