My first was an iPod classic that I got in 5th grade. Eventually the battery died and it was laid to rest in a drawer in my parents’ house. Earbud set number 1. Next came the MacBook for Christmas of 2006. In my junior year of college almost exactly nine years later, I finally upgraded to a friend’s used 2010 MacBook Pro. Somehow I’ve already lost track of the old laptop not even three months into my “new” computer, and all I have is the pair of earbuds from that era to show for it. First iPhone came in 2009, again with earbuds. I had been an avid Blackberry and then later Droid fan, but with all the other Apple products I had, it felt strange to not complete the set. I finally upgraded to an iPhone 4S in 2012 (the same year the 5 came out), and have stayed with it since, despite its shattered screen. That makes earbud set number 4. Then I started missing my iPod Classic from the good old days and, staying true to my uberloyal way with technology, got another Classic even though the only model available had a ridiculous amount of memory I could never use. It was lost at a swim meet circa 2013, and I’ve been contemplating another ever since. I just have the earbuds now. I suppose “EarPods” would be the appropriate terminology to use were I to buy a new Apple anything now.

I am currently at five going on six pairs of earbuds and it seems strange that with all the hell those earbuds were put through (tangled in backpacks, shoved in wet ears at swim meets, doubled as cat toys), they have lasted longer than the products they came with. For someone more enchanted by new than I am, the number of earbuds could double or triple. I think mine have stuck around so long because they are the only pieces of equipment that can transcend generations of iPhones or iPods and are still universally compatible. Even with this power though, they still sit alongside the chargers and docks that no longer are, adding to the technotrash clutter.

Apple had huge iPhone sales this past month alone with record earnings and took a massive portion of overall smartphone industry profits over 2014. While Apple still brought home serious dough, it may be forced to turn towards other types of software applications to continue the ability to boast such incredible profit margins. The plateau of iPad sales, for example, could be made up for by the emergence of Apple Pay. As Apple shifts towards decreased percentage of its profits originating in actual hardware, this could imply less of an incentive to find friendlier ways of disposing of outdated or broken products.

The economic stake in planning for hardware disposal remains, however. The biggest reason Apple would show a more ecofriendly and recycle-friendly side to its consumers may be its image. The key to Apple’s marketing strategy is simplicity. Both its products and advertising adhere to this method, and it is implied that the type of person they so strongly cater toward with their products would also be in favor of an ecofriendly way to dispose of their product once they are finished with it.

Refs:

DeMers, Jayson. “Here’s the Simple Secret To Apple’s Marketing Success.” Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 8 July 2014. Web. 19 Feb. 2015.

Warman, Matt. “World-Beating Profits – But What’s Next For Apple?; Tech Giant Is Planning Beyond The iPhone With Payments And Watches, Says Matt Warman.” The Daily Telegraph [London] 29 Jan. 2015. LexisNexis Academic. Web. 19 Feb. 2015.

Wolverton, Troy. “Apple’s iPhone Profits Leaves Rivals with Little but Table scraps.” San Jose Mercury News [San Jose] 9 Feb. 2015. LexisNexis Academic. Web. 19 Feb. 2015.

Since 1995, the year that I was born, as well as the year that my family purchased this Sony device, countless music players have been created, both by this company, as well as hundreds of other electronic manufacturers. The implementation of new technologies into the market has outdated our old unit. Although the sound system was such a pertinent part of our lives, more advanced sound systems (i.e., laptops, iPods, iPads, speakers, headphones) have replaced my family’s need for our now archaic stereo. Because newer innovations have served up the same entertainment, as did our old stereo player, changing from one device to another was not difficult for any member of my family. Moreover, our modern technologies being far more advanced, function without the need to purchase CDs or cassette tapes at a music store, and they play music with a much greater sound quality. We have actually marveled at the ease with which we have evolved electronically and musically, and the transition has been without any reservation.

