Where Old Phones Go to Die: E-Waste

Discovering the effects of e-waste, pondering what's being done, and what isn't being done.

[ewasteblog]

E-Waste 101

(Image by Morten B.)

E-waste, simply put, is short for electronic waste. The U.S. EPA synonymies e-waste with "e-scrap" and "end-of-life electronics" as well. Typical examples of e-waste include computers, electrical equipment, phones, and headphones.

But why the separate title? Why can't e-waste just be labeled as regular waste? Well, because most electronics have two unique attributions: being very bad for the environment, and being incredibly hard to recycle. This is exactly what the Oxford Dictionary details about e-waste, including in the definition, "typically containing environmentally hazardous substances and requiring special treatment for safe disposal or recycling."

These attributions are the cause for a very important questions: what does e-waste actually do to the environment? As described by the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, about 6.9 million tons of e-waste is generated in just the U.S., and if not recycled properly, will lead to hazardous materials such as battery acid, lead, and mercury leaching into local soil and groundwater.

Unfortunately, talking about how electronics are recycled is heavily complicated and heavily boring. However, I can surely talk about how little e-waste is actually recycled. According to the WHO (not the band), less than a quarter of e-waste was properly documented and recycled globally. A QUARTER... GLOBALLY. It doesn't necessarily matter how e-waste is recycled if it ain't being recycled in the first place.

Now that the problem is properly in context, it's time to consider one of the biggest contributors to e-waste, one that will shape future research and put a spotlight on big tech companies. That contributor is a little concept called planned obsolescence.

Planned obsolescence, as described by Wendy Hamblet in the Salem Press Encyclopedia of Science, is designing and building a product in a way that ensures the owner seeks to replace it after a certain amount of time. This concept applies to all products, but lately the term is most associated with electronic devices.

Given the definition has an implicit incentive structure to make a product last for less time in order to sell more products, it's no shock that this concept can be seen in most big technology companies who sell highly valuable (expensive) devices. The biggest offenders are companies that make a new product every single year (cars, phones, computers), subsequently arbitrarily removing support for an older product (just look at Apple for an example).

As stated previously, planned obsolescence will be a major focal point when analyzing tech companies, comparing what they say about being environmentally friendly, versus what they actually do with their products and advertising.

[ewasteblog]

Peer-Reviewed Article: International Review of Law, Computers, and Technology

The International Review of Law, Computers, and Technology (published by Routledge) released their Volume 38, No. 3 in 2024. Titled "'Slowing down the loop': smart devices and the right to repair," Kayleen Manwaring (the author) takes on the subject of the right to repair from the Australian standpoint.

In this article, Manwaring examines the 2021 Australian "Right to Repair Report," comparing the report to past and present UN guidelines (as of 2024). Manwaring also uses the article to analyze the right to repair legislation and movement within the international community (mostly the U.S. and European Union), comparing those efforts to the growing list of smart devices ("eObjects" as Manwaring calls them) that will eventually require repair.

Such eObjects are discussed as well, how they're evolving, and how repair is growing harder and harder to perform as technology advances. Manwaring also makes note that repair is not just a "consumer 'right'", but is more so "practices and skills." This clarification stresses the importance of consumer involvement in the right to repair, rather than just relying on legislation to make repair a reality.

Tying these aspects together, Kayleen Manwaring is motivated by the lack of contributions to the right to repair by the Australian government. Using references of other nations and past/current reforms within the Australian government, Manwaring is able to argue that change is needed within Australia, in order for the future of repair to be on par with rapid legislation that is occurring in other developed nations.

[ewasteblog]

Apparently A.I. can't properly tell me how to replace a battery

So, I went on ChatGPT to ask how to replace the battery in a 2010, 2011, and 2012 13-inch MacBook Pro (the ladder two I've done myself), and while the steps themselves were right, the finer details were absolutely incorrect. iFixit helps to confirm this as well with their trusted repair guides.

(Image by iFixit)

A.I. says that these screws on the bottom case are Pentalobe screws. False. They're regular Phillips screws. I don't even have a Pentalobe screwdriver, and I've opened up this type of computer tens of times over with no issues. Additionally, the three orange circles above shows the three longer screws of the bottom case, while the remaining red circles are shorter screws. ChatGPT says there's only 2 long screws. Great, thanks ChatGPT.

(Image by iFixit)

Sadly enough, when ChatGPT does mention Phillips screws, they're still wrong. The screws holding down the battery are trip-point screws, not Phillips. Also, A.I. refuses to tell me that those two screws are also of different lengths.

