Planned Obsolescence: Undermining Apple's Commitment to Sustainability?

Syeda Maseeha Qumer
Adjunct Research Faculty, IBS Case Research Center, Hyderabad, Telangana, India. E-mail: maseeha@icmrindia.org

The case focuses on global tech giant Apple's supposed planned obsolescence strategy and its social, environmental and economic implications. Apple was accused of deliberately slowing down its iPhones through software updates and designing its products to be short-lived in order to encourage customers to buy its new models and boost sales. Moreover, a number of devices from Apple were increasingly being designed in ways that made it difficult for users to fix them, thereby shortening their lifespan. Though Apple admitted to throttling older iPhones, it said that it had done so for a purely altruistic reason-allegedly to prevent them from crashing due to aging batteries. To make up for its lack of transparency, Apple eventually discounted the price of replacing batteries in older iPhones. The case explores how Apple's planned obsolescence leads to a short life cycle of the products, which impacts sustainability negatively. By encouraging a culture of consumption, Apple is contributing to the overuse of energy and resources, which increases the risk of global warming. Discarded devices produce large quantities of electronic waste (e-waste) that pollute ecosystems and contribute to climate change. In addition, mining for essential raw materials endangers workers by fueling armed conflict in countries like the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). Also, workers who assemble iPhones in Chinese factories endure sweatshop-like conditions. As one of the most valuable companies in the world, Apple is environmentally focused and is continuously working to reduce its environmental footprint by focusing on climate change, resources, and safer materials. However, the company's commitment to protecting the people and the planet is increasingly being diluted due to allegations of planned obsolescence. Analysts wondered whether Apple's planned obsolescence is just a public perception or whether the company is really guilty of built-in obsolescence. Going forward, the questions before Apple are: How can it tackle the issue of planned obsolescence? How can it assure stakeholders that it places sustainability before profits? Should the company take a clear stance on this issue, given its global scale and influence? If so, how should Apple go about it?

In October 2018, in an unprecedented ruling on planned obsolescence, the Italian Competition Authority (AGCM) fined tech giant Apple Inc. (Apple) E5 mn (US$5.7 mn), stating the company had engaged in dishonest practices by failing to provide its customers with an effective way to recover the full functionality of their devices. It stated that Apple had deliberately limited the useful life of its products by prompting users to install software updates that significantly reduced the performance of their phones. As a result, many consumers had had to upgrade their handsets. Apple was fined an additional E5 mn for allegedly failing to provide adequate information on how to maintain and replace batteries in the company's flagship device, the iPhone.

In December 2017, Apple acknowledged that its iOS software slowed down the performance of older iPhones with aging lithium-ion batteries but this was to prevent these phones from shutting down unexpectedly. The company denied that it had ever done anything to intentionally shorten the life of a product. After facing criticism over its battery policies, Apple apologized formally and cut the price of out-of-warranty iPhone battery replacements from US$79 to US$29, an offer that ended on December 31, 2018.

However, the iPhone throttling controversy fueled conspiracy theories that Apple was engaging in planned obsolescence by deliberately limiting the useful life of its products to compel users to upgrade to its new iPhone models. Based on anecdotal evidence, some critics accused the company of designing its products in a way that made repairs tricky and expensive, thereby shortening the lifespan of these devices. According to them, planned obsolescence would have serious social, environmental and economic implications, thereby weakening Apple's commitment to sustainability. The practice would significantly increase mining and procurement for the materials needed for the production of these devices, thereby intensifying the toll these devices would have on the planet's finite resources. Discarded devices produced large quantities of electronic waste (e-waste), with their disposal releasing higher levels of greenhouse gases which were harmful to both humans and the environment and contributed to climate change.

Apple's alleged policy of planned obsolescence called into question the social responsibilities of a company that positioned itself as progressive and environment-friendly. According to experts, this kind of a design strategy might help the company in making profits in the short run, but it risked endangering Apple's environmental reputation and customer loyalty. However, Apple's VP of marketing, Greg Joswiak, said that the idea that Apple was indulging in planned obsolescence was "the craziest thinking in the world".1 In the quarter-ended December 2018, Apple's revenue dropped by 4.5% to US$84.3 bn compared to the corresponding period of the previous year. In a letter to Apple investors, Cook attributed the drop in revenues partly to customers taking advantage of the significantly reduced pricing for iPhone battery replacements, apart from weak iPhone sales and a downturn in China. This revelation led to some critics wondering whether the company relied on premature obsolescence to drive sales. Though they applauded the company for the progress it had made on the sustainability front, particularly toward renewable energy sources to power its facilities, they felt that placing profitability before durability of its products was not something that Apple could do and still claim to be sustainable. According to Kyle Wiens (Wiens), founder of online repair community iFixit, "We can't live in a world where we're making 3 billion new smartphones a year. We don't have the resources for it. We have to reduce how many overall devices we're making. There are lots of ways to do it, but it gets down to demand, and how many we're buying. That's not what Apple wants, but it's what the environment needs."2 With Apple coming under scrutiny from advocacy groups for practicing planned obsolescence, many questions emerged: Is Apple guilty of planned obsolescence? Does planned obsolescence undermine Apple's commitment to sustainability? Is planned obsolescence an unethical business strategy or just a standard industry practice? How can Apple strengthen its leadership on sustainability and a closed-loop economy, particularly as its decisions set the direction for many companies in the technology sector?

