righttorepair Canadian tech reseller Geep caught "reusing" recycled iPhones

[SLC_Jabberwocky]

Summary

Canadian tech recycler Geep (the same on that refused to show Linus their warehouse in Scrapyard Wars) has been caught fixing and reselling iPhones that it claimed to be recycling. Apple wants to take Geep to court over this because they claim this constitutes over $31 million CAD in damages.

 

Geep says they recognize these devices were stolen from their recycling department, but denys that the 3 employees who were "refurbishing" these iPhones were doing so with the companies consent. Apple refutes that, noting that the three people in question we're also executives of the Geep company.

 

Quotes

Quote

 Reported by iPhone Addict (via The Logic) Apple says that Geep sold over 100,000 of its devices for a profit including iPhones, iPads, and Apple Watches that it was obligated to have recycled. . .

 

My thoughts

It's really strange for Apple to allege that devices that were dedicated for a landfill (because let's be honest, recycling is a total joke), somehow those devices being fixed up and resold is cutting into their profits. The argument seems to be that customers were buying these devices instead of brand new iPhones, but the models in question are largely not in production anymore. I dunno, I get that it's illegal, I just don't see why.

 

Sources

 https://9to5mac.com/2020/10/01/apple-catches-electronics-recycler-illegally-reselling-over-100000-iphones-ipads-apple-watches/

[BlueChinchillaEatingDorito]

Is this recycler affiliated with Apple's trade in program or something? According to the comments section in the original article, some people seem to suggest they were. If so, I have no sympathy for Geep. They had a contract with Apple to recycle these devices and yet they decided to violate that just to make a quick buck (well the executives did, and quite a large quick buck for that matter). 

[Kisai]

18 minutes ago, SLC_Jabberwocky said:

Summary

Canadian tech recycler Feel (the same on that refused to show Linus their warehouse in Scrapyard Wars) has been caught fixing and reselling iPhones that it claimed to be recycling. Apple wants to take Geep to court over this because they claim this constitutes over $31 million CAD in damages.

 

Geep says they recognize these devices were stolen from their recycling department, but denys that the 3 employees who were "refurbishing" these iPhones were doing so with the companies consent. Apple refutes that, noting that the three people in question we're also executives of the Geep company.

 

Quotes

 

My thoughts

It's really strange for Apple to allege that devices that were dedicated for a landfill (because let's be honest, recycling is a total joke), somehow those devices being fixed up and resold is cutting into their profits. The argument seems to be that customers were buying these devices instead of brand new iPhones, but the models in question are largely not in production anymore. I dunno, I get that it's illegal, I just don't see why.

 

Sources

 https://9to5mac.com/2020/10/01/apple-catches-electronics-recycler-illegally-reselling-over-100000-iphones-ipads-apple-watches/

This is really a contract dispute. The company was probably contracted BY companies that assumed the equipment would be destroyed and recycled rather than repaired.

 

And to be honest, if Apple really wanted this stuff to be recycled, they would make it so the batteries and flash storage could be removed from the device and recycled separate from the device. The battery gets recycled, and the flash storage gets snapped in half, or tossed in a paper shredder.

 

When you do electronics recycling, the recycler is supposed to give you a list of things that were recycled, and it's likely this was caught because the items being sent for recycling disappeared between being picked up and being binned. The serial numbers are logged on devices with serial numbers.

 

In the article it notes Apple checked the serial numbers against those active on the wireless networks, which to me seems like a little too aggressive, but I suppose if Apple was auditing them, they had a contract with Apple specificly.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

27 minutes ago, SLC_Jabberwocky said:

It's really strange for Apple to allege that devices that were dedicated for a landfill (because let's be honest, recycling is a total joke), somehow those devices being fixed up and resold is cutting into their profits.

I don't find it strange, it is straightforward I think. The first competitor of a durable-good producer are its own past sales.

 

Quote

The argument seems to be that customers were buying these devices instead of brand new iPhones, but the models in question are largely not in production anymore.