I can't even imagine what ChatGPT would tell me if I asked it to disassemble more of the laptop. Just use iFixit folks. They're actually reliable, and made by a real person.

[ewasteblog]

California Senate Bill No. 244: The Atlantic vs. The Washington Post

As a quick summary, California's Senate Bill No. 244, passed in October 2023, enacted many changes within the state to "provide a fair marketplace for the repair of electronic and appliance products and to prohibit intentional barriers and limitations to third-party repair." I know, snooze-fest, but what's rather interesting is how Apple (who is based in California) publicly supported this bill.

You heard that right. Apple, the quintessential anti-repair company of the last decade, supported a law in their home state that directly targets their own infamous business practices. I am flabbergasted to this day.

What's even more interesting however, is the differences that two major newspaper outlets covered this very same story. Those two newspapers are of course The Atlantic and The Washington Post. In reality, there's not much to talk about the facts of the situation. Apple supported a bill, great, awesome, good for them. But once personal bias and clever writing comes into play, then there's something to talk about.

Let's start with The Atlantic.

(Image by The Atlantic)

The Atlantic's article, titled "Good News for Your Sad, Beaten-Up iPhone," takes a more casual writing style, starting off with a personal story from the author, Damon Beres, including some half-decent jokes and relatable phone addiction struggles.

While not specifying this article as an opinion piece (but rather a "Technology" piece), the author clearly has a pro-repair and anti anti-repair viewpoint. This is clearly noticed by the cheeky title alone, but looking deeper, Beres notes two major pro-repair spokespeople he had personal conversations with: Nathan Proctor, head of right-to-repair at the US PIRG, and Kyle Wiens, founder of iFixit and President of repair.org. This is not a deal-breaker for me, as someone who is also pro-repair, but even if someone absolutely hated the idea of being able to repair their own device, both Proctor and Wiens are very trusted members of the repair community, thus using them as sources is not wildly out of line.

Damon Beres himself though? Eh, I'm not sure about that. His only credentials on The Atlantic is that "he oversees the Technology section" of the newspaper. Big whoop. So, anything that Beres says without other sources (basically, his personal take), I am hesitant to trust.

Overall though, Beres' sources are trustworthy, and if I sift through the cringe humor, his personal takes are rooted in solid, widely available knowledge that many people can get behind.

Now, The Washington Post.

(Image by Justin Sullivan)

The Washington Post's article, titled "Apple's surprising about-fact on 'right to repair," Has a much more standard writing format, avoiding personal stories from the author, Cristiano Lima-Strong, and sticking to classic news reporting.

Already, this article is a stark contrast from The Atlantic. For one, Strong's page about his credentials is robust (compared to Beres'), and his history with technology and making news about it is frankly much more comforting than what Beres' credentials would have you believe. There's even a mention of the main researcher, David DiMolfetta, who has his own substantial credentials. Before even reading this article, the credentials going in and the professional vibe is much more pronounced than in The Atlantic article.

Another clear difference is that Strong avoids any connection with the right to repair movement, rather just giving their voice a platform. Strong still mentions important figures like Nathan Proctor and Gay Gordon-Byrne, but there are no personal conversations to be found. Just good old reliable quotes.

Strong goes a little further in the article than Beres as well, covering the involvement of the Biden administration in the right to repair movement. To be honest though, the section about the federal government goes too far off from the topic that was at the center; the California bill, which the federal government obviously didn't write. Despite veering off however, the section regarding the California bill is substantial, reliable, and overall bias-free from the author.

The one major issue I found was actually about The Washington Post itself. Why the hell are there more unrelated articles attached below this article? Why are these ads completely unrelated to this article? And why in God's gracious name are there more ads than there are months in the year? (Not kidding, I counted).

Despite my qualms with The Atlantic, at least I could count the number of ads on one hand, and they weren't the size of half the page. Honestly, the ads are so bad on The Washington Post, that I would genuinely read slightly biased, corny news articles on The Atlantic rather than well-developed, unbiased articles from The Washington Post, simply because they are completely ridden with soulless, irrelevant, and above all, cash grab ads.

At the end of the day, when I want to find a good source for research, the feeling of being sold out by the newspaper does play a factor in how I view every article they publish. A genuinely good user experience on a website must be the first priority if anyone is to use that website for research.

[ewasteblog]

Documentary: Blame Game

(Image by Collective Eye Films)

Blame Game, published by Collective Eye Films in 2023, takes a very grounded approach to the documentary genre.