Background Note
Apple was established on April 1, 1976, and incorporated on January 3, 1977. The company was initially called Apple Computers Inc. and was a maker of personal computers. By 1980, it had annual revenue of US$100 mn and 1,000 employees. The company went public in December 1980. In 1980, Apple started facing stiff competition from other leading players in the market like International Business Machines Corporation (IBM). Apple could not withstand the competition from IBM when the latter launched its own personal computers powered by MS-DOS (Microsoft Disk Operating System) and a revolutionary spreadsheet application called Lotus 1-2-3. However, Apple bounced back with the launch of its Lisa and Macintosh brand of personal computers in the years 1983 and 1984 respectively. With these computers, it introduced the Graphical User Interface (GUI), which became a milestone in the computing industry. GUI made computing user-friendly and induced a lot more people to buy personal computers. However, despite the groundbreaking features and ease of functionality they offered, the Lisa and Macintosh computers were a commercial flop in the market.

Apple's performance hit a nadir in the mid-1980s, leading to the exit of its cofounder Steve Jobs (Jobs) in 1985. Jobs's exit was orchestrated by its then CEO, John Sculley (Sculley). The sales of Apple's personal computers picked up under Sculley's leadership. Under Sculley, Apple introduced some other products like the laser printer, laser writer, and pagemaker that further helped in improving its sales. Another milestone in its history was reached in the year 1991 with the introduction of the Powerbook 100, which was considered to be the predecessor of the modern laptop. With the release of the Powerbook 100, Apple started to emphasize the quality and design of its products. At the same time, it began its foray into the consumer electronics market with products such as Newton (a Personal Digital Assistant) with moderate success.

The success of Microsoft Corporation's Windows 95 OS and the increased competition from new players in the market relegated Apple to the position of a marginal player in the computer industry. The company also started to lose its market share rapidly. Many industry analysts predicted that Apple would be wound up or sold off to competitors. Microsoft, with is strong control over the global personal computing industry, had emerged as Apple's arch rival. In the year 1996, Apple acquired NeXT Software Inc. (NeXT), a company founded by Jobs in 1985 after he exited Apple. NeXT focused on the workstation computers segment and targeted the education market. Soon after the acquisition of NeXT, Jobs was appointed the CEO of Apple. Under Jobs, Apple's fortunes began to revive.

Jobs launched a new operating system for computers made by Apple called the Mac OS X, which was based on the NeXT operating system. After his return to Apple, Jobs started to give more importance to the design of Apple's products. He cut a number of loss making projects at the company and started taking steps to make Apple profitable again. The iMac, another key product of Apple, was launched in the year 1998. The iMac was a good commercial success and repositioned Apple in the market for personal computers. After the success of the iMac, Apple tried its luck in the market for consumer electronics goods with the launch of the revolutionary portable media player, the iPod, in 2001. The iPod was a resounding success in the market and changed the way people listened to music. It was followed by the first smartphone from Apple called the iPhone in 2007. The iPhone rewrote the rules of the high-end mobile phone market and wiped out a number of existing makers of smartphones. iPhone's killer feature was its multi-touch user interface and its operating system, the iOS. In the year 2007, Apple removed the word 'Computer' from its name and became Apple, Inc. to mark its complete transition into a consumer electronics goods company.

Apple launched a tablet computer called the iPad in 2010 and emerged as the leading technology company in the world. After the death of Jobs in the year 2011, Tim Cook (Cook) took over as the CEO of Apple. In 2014, Apple unveiled the iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus models. In 2018, Apple became the first company to be valued at US$1 tn. The tech giant launched a total of 21 iPhone models between 2007 and 2018, starting with the original up through iPhone XR, XS, and XS Max models released in 2018. However, the 2012 edition of the Guide to Greener Electronics, Greenpeace ranked Apple 6th out of the 16 companies rated-a drop from its fourth-place finish at the end of 2011. Greenpeace's biggest issue with Apple was its reliance on coal to power its servers, along with its high estimated electricity consumption. The report estimated dependence on coal for Apple's data centers at 54.5%. Other problems that environmental advocacy groups had had with Apple in the past included toxic components within the iPhone and other products and poor policies relating to product take-back and recycling.

Commitment to Sustainability
Since taking over as Apple's CEO, Cook had made protecting the planet a prominent part of the company's identity. Under Cook, Apple not only recognized that climate change was a real problem, but publicly committed Apple to powering its data centers and other operations with 100% renewable energy to address the problem.

In 2013, Apple hired environmental policymaker Lisa Jackson (Jackson) as the company's Vice-President of Environment, Policy, and Social Initiatives. By 2013, Apple's data centers were powered entirely by renewable energy sources-specifically, solar, wind, hydro, and geothermal. Overall, 75% of the energy used by the company's corporate facilities globally were renewable-up from a mere 35% in 2010. In the 2014 edition of the Guide to Greener Electronics, Greenpeace named Apple-alongside Google and Facebook-as one of the three cleanest datacenter operators in the world, giving the Cupertino-based company marks of A, A, A, and B for transparency, policy, advocacy, and efficiency, respectively. It also noted that Apple had reached a 100% clean energy index.

