x
  • Bookmark and ShareShare
  • Earn Points
    What's this?
Apple and Google, set to bring the (e)Waste
Apple and Google are at war — and the environmental consequences could be devastating, says Nature Conservancy green tech blogger Dave Connell.

By

Cool Green Science Blog
Thu, Jan 21 2010 at 12:27 PM
 4

Related Topics:

Computers

Photo: jizzon/Flickr

The Nature Conservancy logo. Protecting nature. Preserving life.
A war began this month, a war between two savvy generals — former allies turned rivals — vying to take the place of an old, creaky and formerly ruthless dictator grown lazy from decades of unfettered success and largess. The outcome of this war will change forever the way we gather, process and act on information. And the environmental consequences could be devastating.
 
I am of course talking about the war between Apple and Google, two companies that have been circling the remains of the Microsoft Empire for several years and have now moved in for the kill, attempting to seize control of the computing market.
 
They aren’t waging war by trying to gain market share in the traditional desktop and notebook markets. They’re battling by changing the way we think about some devices (the cell phone); supporting the creation of new devices (the netbook); and inventing devices out of whole cloth (the tablet).
 
And this is where the environmental issues come – the devices that these two companies are pouring money into (and that Microsoft is desperately trying to keep up with) are inherently disposable:
  • They are small, cheap, and ultraportable;
  • They have limited storage capacity — meaning you’ll store most of your data on the web; and
  • They have limited battery life.
Combine all of these things, and you have products that will end up in the waste stream as soon as they are no longer shiny and new.
 
Even more insidious, as I’ve written about before, by creating devices with non-replaceable batteries, Apple has a planned obsolescence strategy that essentially requires your iPhone to begin a slow death from the very moment you pull it out of its ultra-designed box.
 
But at least there are only two versions of the iPhone. Google’s strategy to dominate the cell-phone market hinges on creating free open-source software — called Android — and allowing any and all comers to develop phones with the system and offer them to any and all providers. Currently, there are more than two dozen versions of the Android phone on (or coming to) the market, including the highly sought after Motorola Droid and Google’s own Nexus One.
 
Most of these cell phones, including two versions of the iPhone, are under $200. Some are even free with certain contracts. This means most consumers won’t think twice about chucking them once the battery — or their cell phone contract — expires.
 
That means 15.8 million iPhones and millions more Android phones hitting the waste stream in the coming years.
 
To stem the tide of this e-waste, Apple and Google should implement robust, verifiable and free recycling programs for the devices they manufacture — and in Google’s case, the devices their software powers.
 
This last point is especially important, because it will be very easy for Google to shirk its responsibilities here and say, “the manufacturers should be responsible for the recycling.” However, most of those manufacturers wouldn’t be making devices without the software Google is providing.
 
(UPDATE: A reader notes that Apple has a pretty bullet-proof recycling program already running. I regret the error, but stand by my assertions on the disposable nature of the iPhone and smaller devices.)
 
But the cellphone glut just the beginning. The rollout of netbooks and tablets — small computing devices designed to fit the space between a full-size notebook and a smartphone — promises to bring even more disposable devices to market.
 
Google has made the most aggressive moves in this space. The company has created an absolutely ingenious operating system – Google Chrome OS – that boots up in seconds and runs only web applications. Chrome OS is designed specifically for netbooks, which Google will be pushing aggressively. Not only will they be giving the software to hardware manufacturers for free, Google will be designing and creating its own branded netbooks.
 
A netbook costs between $300 and $400. Google sees a world in which “you could buy 5 to put them around your house.” Right now netbooks are made on the ultracheap with generally very few environmental safeguards and at a price point where they can easily end up on the trash heap in two-to-three years.
 
Tablets seek to fill a similar market, but with an even smaller device that relies solely on a touch screen. Several manufacturers have rolled out unimpressive offerings during this year’s Consumer Electronics Show, but the real tablet mania is expected to hit on January 27, when Apple unveils its version of the device. And, of course, Google also has plans to manufacture a branded tablet.
 