Most of the documentary is filmed live in Ghana, where a large juxtaposition is created: The scenes of mass dumps in Ghana, where hardy young men scavenge for electronics in putrid conditions, juxtaposed by short clips of Ghanaians dancing and smiling during events. This stark contrast is meant to show the unfortunate reality of the e-waste problem in Ghana, but to also not stereotype Ghana and Ghanaians as a desolate culture with no joy to be found. This strategy works well, as the viewer can visually see the humanity in Ghanaians, compelling us to be compassionate for the e-waste problem.

Blame Game is also grounded for its use of mostly unnamed interviews. Most interviews, taken place in Ghana, are of regular citizens, usually scrapping electronics or selling them at markets. While not technically being the standard definition of credible, these sources are very authentic, and is the best possible way for the viewer to understand what it's really like to live in Ghana.

(Image by Collective Eye Films)

The main purpose of the documentary is to question who is truly at fault for the mass collection of e-waste in Ghana. Unfortunately, the documentary doesn't really give a precise answer in my opinion. One minute, a quite compelling argument leads me to believe that the government of Ghana is to blame, because they do not want to get rid of the e-waste since so many people rely on it for jobs. The next minute, outside nations are to blame, because they ship their e-waste to Ghana and let Ghanaians deal with the consequences. Back and forth the documentary goes, sprinkling in some insightful information on what can be done to solve the problem, but the title conditions me to only want to solve the main hook; the blame game. While yes, the nuances and conflicting evidence ultimately means there is no one exact entity to blame, the marketing really had me hooked on looking for one thing to blame.

Nevertheless, this documentary was very eye-opening in terms of how bad e-waste is in other parts of the world. Additionally, while not answering the blame game directly, the film achieves at making the viewer ponder the multiple sources that contribute to e-waste, and how we as fellow humans can speak up about these issues that we can't feel directly.

[ewasteblog]

(Image by Apple)

If there's one thing that I don't mind about Apple and their contributions to recycling, it's their certified refurbished store.

While not providing the amount of savings that a place like eBay or other second-hand sellers can offer, Apple's refurbished store is quite reliable when it comes to quality control. When buying from their refurbished store, you are guaranteed a new battery (in products that have one), genuine replacement parts. genuine Apple packaging, and the same 1 year warranty that their brand new products get. This level of quality just cannot be found from any other online store. Yes, the savings are never as strong as eBay, Back Market, or Swappa (which I have personally shopped at), but none of these stores can guarantee the quality of second-hand products.

As an example, the iPad I got from Swappa works pretty well, but it has a white burn in on the screen, and it occasionally glitches out when I'm editing a file. I can say with confidence that an iPad from Apple's refurbished store would not have these issues, given that they go through such rigorous testing and quality control.

Not a bad job Apple. Not bad at all.

[ewasteblog]

Book Review: The Right to Repair

(Image by Cambridge University Press)

The Right to Repair: Reclaiming the Things we Own was written by Aaron Perzanowski. Published in 2022 by the Cambridge University Press, this book is constructed as a scholarly book.

Perzanowski uses this book as a one-stop shop to the world of repair, describing the importance of repair to society (economic, environmental, social), the various forms of anti-repair decisions by companies (design, marketing, copyright), a lack of government legislation, and a look at what consumers and legislators can do to improve repair over time (purchasing power, congressional pressure, individual repair).

Given the vast amount of knowledge and topics covered, and the fact that this is a scholarly book, this book is intended for individuals already interested in the relationship between repair, legislation, and business practices, who want to gain as much knowledge in one book as possible.

Aaron Perzanowski does an excellent job at providing ample context and giving credible information, which can be seen by the extensive notes section and index found at the end of the book. The index is especially useful for readers who may not know super specific terms used by the tech or business world.

Personally, I also loved how the first couple of chapters were very easy reads, talking about well-known companies and basic repair concepts, and then pivoting to progressively more complex and nuanced topics, such as marketing strategies, consumer surveys, and current/proposed legislation. This way of writing helped myself (and I'm sure plenty of other readers) ease into reading this book.

One thing that is rather unfortunate about the book (though the nature of technological advancement is volatile) is that modern citations are already out of date. It's evident that the book was effectively finished around 2020, as all dates mentioned never go past that year.

The section where Perzanowski conducts a survey of 800 American consumers (in 2020) becomes increasingly less credible, as public opinions can vary wildly as more years pass, especially when it comes to technology. As an example, AI was not as big of a buzzword as it is today (2025), so an American answering a question about AI in 2020 is going to be a lot different than answering that same question today, given new developments and narratives surrounding the term.