In 2016, 96% of the electricity used at Apple's global facilities came from renewable energy, reducing its carbon emissions by nearly 585,000 metric tons. In 2016, Apple issued US$1.5 bn worth of green bonds to raise money for climate-friendly initiatives which included transitioning product materials, manufacturing processes, and operating systems to low-carbon alternatives. In 2018, Apple reached a major milestone as its facilities were powered by 100% renewable energy sources including all its offices, retail stores, and data centers in 43 countries.

Apple was also deeply committed to upholding human rights across its global network of suppliers and ensured the wellbeing of people involved in its supply chain. The stupendous sales growth experienced by Apple's products since the launch of the iPhone in 2007 made it rely on manufacturers in Asia like Foxconn Technology Group for manufacturing its products. These contract manufacturers did not verify the sources from which they procured minerals properly. As a result, Apple faced criticism from activists that conflict minerals3 leading to death and destruction in African countries were being used in their products. Apple had taken various initiatives to tackle the challenge of conflict minerals such as exerting direct pressure on smelters and refineries to get conflict-free designation or be removed from the company's supply chain, and putting pressure on its suppliers to get complete and accurate information from their smelters and refiners regarding their operations. As of December 31, 2018-for the fourth consecutive year-100% of identified smelters and refiners in Apple's supply chain for all applicable products manufactured during 2018 participated in an independent third-party conflict minerals audit program.

Apple's Planned Absolescence
According to analysts, Apple had made commendable progress on the climate change front. Under Cook's leadership, the company was committed to protecting the planet by reducing the environmental impact of its products and operations, reducing its greenhouse gas emissions, and eliminating the amount of toxic substances in its devices (See Exhibit I and Exhibit II). "We're committed to leaving the world better than we found it. After years of hard work we're proud to have reached this significant milestone. We're going to keep pushing the boundaries of what is possible with the materials in our products, the way we recycle them, our facilities and our work with suppliers to establish new creative and forward-looking sources of renewable energy because we know the future depends on it",4 said Cook.

However, according to some analysts, Apple's commitment to a sustainable future was increasingly being undermined by the perception of some advocacy groups that the company was engaged in planned obsolescence of its products. Apple was accused of encouraging a culture of consumption by intentionally slowing down older iPhones and forcing customers to buy new models on a regular basis rather than allowing them to keep upgrading and maintaining their old phones. Experts felt that such a design strategy might generate profits in the short term, but risked jeopardizing Apple's environmental reputation and the customer loyalty that came with it. Some critics pointed out that it might make sense for Apple to employ this business strategy as the tech giant had reached near-saturation levels in the US smartphone market.



Planned Obsolescence as a Design Feature
The sales of iPhone increased sharply over the years worldwide, from around 1.4 million in 2007 to more than 216 million units in 2017. In total, Apple sold more than one billion iPhones worldwide between 2007 and 2017. The iPhone was Apple's flagship device and the company released a new one every year-either a new generation or a variation of the current phone. The changes between phones were a combination of the aesthetic and the functional-but increasingly often, the supposed improvements were only incremental. This had already raised suspicions that Apple was saving certain innovations in its hardware and software for the future because the company knew it could use any improvements as a selling point for the next product.



According to analysts, one of the reasons Apple was able to sell so many new devices was that customers kept tossing aside their old ones as new and more advanced models were released. The company regularly released new smartphone models with shifts in designs to signify "newness" to customers, thereby convincing them to be early adopters. Reportedly, Apple made its older models look inferior to new ones by withholding certain features in the older products. For instance, the iPhone 4 was capable of running virtual assistant Siri, but Apple reserved that feature for the model that replaced it-the iPhone 4s. Likewise, the camera in the iPhone 3G was capable of shooting video, but Apple did not turn that feature on; instead, it made video recording the signature feature of its next device, the iPhone 3GS.

Apple's second generation in-ear headphones were launched with new features such as remote control and a microphone. However, these features worked properly with only newer models of the iPhone, iPad, or iPod and were not compatible with the first generation of the iPod shuffle. Therefore, customers with older versions of the iPod shuffle had no other option but to upgrade to a newer model. Apple's removing the headphone jack from the iPhone 7 model and replacing it with a Bluetooth alternative with a marginally superior sound output at a significantly higher cost was an innovative tactic to keep customers buying the same things in new packages, said analysts. By doing this, thousands of consumer headphones were rendered obsolete and customers had no option but to purchase Lightning or Bluetooth headphones. This created a widespread impression that Apple was deliberately pushing customers to spend more on their newest product.

Apple profited from this. Any company that wanted to make a pair of Lightning headphones had to go through Apple's licensing program and the company charged a flat fee for every device sold using one of its connectors. The lack of a headphone jack on the iPhone also led to an uptick in the sales of Bluetooth headphones. And Apple owned the number one Bluetooth headphone company, Beats. Since the removal of the headphone jack, Beat's Bluetooth earphones sales had increased by 300%. "For a business to be successful, a company must "create value for customers, suppliers, employees, communities and financiers." It is undeniable that Apple does not conform to this theory-it puts its profits first, observed through the removal of the headphone jack and deliberate sabotage of its older models",5 commented blogger Dimitrije Gacic.

