While the article is fine, this does not really follow:
>So while Apple is nominally responsible for recycling a 90 million pounds of e-waste, very little of that is actually iPhones, and very little of that is actually being done by Apple. In Washington State, for example, Apple products made up just 1.78 percent of the total weight of e-waste recycled in 2014. In Oregon, Apple products made up 1.65 percent.
The author wants to argue that "very little of that is actually iPhones, and very little of that is actually being done by Apple" but the example he uses for that doesn't really show "very little", but rather a huge percentage of recycled e-waste being Apple stuff.
While the statement that "very little of that [apple products recycling] is actually being done by Apple" is compatible with the example, the example doesn't really prove that "very little of that is actually iPhones" as it's supposed to.
And even the implication that the numbers are small doesn't follow -- 1.65 to 1.8 percent of the total e-waste in a state is nothing to sneer at, considering Apple is just one among tens of thousands of companies making electronics, and compared to things like TVs and such, theirs are tiny and weight little (a fact admitted elsewhere in the article).
1.65 % is not much when Apple makes up such a significant percentage of the phone market.
But even out of that 1.65%, iPhones themselves probably make a small percentage because macs are so much heavier.
The point of this article is that the media has implied that Apple is getting x pounds of gold by recycling iPhones and macs.
In reality Apple is eating about 1.5% of x pounds of gold by recycling iPhones and macs. They are likely getting 98% of x pounds of gold by recycling old CRT TVs and Dells. And only a very minuscule percent of the recycling is done by Apple. He vast majority of it was Apple paying 3rd party recyclers to get credit for the recycling.
>1.65 % is not much when Apple makes up such a significant percentage of the phone market.
The excerpt is not about phones though -- it's the 1.65 of total consumer electronics waste in the state. And as far as consumer electronics go, phones are hardly the biggest...
>And only a very minuscule percent of the recycling is done by Apple. He vast majority of it was Apple paying 3rd party recyclers to get credit for the recycling.
How is that different than how every company that is not a recycling company does it?
I would imagine that more phones and computers get recycled (per product bought) than other consumer electronics. If I've spent $400 on a phone, I won't throw it away - if I can't resell it, I'll find out how to properly recycle it.
On the other hand, most other products probably just get thrown out - broken or working chargers, cables, old telephones, etc.
>So while Apple is nominally responsible for recycling a 90 million pounds of e-waste, very little of that is actually iPhones, and very little of that is actually being done by Apple. In Washington State, for example, Apple products made up just 1.78 percent of the total weight of e-waste recycled in 2014. In Oregon, Apple products made up 1.65 percent.
The author wants to argue that "very little of that is actually iPhones, and very little of that is actually being done by Apple" but the example he uses for that doesn't really show "very little", but rather a huge percentage of recycled e-waste being Apple stuff.
While the statement that "very little of that [apple products recycling] is actually being done by Apple" is compatible with the example, the example doesn't really prove that "very little of that is actually iPhones" as it's supposed to.
And even the implication that the numbers are small doesn't follow -- 1.65 to 1.8 percent of the total e-waste in a state is nothing to sneer at, considering Apple is just one among tens of thousands of companies making electronics, and compared to things like TVs and such, theirs are tiny and weight little (a fact admitted elsewhere in the article).