They still compete with brand new iphones, especially with non-flagship devices. People reluctantly buying the cheapest new iphone to stick to iOS may turn to the used/refurbished market as an alternative. The main goal of these "recycling" policies is to reduce the size of the latter.

 

 

In any case, I still think news like this one highlight to what extent perfectly recyclable phones, recyclable in the true sense of the word, are turned to waste just to keep the machine churning.

[svmlegacy]

Aside from contract details, what's so wrong about this? Electronics recycling is sketchy at best, and I'd rather see functional or repairable devices be reused than burned for the shiny bits. The only real requirement I see is that the previous users data gets completely wiped.

[Kilrah]

As mentioned, Apple pay the recyclers to effectively make sure the devices don't end up on the used market and in competition with new ones. Regardless of how questionable that is, Apple was scammed of what they paid for.

[BlueChinchillaEatingDorito]

10 minutes ago, svmlegacy said:

Aside from contract details, what's so wrong about this? Electronics recycling is sketchy at best, and I'd rather see functional or repairable devices be reused than burned for the shiny bits. The only real requirement I see is that the previous users data gets completely wiped.

I guess it's also a question of whether or not the devices are actually tested prior to selling them or whether they're reconditioned. I personally would not trust any sort of refurbishment operation run by 3 executives. They're bound to cut corners all over the place to extract more money from this otherwise illegal operation. 

[wanderingfool2]

18 minutes ago, svmlegacy said:

Aside from contract details, what's so wrong about this? Electronics recycling is sketchy at best, and I'd rather see functional or repairable devices be reused than burned for the shiny bits. The only real requirement I see is that the previous users data gets completely wiped.

I think that it is a waste of how many devices just end up in landfills, but I don't have any sympathy for Geep.

 

If the user data is wiped and nothing remains it's a good concept of recycling, but there are stories about similar recycling places/refurbushing places being careless in the wiping procedure.  (e.g. Factory resetting doesn't clear out everything).  With that said, Apple contracted with them to recycle the phones, and while I wouldn't like seeing it go into an ewaste landfill the fact the phones weren't recycled but repairs is a huge thing (it is at this point theft).

 

One thing that I kind of question though...why does Apple have access to the serial numbers that are present on carrier networks?

 

 

[S w a t s o n]

In terms of being ethical, the shop repairing and reselling them is far superior to recycling them, but ofc everyone has to get theirs so because they made a bit of money actually making sure these get reused instead of recycled, now everyone else is jealous. Maybe just change the recycling policy to be less shit

[Guest]

1 hour ago, svmlegacy said:

Aside from contract details, what's so wrong about this? Electronics recycling is sketchy at best, and I'd rather see functional or repairable devices be reused than burned for the shiny bits. The only real requirement I see is that the previous users data gets completely wiped.

Recycling is better for some iPhones as Apple Refurbished iPhones carry the same warranty - they can’t guarantee the same quality (I.e must last a year) from broken phones that should be recycled. 

[pythonmegapixel]

2 hours ago, SLC_Jabberwocky said:

 tech recycler Feel

autocorrect mistake?

[svmlegacy]

23 minutes ago, RorzNZ said:

Recycling is better for some iPhones as Apple Refurbished iPhones carry the same warranty - they can’t guarantee the same quality (I.e must last a year) from broken phones that should be recycled. 

While I can appreciate the value of a warranty, I'm looking at it from a consumer and environmental point of view. Most people who buy used phones understand they are on an as-is basis, and there's obviously a market for it.

1 hour ago, BlueChinchillaEatingDorito said:

I guess it's also a question of whether or not the devices are actually tested prior to selling them or whether they're reconditioned. I personally would not trust any sort of refurbishment operation run by 3 executives. They're bound to cut corners all over the place to extract more money from this otherwise illegal operation. 

This is pure speculation. Regardless, my point isn't the ethics of the executives themselves, but rather towards forcing other legitimate companies to destroy functioning hardware.