The iPhone Upgrade Program launched in 2015 encouraged customers to trade in old models for newer ones. The subscription model let customers who paid a monthly fee for two years exchange their phone for a new model every 12 months. For instance, customers could get the 64 GB iPhone Xs Max unlocked for 24 monthly payments of US$54.08 instead of spending over US$1,099 up front. Analysts said that the problem with the Upgrade plan was that it tempted people to get a new iPhone each year. According to Damon Beres, Executive Editor at Mashable, "Corporations like Apple like money more than anything, no matter how glossy their environmental websites are, and they make a lot more of it when you're compelled to replace your gadgets every couple of years, or as a member of the iPhone Upgrade Program, literally every 12 months. It may not be surprising, but in an era of 'activist' tech corporations, it's jarring to find the bottomline so nakedly championed at the expense of consumers and the planet they live in".6

Encouraging a Throwaway Culture
Apple attracted a lot of criticism for making devices that were hard to repair, and were, therefore, were short-lived. The company did not share its repair manuals. It made repairs more difficult by using proprietary screws, unibody enclosures, and other manufacturing and design techniques that ensured that only the company could take the products apart. Apple used proprietary five-point security screws in the iPhone and MacBooks. These special screws were entirely unique to Apple and prevented users from replacing the battery on their own or repairing their devices. By making repairs difficult, Apple was discouraging long-term maintenance of its devices and encouraging a throwaway culture. Nearly 70% of all Apple devices had batteries that were difficult to replace due to strong adhesives being used to fix them to the casing. The screens were also heavily glued to the rest of the device, greatly increasing the chances of the glass getting damaged during repair. In MacBooks, the processors, RAMs, and flash memories were soldered to the motherboards, making these parts difficult to access for repair. In order to make the iPad and iPhone as sleek as possible, Apple fused the front glass, digitizer, and LCD into a single component, making the repair of these devices expensive. Also, authorized Apple Stores would only replace iPhone batteries if they failed a specific diagnostic test, the specifics of which were not made public. The plan, according to Kyle Wiens (Weins), CEO of iFixit, was to force customers to buy new products rather than repair or upgrade their old devices. "It's a form of planned obsolescence. General Motors invented planned obsolescence in the 1920s. Apple is doing the same thing",7 he said. Apple did not sell spare parts to third-party repair shops. The company had a long-standing policy that stipulated that if an iPhone had been repaired by a third-party, Apple would not perform repairs on it irrespective of whether it was still under warranty or not. This made repairs that would otherwise have been economical very expensive. Customers had no option but to rely on the company for repairs and upgrades. Reportedly, Apple charged a premium price to repair its devices. Third-party replacement repair usually cost about US$40, while Apple charged US$79. The replacement battery for an iPod Shuffle was US$49, the same as a new device.

In October 2018, a leaked internal document from Apple circulated among Apple stores and Apple Authorized Service Providers revealed that third-party and Do It Yourself (DIY) repair would no longer be possible on 2018 MacBook Pros and the iMac as they were fitted with the T2 chip.8 In order to carry out repairs on these devices, proprietary diagnostics software was required. Unless Apple's proprietary software was run on a repaired device while it was connected to Apple's password protected servers, it would be bricked and rendered inoperative. According to experts, this requirement would dramatically restrict the ability of customers to repair their devices themselves or get replacement parts from third-party repair shops, thereby putting a hard limit on the lifetime of a device.

Apple's Authorized Service Providers were allowed to carry out select repairs. They were not authorized to replace an iPhone charging port. Instead, these devices had to be mailed to a larger service center to be fixed offsite. Authorized service centers were also not allowed to do micro soldering, which was necessary to fix common iPhone defects. They did not have access to the iPhone Calibration Machine which made screen replacements much easier. Without device schematics and other tools from Apple, third party repair shops could not always do those jobs and customers were forced to pay much more for a full part replacement from Apple. Even in countries where authorized repair centers were located, consumers had to drive hours to get their device repaired, only to learn that they needed an appointment for their device to be repaired. According to Greenpeace's 2017 Guide to Greener Electronics,9 Apple products were among the least repairable (See Exhibit III and Exhibit IV). Among laptops, Apple notebooks had the lowest scores compared to manufacturers HP, Dell, Samsung, Acer, and LG. The 2017 MacBook Retina and the 13-inch MacBook Pro both scored 1 out of 10. The iPad 5 and the iPad Pro had among the lowest scores across tablets-2 out of 10. The iPhone received 7 out of 10.



However, Apple's lobbyists claimed that allowing independent shops access to their diagnostic data and parts would threaten the company's security model. They said that Apple's patented screws were meant to prevent tampering and were not a part of a conspiracy to exploit customers. Likewise, the batteries were hard to replace because of Apple's commitment to design aesthetics as iPhones were sleeker and lighter with the batteries screwed in. Jackson, defended Apple's history of making products that were hard to repair. She said, "Technology is really complex; it is sophisticated to make it work, to ensure that you have security and privacy, [and] that somebody isn't giving you bad parts. I think trying to pretend that we can sort of make it easy to repair the product, and that you get the product that you think you're buying-that you want-isn't the answer".10 Some critics accused Apple of using its outsized influence over the industry groups who regulated the manufacturing of electronic devices to get gold certification labels on its products, while ignoring issues like repairability and reusability. A case in point was the Apple MacBook Pro with Retina Display. The MacBook Pro came with a proprietary SSD, non-upgradeable RAM, and a glued-down lithium-ion battery that limited the lifespan of the laptop. Yet, after Apple appealed and was able to convince the standards board to adjust the language around what elements made a product 'upgradeable', the laptop was marked with an EPEAT 11 'Gold' rating. "What's happening internally at these companies is the environment team is getting overruled. Ostensibly, it's their job to make the company more environment-friendly. Practically, the company is telling the environment team, 'Make sure we're not getting constrained in any way.' Now you've got the fox guarding the henhouse",12 remarked Wiens.

