Live data from Hacker News

Apple's amusingly round reuse figures

blog.jgc.org

71–80 of 101 posts

Re: Apple's amusingly round reuse figures

#71

I find it very amusing that Apple is boasting about reducing the size of packaging, but they're still shipping accessories from their online store out in boxes about 15 times larger than required. http://i.imgur.com/sMyvO6o.jpg I've noticed this not only with their packaging for third party accessories, but also for first party ones like the new Magic Mouse 2

I would assume this is to create greater logistical efficiencies in ways we don't see.

Side note, I'd be quite interested to see the details of their contracts with courier companies (e.g. TNT deliver all of their new products here in Australia, although AusPost send/receive product replacements)

Re: Apple's amusingly round reuse figures

#72
post #67

They forgot to count the 2204# (1000kg) of self-congratulatory PR value extracted. Kind of ruins their bragging rights though, when you realize how much usable material they're recovering on the cheap. They're basically just doing the obvious, efficient and profitable thing. It has taken markets a long time to catch up with how obvious it is, though. As metal prices go up, it will become even more profitable, and the…

>They forgot to count the 2204# (1000kg) of self-congratulatory PR value extracted. Kind of ruins their bragging rights though

No it doesn't. At all. Doing the right thing should, at the least, be worth positive social recognition ("public relations") at any level, from the largest corporations right down to individuals who work to keep their local neighborhood clean. Ideally, doing the "right thing" should also be profitable so that the Free Market can efficiently optimize towards it. That's part of the point of enforcing the price inclusion of externalities.

There is nothing negative about doing something good simply because it's efficient and profitable. I very much dislike the self-flagellating attitude that somehow comes to the conclusion that in order to be worthy of praise doing good must be ultimately rare, unpleasant and costly. Sometimes that is the case, and extra praise and recognition is part of the feedback loop to try to make it more common, but in general society should work to make barriers to positive change as low as possible.

Even if something like this is efficient and profitable once it's up and running there is still significant capital expenditure (both material and human) involved in setting it up in the first place. As always, that capital could be invested elsewhere, in areas that might be equally or more profitable and involve less risk and variability as well. Merely looking outcomes with risk-weighting and considering opportunity costs is always a mistake. You wrote:

>It has taken markets a long time to catch up with how obvious it is

Sometimes you may know better then the entirety of the market (business opportunity!), but sometimes you should consider that perhaps the markets recognize something that you don't. Maybe the reason this hasn't been more common is that it only looks "obvious" on the surface and taking into account life time costs, capital requirements and so forth most places have found that it has not been worth it.

So when companies do forge ahead it is still worthy of recognition, particularly to the extent that it may encourage more to follow and ultimately make it more effective for everyone.

Re: Apple's amusingly round reuse figures

#73
post #23

"911 Metallurgist, which helps mines and recyclers extract precious metals from ore and, apparently, phones, has exhaustively checked the iPhones and other mobile devices. Each iPhone 5, for instance, contains $1.58 of gold, $.36 of silver, $.05 of platinum, and $.12 of copper." I'd posit the missing 644 pounds (<1kg) is platinum.

644 pounds >> 1 kg. Actually slightly less than 300 kg

Re: Apple's amusingly round reuse figures

#74
post #47
post #19

Somebody clearly never learned about significant figures. This happens all the time even among people who really should know better, giving false precision to imprecise measurements.

It's probably an educational issue as well. In the place where I came from, the people who ended up writing promotional copy were mostly humanities students in high school and university, but significant figures is considered an "intermediate" science topic not taught to humanities students.

In France, in science we had to answer with the same number of digit after the decimal point as given in the exercise. It didn't feel right to me when that was crunched through logs and sine, but I got nowhere when I brought it up to the teacher. And even now the whole premise is flawed to me, because it's about significant digits, not just the number of figures after the decimal point, if you compute a times ten you have to remove one digit after the decimal point.

Re: Apple's amusingly round reuse figures

#75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have Creationists in my family. I don't poke the bear. But I've always wanted to ask how the Earth is perpetually 6,000 years old. Another question, if the assorted Creationists can't agree on the true age, then why do they get huffy about science's varying estimates? Oh well.

I think the answer is pretty obvious: at the moment it's rounded to "6,000 years old". Presumably in several hundred years they'll round to 6,500, then 7,000 after that... Of all things to question a Creationist about, the suspiciously round 6,000 doesn't seem like one to me...

The notion of therebeing Creationists around in the twenty-sixth century terrifies me!

Re: Apple's amusingly round reuse figures

#76
post #59
post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their marketing decision is really odd. I guess the engineer that came up with kg numbers decided to round it in 1000kg, which is reasonable to me. Whoever got the number don't like kg, and converted to lb. Someone else adding the number up actually counts in 100lb, and thinks it's better just to round up. And yeah, the last two zero is fishy, I first tried to do a simple round, and wondered where's the extra 600. It…

Exactly. Too bad two wrongs don't make a right. What language is that?