[Sauron]

2 hours ago, SLC_Jabberwocky said:

damages

Interesting... how is fixing things that would otherwise be scrapped causing "damages" to Apple? Are they admitting they just want you to buy a new one and that's why they'll block reuse efforts which are significantly better for the costumer and the environment?

[TetraSky]

"You stole trash destined for the landfil and fixed it to give it a second life, so now you need to give us money".

[Trik'Stari]

...How is that not recycling?

 

No seriously. How is this not a better alternative to melting them down to recover a small amount of metal from inside?

 

Seriously, reselling used phones and other things should be entirely legal. The only restriction should be a guarantee that the phone is wiped of all data of the previous owner.

 

This is like if Ford argued that car dealers shouldn't be able to sell their cars that people have traded in.

[Kisai]

2 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

One thing that I kind of question though...why does Apple have access to the serial numbers that are present on carrier networks?

 

They have a list of who they sold what to, and when those devices phone home for OS updates, they certainly know then.

 

Like a far more anti-consumer option here would be for device serial numbers that have been "recycled" to be declared "lost/stolen" on carrier networks so their IMEI's are blacklisted regardless of the ICCID sim card in it. However that would create this fun problem where lots of "stolen" devices aren't really stolen, just diverted from the landfill.

 

A better option here would be that companies that are responsible for recycling/disposing of smartphones, to plug the phone into a universal diagnostic dock to query the device's battery life, flash memory life, and screen power-on life. If the device is too worn, it goes into the shred pile.

 

If the device is less than 80% worn on all three measurements, then the device needs to be diverted to refurbishment and sent back to the manufacturer. If a device is below 80% on only the battery, the device can be locally refurbished, battery replaced and resold by the recycler. If it's below 80% on all measures, then it needs to be taken apart to be recycled to ensure it's "destroyed" and nobody tries to put it back together.

 

However that likely isn't going to happen, and people will unwittingly buy "pre-owned" devices that may have little serviceable life left in them.

[Kisai]

7 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

...How is that not recycling?

 

No seriously. How is this not a better alternative to melting them down to recover a small amount of metal from inside?

 

Seriously, reselling used phones and other things should be entirely legal. The only restriction should be a guarantee that the phone is wiped of all data of the previous owner.

 

This is like if Ford argued that car dealers shouldn't be able to sell their cars that people have traded in.

It's not, but you can't have old devices floating around with your brand on it that have been improperly repaired and catching fire, which is the entire concern Apple has about not letting third parties repair their devices, never mind security issues that can arise.

 

To that point, no, it's like Ford said that vehicles that are traded in must be towed out to the ocean and dumped, even if they're not Ford's. This doesn't really happen with Cars because historically the only way to keep a consumer from repairing a car for a century is the lack of NOS parts. Over-engineer a car enough, and it will require little service. Under-engineer a car, and it will need service work on everything beyond oil changes, and as soon as the warranty is up, the car becomes too expensive to do the work out of warranty, and thus your dealership is guaranteed a new sale at some point if you don't piss off the customer. 

 

My opinion, really, is that smartphone hardware is a bit over-engineered, but the software isn't (at least on Androids), and the fact that Samsung or Google won't stand behind their own products for 7 years is really disappointing (As far as vehicles go, Kia (Hyundai) has 5-7 years, American cars like Ford have 3, and some luxury brands are 4.) Apple's phones and computers last about as long as a good car, where as Samsung and Google's don't last even as long as a luxury car.

 

[wanderingfool2]

7 minutes ago, Kisai said:

They have a list of who they sold what to, and when those devices phone home for OS updates, they certainly know then.

...I was thinking about a phone home approach originally until I had read Apple's statement

Quote

Apple did an audit of Geep’s warehouses and it was at this point that the manufacturer noticed the theft of certain models so that sales could be made. Apple then checked the serial numbers and noticed that 18% of the devices sent to Geep were used on the network of several operators. Apple also notes that the number of stolen and resold devices must logically be greater than 103,845 since iPads and Apple Watches are only Wi-Fi compatible and cannot be noticed on carrier networks.