In sharp contrast to its positive leadership on climate change and renewable energy advocacy, Apple was one of the companies that opposed the "Right to Repair" legislation in the US, which if implemented, would give consumers and third-party repair shops the legal right to purchase spare parts and access service manuals. According to the Joint Commission on Public Ethics in New York State, Apple had lobbied against the Fair Repair Act, which if implemented, would require it to sell repair parts to consumers and third parties and release service manuals for its devices. The company claimed that the amendment could force it to reveal trade secrets about how its devices were made. According to New York state senator, Phil Boyle, "They give the argument about intellectual property concerns. To me, it's not the strongest argument. It's more about dollars and cents to me. It would cost them a lot of money in repair work".13

It seemed ironic to analysts that a company so committed to going green would refuse to support legislation that could help reduce e-waste. They felt that Apple regarded the Right to Repair initiative as a threat to its bottomline. However, Jackson defended the company's stance on repairability and said that Apple was focused on building durable products which could minimize both repairs and replacements. "I don't think you can say repairability equals longevity. I often say if you're in the repair business, repair seems like the answer. But actually you need to design for the life cycle. And Apple has designed for some time around durability, around the idea we can release the latest and greatest product, your old product still works and has value",14 she added.

The iPhone Throttling Controversy
Apple released a new version of its mobile operating system, the iOS, every year. The new iOS, which had more features and required more computing power, worked best on the new iPhones. Generally, users tended to complain about old iPhones slowing down whenever a new model of the iPhone was launched. In 2015, a class action lawsuit lodged with a New York district court claimed that Apple engaged in planned obsolescence, and alleged that the company had issued an iOS 9 software update that slowed down iPhone 4s models with aging batteries. Catherine Rampella, a columnist, wrote in The New York Times that her iPhone 4 felt "a lot more sluggish" after the 5S and 5C were released. When iPhone 4 users were notified that the software update was available for download, there was no warning that the software might affect the speed of the phone. And as Apple security protocols prevented users from downgrading, users were forced to buy a new model. Apple itself had explicitly admitted to setting a three-year life expectancy rate for its iPhone (See Exhibit V). According to financial blogger Samantha Miller, "What drives Apple is iPhone sales. If the growth in sales reaches a point of saturation, the stock will likely take a hit. To avoid that fate, Apple is apparently practicing planned obsolescence on a progressively greater and greater scale. The company may have no other choice. Shareholders need to be aware of the possible consequences of Apple's actions, which is now public knowledge".15

Reportedly, Google searches in the US for "iPhone slow" spiked when each new iPhone was released. A study by Laura Trucco, a research scholar at Harvard University, revealed that there was a dramatic peak in online searches for "iPhone slow" each time a new Apple smartphone or a new version of the iOS was released (See Exhibit VI). Reportedly, between September 2017 and early November 2017-when Apple released the iPhone 8, followed by the iPhone X-Google searches for the keywords "iPhone slow" jumped by about 50%. These spikes did not occur when Apple's competitors released a new product. This fueled suspicions that Apple deliberately built or sabotaged its older products to become obsolete. "Apple is expert at making its premium devices seem like old garbage very quickly: There's always something new and shiny around the corner that starts to peek around just when your phone's software seems a little sluggish or your memory a bit too full",16 said Damon Beres, senior tech editor for The Huffington Post.



In June 2018, Apple Australia was fined US$9 mn in penalties by The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) after an investigation into a lawsuit related to a defect experienced by customers known as 'Error 53'17 which affected the functioning of iPhones. The problems occurred between February 2015 and February 2016, when Apple issued a software update that disabled iPhones and iPads that it detected had been repaired by a third-party. The Federal Court ruled that the company had misled hundreds of Australian customers by bricking their iPhones and then denying them repairs if their device had been repaired by a third-party. Later, Apple apologized and instituted a reimbursement program for devices affected by Error 53. According to attorney Darrell Cochran, "This was a message to all consumers that if you don't conform to Apple's requirements we're going to kill your phone. They never disclosed that your phone could be bricked after basic repairs. Apple was going to say nothing about it and force all its consumers to buy new products simply because they went to a repair shop. The only reason they flip-flopped was because of the lawsuit. They knew they'd been caught".18

In December 2017, Apple admitted that it had deliberately slowed down the iPhone 6, 6S, 7, and SE through the iOS 9 software updates to prevent phones with older batteries from shutting down suddenly. Apple said in a statement that it had introduced a "dynamic power management" feature in the iOS to protect against battery problems and prolong the life of the iPhones. According to the company, when batteries aged, they become very cold or operated at low power and their currents could spike when the phone's computer hit higher speeds. Apple said it had tweaked its iOS software for some older iPhones so they slowed rather than shut down automatically. The company said that the goal of the battery-related slowing was to deliver the best experience for customers and to make the iPhones last as long as possible. Apple stated that it would never do anything to intentionally shorten the life of any Apple product, or degrade the user experience to drive customer upgrades.