[deleted]

Re: Apple's amusingly round reuse figures

#77
post #59
post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their marketing decision is really odd. I guess the engineer that came up with kg numbers decided to round it in 1000kg, which is reasonable to me. Whoever got the number don't like kg, and converted to lb. Someone else adding the number up actually counts in 100lb, and thinks it's better just to round up. And yeah, the last two zero is fishy, I first tried to do a simple round, and wondered where's the extra 600. It…

Exactly. Too bad two wrongs don't make a right. What language is that?

[deleted]

Re: Apple's amusingly round reuse figures

#78
post #72
post #67

They forgot to count the 2204# (1000kg) of self-congratulatory PR value extracted. Kind of ruins their bragging rights though, when you realize how much usable material they're recovering on the cheap. They're basically just doing the obvious, efficient and profitable thing. It has taken markets a long time to catch up with how obvious it is, though. As metal prices go up, it will become even more profitable, and the…

>They forgot to count the 2204# (1000kg) of self-congratulatory PR value extracted. Kind of ruins their bragging rights though No it doesn't. At all. Doing the right thing should , at the least, be worth positive social recognition ("public relations") at any level, from the largest corporations right down to individuals who work to keep their local neighborhood clean. Ideally, doing the "right thing" should also be…

Where we agree:

"Ideally, doing the "right thing" should also be profitable so that the Free Market can efficiently optimize towards it." = "It has taken markets a long time to catch up with how obvious it is."

"There is nothing negative about doing something good simply because it's efficient and profitable" = the absence of anything negative said about it. I said it was obvious [good], efficient [good] and profitable [good, but mostly for Apple]. And that they're congratulating themselves to reap PR value (absolutely true).

"...taking into account life time costs, capital requirements and so forth most places have found that it has not been worth it." = "It has taken markets a long time to catch up with how obvious it is." And the reason they're catching up now is because of scarcity, and because costs of wholesale looting metals from the commons are beginning to climb to their true value, i.e. irreplaceability. Apple's costs for recycling include the gift card they give you for turning in your old device -- which is some quantity of their own goods & services at cost -- and shipping & processing costs, all of which are surely considerable but will soon be dwarfed by mining costs if they aren't already.

"Even if something like this is efficient and profitable once it's up and running there is still significant capital expenditure (both material and human) involved in setting it up in the first place." = "...they'll be glad they already have the infrastructure in place." Starting to think you didn't read more than 10-12 words. And also why are you trying to make the argument that it's difficult and costly for them, when this is the much-hated self-flagellation argument?

Where we disagree:

1) Free Market, not being a proper noun or deity, should not be capitalized, no pun intended.

2) There is no answer to "What is 'good'?" and there is no answer to "Is recycling 'good'?" "Good" and "bad" are overrated and overused concepts best suited to the cognitively impaired, religious folk, others who desire a simplistic mental model of the world, and those who want to play out emotional issues by getting all worked-up over good-bad absolutes instead of talking neutrally. Lots of people say "It is what it is" but few actually mean it.

3) There is no self-flagellation involved in noticing that when someone does something rare, unpleasant and costly, it's remarkable for those very reasons; whereas when they do something efficient, profitable and (from the standpoint of someone who already recognizes the irreplaceability of Earth) obvious, it's somewhat less remarkable. German and Dutch companies (for just one example that I've personally witnessed), have been quietly recycling for decades.

4) I'm not in love with Apple.

Re: Apple's amusingly round reuse figures

#79

My rant related to this: How It's Made[1] often has lines like, "The worker places the assembly in a oven that heats the metal to 1,292 degrees Fahrenheit". Which is an oddly-specfic temperature before you realize they just converted it from 700°C. Since it's highly doubtful the oven maintains precisely 700°C—and since it's not important to the viewer what the exact temperature is anyway—it annoys me that they don't…

Fun fact: the reason the human body temperature is said to be 98.6 °F is because of rounding between units. It originally was said to be 100 °F, which when converted to Celsius is 37.77 °C. Round that down to 37 °C and convert back and you get the oddly specific 98.6 °F (despite the fact the human body temperature can fluctuate quite a few degrees [Fahrenheit] throughout the day).

I read this somewhere (credible), but I can't remember where, so sorry, but no source. It may be wrong, but the 98.6 °F is oddly specific and happens to line up perfectly with a round number when converted to °C.

Re: Apple's amusingly round reuse figures

#80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the answer is pretty obvious: at the moment it's rounded to "6,000 years old". Presumably in several hundred years they'll round to 6,500, then 7,000 after that... Of all things to question a Creationist about, the suspiciously round 6,000 doesn't seem like one to me...

The notion of therebeing Creationists around in the twenty-sixth century terrifies me!

What's another few thousand years? People haven't been taking Genesis literally since at least Origen's day (~200 AD).

---

For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? and that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life? and again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by masticating what was taken from the tree? And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally.

Origen via Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. 4, p. 365 http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04/Page_365.html

Post reply on HN