With these devices coming onto market real recycling programs from Apple and Google must be brought online. But what’s our personal responsibility in all this? Well, there are several options, of course: including refusing to buy; making the devices we purchase last longer (say, by replacing your iPhone battery); or, of course, finding your own recycling center.
 
 

You might also like:

Join the conversation

Comments: 4
Sign in with one of these accounts to add your comment.
anonymous
Pete Jan 23 2010 at 2:07 PM
While planned obsolescence and frequent upgrades are in fact Very Bad, and e-cycling should definitely be a bigger part of the tech industry, the author jumps to some conclusions that I'm not sure are warranted. First, just because something is small or cheap doesn't make it inherently disposable (when was the last time you threw away a pocketknife, for example). Likewise, my iPhone has replaced my old phone, my iPod, my camera, my GPS, my compass, my calculator, and often my entire laptop -- isn't
.... More
the production, sale, and recycling of one gadget better (and easier) than dozens? Second, limited storage capacity can also be a good thing -- fewer storage drives/chips are produced and storage moves to data centers, which are more reliable and easier to optimize for energy efficiency. Apple's recycling and hazardous materials elimination programs earned them praise from Greenpeace (and fifth place overall) on this year's green electronics rankings. Greenpeace! And Google runs some of the most efficient data centers in the world, researching and implementing cutting-edge solar and cooling technologies not just for Green Cred, but because it's good business, saving them tons in electricity costs compared to other companies. I just felt like someone should point out some of the positives these companies are contributing. While I'd prefer to see them partner rather than compete, I'm glad they are at least beginning to compete over which company can be "greenest".
|
anonymous
Brian Jan 22 2010 at 11:35 AM
You make a good point about planning for this type of waste handling, but you're talking about a device being replaced once every three years. What about more frequently generated waste? Such as CD/DVDs that are thrown away after burning a copy of some files, rechargable batteries and circuitry that is in so many toys today. When was the last time any of readers thought before throwing a battery or compact fluorescent lightbulb in the trash? What about soda cans and plastic bottles that are generated
.... More
with every drink sold? Each of us needs to think abut the waste we generate daily and how to reduce it.
|
rshreeves's picture
Robin Shreeves Jan 21 2010 at 2:24 PM
Here's my gripe. People need to stop upgrading every time these companies put something basically the same but a little more sparkly in front of their faces. If people weren't buying the new technology as quickly as it comes out and abandoning their still perfectly useful items, the companies would have to slow down on manufacturing them, wouldn't they? I'm not against these small gadgets. I love my iPhone. I've had it for a year now, and sure it would be nice to have the newer version that takes
.... More
video, but I have enough self-control to hold off until my phone actually needs to be replaced because it no longer works. That's the bottom line - we need self-control.
|
anonymous
Patrick Hebert,... Jan 21 2010 at 1:47 PM
I completely agree with your thoughts Dave. Just as mobile manufacturers have agreed to move towards a standard adapter connection for cellular devices (mini-USB) we're seeing this strategy come into play. As someone working in the cell phone recycling business I can testify that the speed of obsolescence seems to be accelerating. Not only are 3 year old devices finding their way into my recycling program, but newer devices as well since the cost of repair or reconditioning a defunct device is often
.... More
far greater (or justifiably comparable) than the cost of replacement. Resource recovery has its limits and also takes its toll on Mother Nature with the carbon produced through smelting, refining, transport, re-manufacturing, etc. As someone who's spoken out against the current e-recycling programs in place for lacking consumer incentives such as deposit-refund, until manufacturers are forced to compensate consumers for recycling their products I can only see this problem increasing in scope.
|

ADD YOUR COMMENT

Log in or register to post comments

EDITORS' PICKS

tease weird things

line

tease cellars

line

tease fishing

Advertisement
From our sponsor

NEWSLETTER

Mother Nature. Delivered
Advertisement