I just assumed that it means they have more than a phoning home kind of situation here.  Either way...thought it was just an interesting bit to think about.

 

16 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

...How is that not recycling?

 

No seriously. How is this not a better alternative to melting them down to recover a small amount of metal from inside?

 

Seriously, reselling used phones and other things should be entirely legal. The only restriction should be a guarantee that the phone is wiped of all data of the previous owner.

 

This is like if Ford argued that car dealers shouldn't be able to sell their cars that people have traded in.

A closer analogy would be Ford itself doing the trade in, and the commissioning a company to melt down the cars (but instead they go around and sell the vehicle).  For myself, this seems like a theft really

[Blademaster91]

Well reselling the phones is much better for the environment than devices either getting melted down or getting dumped in a landfill, but of course Apple wants people buying the newest iphone.

[Trik'Stari]

6 minutes ago, Kisai said:

It's not, but you can't have old devices floating around with your brand on it that have been improperly repaired and catching fire, which is the entire concern Apple has about not letting third parties repair their devices, never mind security issues that can arise.

 

To that point, no, it's like Ford said that vehicles that are traded in must be towed out to the ocean and dumped, even if they're not Ford's. This doesn't really happen with Cars because historically the only way to keep a consumer from repairing a car for a century is the lack of NOS parts. Over-engineer a car enough, and it will require little service. Under-engineer a car, and it will need service work on everything beyond oil changes, and as soon as the warranty is up, the car becomes too expensive to do the work out of warranty, and thus your dealership is guaranteed a new sale at some point if you don't piss off the customer. 

 

My opinion, really, is that smartphone hardware is a bit over-engineered, but the software isn't (at least on Androids), and the fact that Samsung or Google won't stand behind their own products for 7 years is really disappointing (As far as vehicles go, Kia (Hyundai) has 5-7 years, American cars like Ford have 3, and some luxury brands are 4.) Apple's phones and computers last about as long as a good car, where as Samsung and Google's don't last even as long as a luxury car.

 

Meanwhile I'm driving a 2004 Buick and just had to replace the control arms (along with bushings and whatnot) on both sides of the front end. Cost me $200.00 not including shipping.

 

Apple should have absolutely no right to prevent someone from reselling their phones. That phone was purchased from them, and is thus no longer their property. It should be clearly labeled as a used phone though.

 

Quote

It's not, but you can't have old devices floating around with your brand on it that have been improperly repaired and catching fire, which is the entire concern Apple has about not letting third parties repair their devices, never mind security issues that can arise.

Have you never driven a used Ford?

 

3 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

A closer analogy would be Ford itself doing the trade in, and the commissioning a company to melt down the cars (but instead they go around and sell the vehicle).  For myself, this seems like a theft really

See now that actually makes sense.

[BlueChinchillaEatingDorito]

4 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

Meanwhile I'm driving a 2004 Buick and just had to replace the control arms (along with bushings and whatnot) on both sides of the front end.

 

Apple should have absolutely no right to prevent someone from reselling their phones. That phone was purchased from them, and is thus no longer their property. It should be clearly labeled as a used phone though.

 

Have you never driven a used Ford?

Well depending on the condition of the device (since it doesn't seem like these 3 executives are refurbishing devices in any way), it could be as ethical as throwing a worthless E65 BMW 7 series with endless mechanical issues on dealer auctions. To which at some point some poor sucker is going to end up purchasing it at a dealer lot. Yes it runs and drives! Just smokes a lot, don't worry. That's ... normal...

[wanderingfool2]

2 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

Apple should have absolutely no right to prevent someone from reselling their phones. That phone was purchased from them, and is thus no longer their property. It should be clearly labeled as a used phone though.

Yes you are right.  They can't dictate the reselling of their phone, when it's not their property.  Though in this case it was Apple's property, and contracted the company to essentially destroy it.