Though I cannot remember the last time any person in my family, myself included, has used our Sony stereo system, the cassette and CD player still inhabit our den. What seemed like the perfect spot for our sound system at the time, placed atop our large television unit, now proves to be a waste of space. Today, this once-loved relic of a bygone era continues to reside in its original domain solely for show. No one has felt the need to change its location, most likely due to the sentimental value of the machine within our family. In fact, the very obvious location of our stereo system in an oft-used room appears to contribute to Turke’s “secret power,” as well. Despite the fact that we have long ago transitioned to modern modes of sound production and entertainment, it is ironic that we have never chosen to move our old system. We don’t use it, but subliminally, it surely resides in some intangible place.

So much of the wistfulness that we feel as we ogle the ancient box is derived from the countless merriments in which the music player was the main event. For each one of us, this obsolete technology is a source of unique as well as shared memories; the “secret power” is that it holds an innate ability to remind us of our past years, old friends, and fondest reminiscences.

Sony Corporation, though not originally referred to by this name, began as a much smaller establishment. In the year 1946, Sony was lead by one man located in Japan. After years of company growth, the Japanese enterprise has proven to have paved a path for countless other technological companies that currently thrive, as a result. According to the numerous articles discussing Sony’s net profit in the year that my particular stereo system was made, the corporation has achieved great success. Moreover, from 1994 to 1995, Sony stated to have a net profit growth of 50.4%. This same year, the technological corporation’s pretax increased by 4.8%. About twenty years later, Sony Corporation appears to have suffered significant profit depletion. In 2014, Sony faced a net loss of $1.1 billion. This is most likely due to technological competitors, the main one being Apple, that have outdone Sony’s products in a variety of ways.

Sony is currently aiming a restructuring plan that will maximize its’ future profits. The company’s target is $4.2 billion in annual profit by March of 2018. To achieve this goal, over the course of the past two years, Sony has decided to “ease away from its reliance on computers, televisions and mobile phones,” and rather, develop smaller-scale technologies. The depletion in Sony’s overall annual profits since 1995 appears to be a direct result of the change in demands of the public. Sony’s plan to restore multiple fields in the business are necessary in order for the company to thrive similarly to the way it did twenty years ago.

“Sony Profit Recovers in Third Quarter: Electronics Sales Strong, but Outlook Clouded by Movies.” Lexis Nexis. Web. 20 Feb. 2015.

“Sony Announces $1.1b Net Loss.” Chinadaily.com. Lexis Nexis, 7 Feb. 2014. Web. 20 Feb. 2015.

Mozur, Paul. “Sony Aims for Huge Leap in Profit.” Bits Sony Aims for Huge Leap in Profit Comments. The New York Times, 18 Feb. 2015. Web. 20 Feb. 2015.

On a different note, I know for a fact that the computer still functions, but it has so much information that there is no more space left on it. It is an old MacBookPro from around the year 2004. But at the time I was very glad to find out that my uncle was about to upgrade to the new MacBook. The one that he gave me was my first ever laptop; I was the lucky beneficiary of the relatively new piece of technology. I used it up until my sophomore year at university; I used it for everything. Sadly, it got to be so ancient and outdated that it began to glitch. I could no longer store my documents on it. It was time for a new laptop.

For fear of finding something excruciatingly embarrassing that one of my cronies could potentially use as blackmail, I am reluctant to open it. Now that it is closed, I want to keep it that way for a long time. I have a feeling that one day, when I’m 35 years-old, I’m going to finally open it and be very glad I waited. Right now feels too soon to rehash those old memories.

I am absolutely dependent on my computer. It has become an extension of who I am. As a filmmaker, all of my movies are on my computer. All of my editing progress is on my computer. All of my accounts for everything are on my computer. Furthermore, my emails keep me in touch with potential employers, friends, family, and pen pals. Thank goodness I have my own computer so that I can store all of my 50 or 60 usernames and passwords that belong to me. If I didn’t have my own laptop, I would certainly fail to remember my passwords and would certainly spend a disgusting amount of time trying to recover my various username and password combinations. My laptops get me by. They keep me on my feet. They hold my memories. They are a part of my identity.