However, the admission spurred multiple class-action lawsuits and criticism from consumers. More than 59 class actions were filed against Apple in Chicago, New York, and Northern California. The lawsuits alleged that Apple had slowed down the iPhones in an effort to get customers to upgrade to new models, which would result in profits to Apple and a sustained customer base. However, some of the lawsuits in the US were dismissed as prosecutors were unable to prove that the company had known the software update would disable its own products. Some analysts were of the view that the company had not clearly communicated to consumers that phones with old batteries were being throttled. They felt that Apple should have been more honest and transparent with customers about what it was doing. "Users are understandably upset that Apple was purposefully slowing down their expensive phones behind their backs. Apple's rationale isn't unreasonable; a slowed-down phone is a lot better than a phone that crashes frequently due to a weak battery. But by keeping this a secret-only acknowledging the feature when users figured out what was going on-Apple has done some damage to its most valuable asset",19 noted tech writer Timothy Green.

In January 2018, French watchdog DGCCRF opened an investigation over allegations of planned obsolescence of Apple products following a complaint by a consumer rights group. In October 2018, AGCM levied a E5 mn fine (US$5.7 mn) against Apple for problems that occurred on various models of the iPhone6 when users installed the iOS 10 developed for the iPhone 7. Following the action by the French government, in January 2018, Apple was questioned by the US Senate over the practice of deliberately slowing down iPhones with older batteries. The Chair of the Senate commerce committee, Senator John Thune, wrote to Cook questioning the company's handling of the iPhone slowdown. Cook announced that Apple would release a software update allowing iPhone users to turn off the now-'throttling' feature. However, Oakland attorney Scott Cole said, "It's too little too late. Countless consumers worldwide have purchased new iPhones and iPhone batteries, or dumped their units altogether, in frustration due to Apple's lack of transparency".20 Looking to regain the trust of its customers Apple reduced the prices for replacement batteries on out of warranty iPhone 6s and newer models from $US79 to $US29. The special pricing ended on January 1, 2019. Apple reintroduced a lower standard rate of US$49 for all phones except for the iPhone X. Apple also issued a new software update iOS 11.3, while giving users more insight into their phone's battery performance.

Apple supporters dismissed allegations that the company was engaging in planned obsolescence. According to them, the iPhone's performance could be affected by software upgrades and that could be a side effect rather than the primary intention. Moreover, the brand hit that Apple would take for indulging in planned obsolescence would be too damaging, and Apple was aware of it, they added. Apple's VP of marketing, Greg Joswiak, dismissed the theory of planned obsolescence as "the craziest thinking in the world, where I give you a shitty experience so you go buy our new product. But, to your point, there's been so much that people forgot about how great software updates are. First of all, we have a 95% customer satisfaction rate with iOS 11... it's great. We have delivered through the years amazing features, from the App Store to iMessage".21

Environmental Implications
According to experts, planned obsolescence would have negative implications for the environment. Apple was encouraging a culture of consumption that would significantly increase mining and procurement for the materials needed to manufacture devices, thereby intensifying the toll their production would have on the planet's finite resources and their contribution to overall GHG emissions (See Exhibit VII). Elements like gold and copper were present in the body and circuitry of the iPhone; lithium and cobalt in the battery; and neodymium in the magnets. Indium formed a transparent conductive layer on the touchscreen. Mining all those elements from scratch would consume a lot of energy. According to Gary Cook, Senior IT Sector Analyst at Greenpeace US, "These things all fit in our hands and seem like they don't have a very big impact, because they're so small. But the impact is quite significant, both in terms of the chemicals used, the amount of energy that goes into manufacturing these products, the e-waste at the end-of-life. And the repairability of the device ends up being critical".22

According to Apple's 2019 environmental responsibility report, about 74% of the company's total greenhouse gas emissions came from the manufacturing process alone. The company revealed that the manufacture of each Apple device generated on an average 90 pounds of carbon emissions. The greenhouse gases contributed to global warming. Apple had been claiming that in order to reduce its carbon emissions, the company and its suppliers had been generating and procuring 100% renewable energy. However, according to some environmentalists, these claims were misleading as Apple's energy usage was driven mainly by its manufacturing and shipping operations based in China and most of that energy came from coal power.



According to analysts, Apple's perpetuation of the 'throwaway culture' was contributing to the growing stockpiles of e-waste. The disposal of e-waste would contribute to climate change due to the chemicals released when burnt, causing harm to both humans and the environment.

Apple offered product collection and recycling programs such as Apple Renew to address the mounting problem of e-waste. Its recycling robots Liam 23 and Daisy24 were capable of disassembling a total of 2.4 million phones annually. However, this technology was still at an experimental stage and yet to be proven on a large scale. These robots could only disassemble one device at a time whereas Apple sold 215.3 million iPhones in 2018. Analysts felt that recycling was not the answer the company was looking for and even when a product was recycled, most of the energy and material resources used to create it could not be recovered. Apple's trade-in and recycling initiative, the GiveBack program25 launched in 2018 to help customers return or trade-in unused Apple devices to Apple Stores, was actually encouraging customers to upgrade their old devices. Moreover, Apple could only manage to get back a small percentage of what it sold.

