Doesn’t the vibrant market in second-hand iPhones suggest that they tend to not become e-waste particularly quickly? The phones tend to get software for much longer than most.
One can pay for a battery replacement, or sell/trade-in a device. Selling may lead to the battery being replaced by someone more willing to do it, or to other refurbishment.
This phenomenon is predicated upon a hierarchical economic class system, which it also reinforces. Therefore it is not a morally sustainable system, and is just another case of greenwashing.
Are you saying it would be better if there weren’t a second-hand market? I’m not sure I really understand why that would be better. Maybe there’s a story one could tell for how someone’s situation would be better in such a world?
I'm just saying that Apple doesn't get to point to a second-hand market to greenwash their products. I do agree that their phones potentially enjoy a longer average lifespan than the average Android, especially with extended security updates.
I think I’m more confused by the claim that my statement above is ‘predicated on a hierarchical economic class system’. I don’t particularly want to argue about whether you or I live under a class system that is particularly hierarchical or economic, so let’s just suppose that we do. Why would my claim above (not sure whether you mean that vibrant 2nd hand market => less e-waste, or that selling a device where the battery hasn’t been replaced could lead to the buyer paying for a battery replacement and potentially reselling) not apply without such a hierarchical economic class system?
I agree it’s not moral but it seems like it’s been pretty sustainable so far. As in, we’ve had a hierarchical class system for millennia and it doesn’t look to be going anywhere that soon. So I don’t think it’s fair to say that that(‘s what) makes it greenwashing.
One can pay for a battery replacement, or sell/trade-in a device. Selling may lead to the battery being replaced by someone more willing to do it, or to other refurbishment.