A smaller example that I noticed immediately while reading the introduction was Perzanowski talking about Apple's AirPods. As an Apple nerd, I knew that when Perzanowski said "They retail for $159 for the basic version and $249 for the Pro model," he was talking about the AirPods 2nd gen and the AirPods Pro 1st gen. How? Because both those AirPods were sold at those prices at the same time (in 2019), and the AirPods 2nd gen weren't replaced until the AirPods 3rd gen, which released at $179 in October 2021 (which confirms writing ended in 2020). Some days, it really does pay to be a nerd.

Overall, this scholarly book serves as an excellent starting point for many people who wish to become heavily involved in the right to repair movement. Unfortunately though, for me, time is this book's greatest enemy, and someone like me who can dig for inconsistencies is going to leave this book feeling lukewarm at best.

[ewasteblog]

(Image by Apple)

This shit blows.

The most prominent leaks and rumors were pointing to this phone being an absolute banger of a deal. The spiritual successor to the iPhone SE 3rd generation, this iPhone 16e was rumored to be a mere $499, latest chipset, all-screen design, basically everything important from the iPhone 16, minus some of the extra stuff (no ultra-wide camera, no Dynamic Island, no Camera Control).

Except no. This bumswipe of a product is $599, binned chipset, NO MAGSAFE (which has been around since 2020), NO SENSOR SHIFT STABILIZATION (which has also been around since 2020), and missing software features, all of which were available on the iPhone 14... WHICH THIS PHONE REPLACED!

At this point, I'm just buying an SE 3rd gen or a mini iPhone and waiting till the 16e doesn't have a terrible price.

[ewasteblog]

Primary Source: MYSELF

Hey folks.

I just made a YouTube video for my primary source, which happens to be myself. You can watch it below. Thanks.

[ewasteblog]

(Image by Best Buy)

Best Buy is officially the goat.

I just found out they have a recycling program, and it looks AMAZING. They claim to take electronic products of all shapes, sizes, age, and origin (where it was bought). That's huge for e-waste reduction.

And it's not just laptops and phones. They also accept TVs, audio devices, cameras, controllers, keyboards, smart watches, and much, much more.

If you have an old/broken device, and you want to help the environment, feel free to stop in at Best Buy. They got us covered.

[ewasteblog]

Apple's Founder: Steve (Wozniak)

(Image by Jim Harrison)

Steve Wozniak was the less well-known man who founded apple. Wozniak was also the less well-known man who revolutionized our world through the personal computer. Unfortunately though, Wozniak was also the man who stepped down in 1985, only remaining as a ceremonial employee and representative of the company.

Now, one would think his impact on the company would be minimal, given he technically has no say in any business or design decisions. However, in just one endorsement, Wozniak seemingly snapped Apple into a series of pro-repair decisions, and the timeline confirms this.

In the summer of 2021, Wozniak endorsed the right to repair movement, saying "It's time to recognize the right to repair more fully," along with other passionate statements which targeted and exposed Apple's years of anti-repair practices. Just a few months later, on November 17, 2021, Apple would announce their Self Service Repair program, allowing regular customers to repair their own products, as well as buying genuine parts from the company.

Coincidence? I think not, especially because Steve Wozniak has a strong connection with self-repair. Part of Wozniak's endorsement credits his creation of the monitor for the Apple I to the open repairability and modularity of electronics in the 1970s, exclaiming, "That all came from being able to repair things, and modify them, and tap into them yourself." Wozniak knows the importance of modularity and repairability, since those core values are what created the success of Apple in the first place.

But the timeline doesn't stop there.

Not even a year later, Apple released the iPhone 14 on September 16, 2022. While looking almost the exact same as the previous iPhone 13, Apple, with no announcement or fanfare, completely redesigned the back glass on the iPhone 14, allowing the phone to be opened up from the back (which is safer than opening from the screen), as well as making repairs infinitely cheaper. Even on Apple's own iPhone Repair and Service website, you can see the change in back glass repair cost from the iPhone 13 to the iPhone 14 ($349 to $169). Now every iPhone sold today has a more repairable design, and repairs on Apple devices are slowly (very slowly) becoming better.

While a lot of these right to repair victories are most definitely attributable to the work of many activists and the voices of consumers, I can't help but stress the importance of a figure like Steve Wozniak. The man who worked side by side with Steve Jobs, paving the way for how we use technology today, endorsing the right to repair and putting his own company on blast, is massively influential. As Wozniak said in his endorsement, "Companies inhibit [the right to repair] because it gives the companies power, control, over everything." Thankfully, the power is slowly coming back into the hands of consumers, and Steve Wozniak is certainly a part of that change.