Once the devices were dismantled by the recycling robots, Apple sold the components to recyclers. Almost all of Apple's recycling was contracted out to third parties. In order to keep counterfeit iPhones off the market, Apple required recyclers who dealt with its devices to sign 'must shred' clauses, meaning that any material that was recycled on behalf of Apple had to be destroyed. Though there was a possibility of getting those resources such as functional computer processing chips and cameras back and then reusing them, Apple's policies prevented this from happening. Materials were manually and mechanically disassembled and shredded into commodity-sized fractions of metals, plastics, and glass. According to John Yeider, Recycling Program Manager at Apple, "All hard drives are shredded in confetti-sized pieces. The pieces are then sorted into commodities grade materials. After sorting, the materials are sold and used for production stock in new products. No reuse. No parts harvesting. No resale."26

All of the equipment collected for recycling was manually and mechanically shredded. The recyclers had to untangle each metal from the blend before it could be put back on the market. This procedure exposed workers to toxic fumes as they picked through scrap piles looking for rare metals. These toxic fumes leaked into the surrounding air, ground, and drinking water and could lead to a wide variety of serious, sometimes life-threatening health problems, including cancers and birth defects. Lithium batteries, for example, were prone to exploding and could leach into soil and water if improperly discarded. Heavy metals that were burned when the recycling material was melted down added to the atmospheric pollution and contributed to climate change, said experts.

Apple spokesperson Alisha Johnson said that Apple was addressing the eco-waste problem by investing in environment-friendly recycling efforts and was pioneering a closed loop supply chain where products were made using only renewable resources or recycled material to reduce the need to mine materials from the earth.

Human Cost
The massive factories that assembled iPhones, iPads, and other devices for Apple in China faced accusations of labor abuse, poor working conditions, and harsh penalties for workers who made mistakes. The workers often worked up to 10 hours a day in hot workshops, handling noxious chemicals - sometimes without proper safety masks. Reportedly, some suppliers illegally used student labor in China to fulfill iPhone X Orders. Apple also faced allegations of forcing its workers to endure sweatshop conditions that led to a spate of suicides at Chinese factories that assembled iPhones. Though Apple developed standards and started audits of suppliers, the sheer scale of its supply chain, as well as difficult to quantify variables such as living standards and sanitation, made monitoring difficult.

According to analysts mining materials for products had long-term consequences on people as all common minerals used in iPhones, have been tied to armed conflict in the DRC. Miners in remote landscapes carry out the life-threatening work of extracting precious metals for these devices; often fueling armed conflict. Reportedly, small-scale cobalt miners in DRC dig deep underground without maps or safety equipment and risk asphyxiation or being trapped. Additionally, young children have been repeatedly found to conduct hazardous work in the extraction of minerals. Planned obsolescence raised the demand for these conflict minerals, while the higher volume of production made it difficult for Apple to monitor the sources of materials, said experts. While the environmental and human consequences of planned obsolescence were dire, experts said that the strategy had partly contributed to an increase in Apple's revenues. In 2018, Apple generated US$265.6 bn in revenue. About US$218 bn of this was generated by sales of the iPhone.

The Road Ahead
With the Right to Repair movement gaining momentum, Apple appeared to be moving toward a more customer-friendly iPhone repair policy. According to a presentation, titled "Apple Genuine Parts Repair" dated April 2018, the company had begun to give some repair companies access to its diagnostic software, a wide variety of genuine Apple repair parts, and repair training. And notably, it was placing no restrictions on the type of repairs that independent companies were allowed to do.

In June 2018, at the company's annual Worldwide Developers' Conference, Apple pledged to support older devices for a longer time with its iOS 12 software update. The shift came as Apple sought to lengthen the lifespan of its phones. According to the company's Vice-President of Software Engineering, Craig Federighi, the iOS 12 would be the largest base ever supported by an Apple release, stretching support back to devices released in 2013. The update would boost the performance of older devices, with up to 40% faster app launches and up to 70% faster access to the camera, thereby encouraging iPhone users to stick with older devices. According to Jason Koebler, Editor-in-chief of Motherboard, "It remains to be seen whether iOS 12 will actually make the iPhone 6 faster, especially with third-party apps. But it's important that Apple is at least paying lip service to phone longevity, and appears to be trying to optimize its new software for old hardware. It's not sexy, but it's a small step toward making our electronics less disposable."27 While these moves could benefit the environment and increase customer loyalty in the long run, they seemed to be having an adverse impact on Apple's financial results in the short-term. In January 2019, Cook issued Apple's first profit warning in 16 years, knocking US$9 bn off its revenue outlook for the quarter-ended December 2018. In the quarter-ended December 2018, Apple's revenue dropped by 4.5% to US$84.3 bn compared to the corresponding period of the previous year (See Exhibit VIII). Apple attributed the drop in revenues partly to customers taking advantage of the significantly reduced pricing for iPhone battery replacements. Cook revealed that in some developed markets, iPhone upgrades had not been as strong as predicted. Critics pointed out that the sudden and unexpected profit warning from Apple was a revelation about how much the company relied on premature obsolescence to drive sales. However, analysts wondered whether the battery replacements really had an impact on iPhone sales and whether it was a significant factor in the profits warning by Apple. Adrian Kingsley-Hughes, an internationally published technology author, noted: "Over the years, there's been a great deal of chatter around the subject of "planned obsolescence," and here we have Apple essentially confirming that this is indeed part of the business model. Which leads on to the next obvious question-How many iPhones are being junked or recycled just because they need a new battery? For a company that likes to boast about its environmental credentials, this should be a concern"