[Kisai]

Just now, Trik'Stari said:

Meanwhile I'm driving a 2004 Buick and just had to replace the control arms (along with bushings and whatnot) on both sides of the front end.

Car's really do come down to luck and environment. My family kept a K-car from 1988 well into 2001 or so before Shell changed their fuel formula and it completely destroyed the fuel system parts.

 

Just now, Trik'Stari said:

Apple should have absolutely no right to prevent someone from reselling their phones. That phone was purchased from them, and is thus no longer their property. It should be clearly labeled as a used phone though.

The company was contracted to do a thing, and they didn't do a thing. The only way this gets fixed is regulations stipulating that electronics must first attempted to be repaired and reused before being recycled, and we're not yet at a stable point in the "smartphone" life time where a 10 year old phone is as good as a 1 year old one. I predict that plateau to be hit around 2022, as we're not going to see much more performance from die shrinks, just optimizations.

 

Just now, Trik'Stari said:

Have you never driven a used Ford?

My family has only ever driven Ford or GM cars over the last 20 years, and none of them were pre-owned. American cars are heavy, and and small ones are completely gutless for driving on the west coast. Asian cars are lighter, but fall apart quicker due to the lack of environmental protection. I haven't owned a car in 20 years as I live somewhere I don't need one.

 

[Trik'Stari]

11 minutes ago, Kisai said:

Car's really do come down to luck and environment. My family kept a K-car from 1988 well into 2001 or so before Shell changed their fuel formula and it completely destroyed the fuel system parts.

True, that kind of thing can happen. But it's not unreasonable or impossible to keep older cars running. A lot of people could save a lot of money if they just went on YouTube or Google and did some research on how to diagnose and repair some issues. Physical strength can be an issue though, for some things.

 

Tools can be an issue, however things like a Jack or torque wrench are just useful for as long as they work and you own any car (and some times other things). For things like a Ball Joint Separator, I ran to Harbor Freight and got one for $5.00. It probably wouldn't last long in a professional settings, but it'll work the once or twice that I need it.

Quote

The company was contracted to do a thing, and they didn't do a thing. The only way this gets fixed is regulations stipulating that electronics must first attempted to be repaired and reused before being recycled, and we're not yet at a stable point in the "smartphone" life time where a 10 year old phone is as good as a 1 year old one. I predict that plateau to be hit around 2022, as we're not going to see much more performance from die shrinks, just optimizations.

That is the part I did not realize. That does change things completely. My mistake.

 

I think they should force phone manufacturers to make parts available for sale for a given number of years. IIRC they do that for car manufacturers. What's the difference, really?

 

Take your example. That car manufacturer probably released a parts kit to repair the fuel system, as well as make it tolerate modern gas standards.

11 minutes ago, Kisai said:

My family has only ever driven Ford or GM cars over the last 20 years, and none of them were pre-owned. American cars are heavy, and and small ones are completely gutless for driving on the west coast. Asian cars are lighter, but fall apart quicker due to the lack of environmental protection. I haven't owned a car in 20 years as I live somewhere I don't need one.

Interesting, because I live on the East Coast and Honda's are ridiculously expensive even used, because of how reliable they are. GM and Ford are popular, but I can't stand GM for the electrical issues.

 

I drive a 2004 Buick, and the biggest problem right now is that the little door in the AC system that decides whether or not you get hot or cold air, is broken.

 

How the F does that even break?

[Kilrah]

1 hour ago, Trik'Stari said:

This is like if Ford argued that car dealers shouldn't be able to sell their cars that people have traded in.

Similar things are actually not uncommon in some places. In France for example where you have quite a big auto industry when things get rough, people don't buy as many cars and big number of auto manufacturer jobs are on the line subsidies are put in place where you can get a few thousands of cashback for replacing your old car with a new one, the condition being that the old one is destroyed so it doesn't end up on the used market. 

 

The difference being that this is used when the alternative would be closing factories and firing large amounts of people, while Apple pretty certainly could do very well without that but just want an added bonus.