[ewasteblog]

(Image by John Bumstead)

This image comes from an article by the Public Interest Research Group, which talks about Apple's seemingly impressive improvement in right to repair practices and allowing the use of genuine replacement parts. Unfortunately, as seen above in the image, sometimes Apple devices are Activation Locked by the original owner, which makes the device completely useless to a new owner if the original owner cannot be traced back to remove the lock.

I bought some iPods from eBay hoping to get a cheap deal and do some light repairs, but almost every single one of them was Activation Locked, making them completely useless, as I can't trace any of the original owners. Needless to say, I'm not a huge fan of Activation Lock.

Thankfully, most physical parts aren't locked with the device, besides of course the motherboard where the lock is initiated. However, on April 11, 2024, straight from the horse's mouth, Apple announces in their own newsroom that, "Apple will also extend its popular Activation Lock feature to iPhone parts in order to deter stolen iPhones from being disassembled for parts." Apple is going to put Activation Lock on physical parts that happen to be connected to the motherboard...

WHY???

Sure, stealing devices and reselling parts is bad, I get it, but for all of the independent repair technicians or even just enthusiasts such as myself, this decision by Apple will make repairs somehow a worse experience.

This can result in mislabeled parts that could be Activation Locked and/or less genuine unlocked parts being on the open market, which will overall funnel the purchasing of genuine from Apple themselves. Pretty slick move, Apple. Still not a fan though.

[ewasteblog]

This is my friend Dustin. He's currently holding a 2012 MacBook Pro that I was able to fix, as well as upgrading it to be able to handle a light to medium college workload. I did get my money back from fixing it, mostly in concert tickets from Dustin. But I have to say the most rewarding part is that he has never used a laptop for college, until this past semester when I gave him this laptop. To be able to turn potential e-waste into a friend's new work machine is so satisfying and encouraging.

[marinelifepoaching]

Marine Animals, One of the Biggest Targets of the Poaching Industry

What is Animal poaching? According to West's Encyclopedia of American Law, poaching is “the illegal shooting, trapping, or taking of game or fish from private or public property.” The illegal wildlife trade is massive, and the poaching of marine animals in particular has made an insanely negative impact on our environment. 

This blog will focus on the poaching of marine animals, why they are poached, how they are poached, and why it is in our best interest to stop it.

So why do people do it? There are many reasons why people poach animals, some animals are trafficked and kept as pets illegally, but most are killed and sold as food, or used to make apparel, jewelry, decoration, or traditional medications.

Poaching involves the intentional killing of animals, often in very inhumane ways. However, some marine animals are poached by accident through by-catch, which according to the Oxford English Dictionary is the “catch of unwanted fish and other marine animals trapped by fishing nets during commercial fishing for a different species.” Many marine animals that are otherwise protected are accidentally captured in this way, often suffering injuries or dying in the process. 

Why should poaching be stopped? Poaching is a major contributor to the endangerment of different species such as the Hawksbill Turtle which is commonly killed for its shell, meat, and eggs. It leads to violent and brutal deaths like in the case of seal clubbing, which is the drawn-out torturous killing, often of a seal pup, by clubbing to the skull. It can throw an entire ecosystem into turmoil by upsetting the natural predator-prey relationship as with the case of shark finning which is the removal of a shark's fins and then releasing it back into the ocean where they are left to drown or die of blood loss. This leads to an overpopulation of prey due to the lack of natural predators. 

[ewasteblog]

It appears that a lot of tech companies have a similar goal with poachers; maximizing profit no matter the cost. In the poaching industry, the cost is the destruction of ecosystems and the extinction of animals. For tech companies, it's letting perfectly fine electronics become obsolete and becoming landfill, harming the local environment.

The only problem is that poaching is at least illegal in many places. Business practices increasing e-waste is essentially legal as long as it's not the company directly throwing their products in the trash, which is ridiculous.

Marine environmentalists and e-waste advocates can possibly work together in discussing the many causes of destruction in our waters, which can help shed a light on not only poaching, but also wasteful discarding of electronics.

[ewasteblog]

(Image by Sam Goldheart)

This is a full teardown of a 2010 15" Unibody MacBook Pro. While I don't have one of these, I do have a 2009 MacBook Pro of the same size, and with the exception of the disk drive, I had to reassemble the entire laptop, reversing almost everything pictured above. That... was not fun.

[ewasteblog]

This absolute beauty is a 2009 24" iMac. Opening it up is absolute hell, and it's a little slow, but look at it! She's a real gem, and fully functional of course.