1. Aaron Brown and Annie Palmer, "'Planned Obsolescence is the Craziest Thinking in the World': Apple Hits Back at Claims It Designs iPhones to Fail So Consumers Have to Buy a New One," www.dailymail.co.uk, June 8, 2018.
2. Brian Barrett, "The Silver Lining in Apple's Very Bad iPhone News," www.wired.com, January 1, 2019.
3. Conflict minerals refer to mineral resources that are mined in places impacted by conflicts and sold for funding armed groups. These include the metals tantalum, tin, tungsten, and gold and are often referred to as 3TG. Funding received through the sale of conflict minerals resulted in prolonging the conflict in troubled areas, leading to the killing and suffering of innocent people living there.
4. "Apple Now Globally Powered By 100 Percent Renewable Energy," www.apple.com, April 10, 2018.
5. Dimitrije Gacic, "Business Ethics: Apple and Planned Obsolescence," https://blogs.ubc.ca/ dimitrijegacic/, September 12, 2017.
6. Damon Beres, "Apple's Greed is Killing the Planet (and Screwing You, Too)," https://mashable.com, August 3, 2017.
7. Leander Kahney, "Is Apple Guilty of Planned Obsolescence?" www.cultofmac.com, January 20, 2011.
8. The T2 chip is a 64-bit ARMv8 part that runs an operating system called BridgeOS. Apple first included the chip in the iMac Pro launched in December 2017. It serves a number of security purposes including protecting the boot process, securing encrypted keys, and handling system functionality such as access to the camera.
9. Greenpeace in partnership with iFixit, assessed over 40 best-selling smartphones, tablets, and laptops launched between 2015 and 2017. The assessment is based on iFixit's repairability score, which considers the time required to repair the product, the device's upgradability and modularity, as well as the availability of spare parts and repair manuals. The scores range from 0 to 10, with higher numbers indicating that it is easier to repair the device.
10. Arielle Duhaime-Ross, "Apple Promises to Stop Mining Minerals to Make iPhones," www.vice.com, April 21, 2017.
11. The Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT) created by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Green Electronics Council (GEC), is an online procurement and environmental rating tool for electronic computing equipment that consumers can use to evaluate, compare, and purchase electronic products based on their environmental attributes.
12. Nick Statt, "Why Apple and Other Tech Companies are Fighting to Keep Devices Hard to Repair," www.theverge.com, August 3, 2017.
13. Damon Beres and Andy Campbell, "Apple is Fighting a Secret War to Keep You from Repairing Your Phone," www.huffingtonpost.in, June 9, 2016.
14. Jason Koebler, "Apple: iPhones Are Too 'Complex' to Let You Fix Them," https://motherboard. vice.com, September 22, 2017.
15. Samantha Miller, "Apple's Planned Obsolescence Strategy," https://seekingalpha.com, December 27, 2017.
16. Damon Beres, "Apple Could Trap You Forever with Its New 'Upgrade Program'," www.huffingtonpost.in, September 17, 2015.
17. Error 53 disabled iPhones that had a Touch ID sensor replaced by a repair shop not authorized by Apple. When they updated iOS, the device locked down, displaying the cryptic Error 53 message, rendering the iPhone virtually worthless.
18. Damon Beres and Andy Campbell, "Apple is Fighting a Secret War to Keep You from Repairing Your Phone," www.huffingtonpost.in, June 9, 2016.
19. "Apple Tarnished their Brand with Clandestine iPhone Battery Management and Processor Throttling," http://macdailynews.com, December 27, 2017.
20. "Apple Will Make iPhone Throttling Optional: Lawsuit Plaintiffs Say 'Too Late'," www.fastcompany.com, January 18, 2018.
21. Joe Rossignol, "Apple Executive Greg Joswiak Dismisses Planned Obsolescence as 'Craziest Thinking in the World'," www.macrumors.com, June 6, 2018.
22. Leanna Garfield, "A New Report Claims That Apple Products are Contributing to a Huge Environmental Problem," www.businessinsider.in, June 29, 2017.
23. In March 2016, Apple unveiled Liam, a robot capable of dismantling an iPhone in just 11 seconds. He is a 29-armed robot designed specifically for the task of deconstructing and recycling iPhones. Liam is capable of taking apart 1.2 million iPhones each year.
24. In April 2018, Apple introduced its new robot Daisy to take apart junked iPhone models and recover valuable materials that can be recycled. Daisy is capable of disassembling nine versions of the iPhone and can dismantle up to 200 iPhones an hour.
25. Through this program, for every device Apple receives at its Apple stores and apple.com, the company will make a donation to the non-profit Conservation International in support of the organization's initiatives to preserve and protect the environment. And eligible devices will receive credit that customers can use toward an in-store purchase or put on an Apple Store Gift Card for future use.
26. Jason Koebler, "Apple Forces Recyclers to Shred All iPhones and MacBooks," https://motherboard. vice.com, April 21, 2017.
27. Jason Koebler, "iOS 12's Biggest Upgrade: An End to Planned Obsolescence Conspiracy Theories," https://motherboard.vice.com, June 5, 2018.
28. Adrian Kingsley-Hughes, "This is why Apple doesn't want you fixing your smartphone," www.zdnet.com, January 4, 2019.