I was always excited about new technologies but was hesitant to part with my older ones that I had become attached to. Each device holds memories that develop with its use, but the desire for new technologies overrides the fondness we have for the outdated ones. After a few years with my Walkman, I moved on from my CD player, and then to the new, chick iPod Nano. After only a few years, it was time for an upgrade. To make a ong story short, I went through four different versions of iPods within the next few years. Then, in 2013 I got my first iPhone and immediately even my newest iPod became obsolete. I could do everything on the new iPhone and had no further need for my other technologies.

Today, I am unsure if I could locate each of these music technologies that I used to use and love. All of my generations of music are now lying around my home somewhere in the bottom of a box. Each of these discarded items once seemed so appealing in its newness and ability to do more and more. In their book, Greening the Media, Richard Maxwell and Toby Miller discuss the “technological sublime” as a “quasi-sacred power,”[i] which draws consumers in with an attractive appearance and the promise of a better life.[ii] Modern technologies offer something newer and better, which wears off as soon as the next device comes out, yet society is addicted to the feeling of buying something new and life-changing. In The Digital Sublime, Vincent Mosco argues that people constantly give in to myth and hype surrounding new technologies because each new device comes a new promise of better communication, better connection and the ability to do more. We buy into it every time, no matter what the product.

The beginning of my consuming and upgrading music players was with the Walkman, a cassette tape player that was once a revolutionary product made by the Sony Corporation.

After being established with a different name in 1947 in Tokyo as a start up company, Sony Corporation was introduced to America in 1960 and began producing innovative new products. Sony was on the rise, creating products such as CD players, radios and a color television. In July of 1979, Sony made a stamp in music history by introducing the Walkman[iii]. Since the creation of this personal cassette player, Sony as well as other companies have introduced a myriad of music players to society, making this once revolutionary product seem ancient. Maxwell and Miller offer an explanation about why we are so quick to throw away devices once something new comes out:

…New technologies redefine the social and cultural relationships that earlier media helped shape… Old media cannot carry certain new content… they are displaced by new media delivering higher-potency versions of old content through new channels.[iv]

Today with abundance of new, high-tech products, older devices that were once popular are outdated and unused. The decline in popularity of the Walkman foreshadowed the overall decline in popularity and profitability of the Sony Corporation.

Despite Sony’s indisputably groundbreaking products in earlier years, the company is now struggling. In 2012, Sony experienced a loss of $540 billion in revenue from the past year. Their market value in 2012 was one ninth of Samsung electronics, and one thirteenth of Apple’s. In fact, they have not made a profit since 2008 because they had not had a hit product in years.[v] Sony tried to compete with the creation of Apple’s iPod, but has not made a competitive portable music product since the Walkman in 1979.[vi]

 [vii]

In an attempt to decrease spending and increase profit, Sony steered away from their electronics branch and tried to focus its efforts and money in their other ventures such as video games, movies and software. In February of 2014, Sony sold Vaio, Sony’s PC business, to Japan Industrial, which is a Japanese private-equity firm that buys units of larger Japanese companies. Sony’s spokes person said that the Vaio brand has a stronger presence in the business world in Japan.[viii] Investors and owners are making an effort to get Sony back on the competitive market and revive the once extremely profitable company.

Sony is just one example of a company struggling in the ever changing and modernizing media environment. Like me, the rest of the world will drop an older device for the newest gadget. My purchases reflect how devices and technology companies can go from being extremely relevant with hit products to becoming obsolete in a matter of years. This begs the question, what ultimately happens to these discarded items? They are either left abandoned or are disposed of. The outdated electronics branch of Sony is a contributor to the techno-trash that everyone has acquired over the years.

However, when someone purchases the newest device, they do not think about what will happen to their old one, but are instead caught up in excitement and hope for something that will change their lives. Greening the Media illuminates, “…that the tendency to regard each emergent medium as awe inspiring and world changing relies on recurring myths of technological power in the absence of acknowledging environmental and labor realities.”[ix] Society views the creation of new technologies in a distorted way. While they may allow us to do more, everyone is blind to the fact that technologies are material objects that harm the environment during their creation, use, and disposal. I now realize that I am no different in my thought process, and before writing this I never even considered what I should do with my old devices, such as my Walkman, CD player and old iPods.

Electronic waste has become a huge environmental issue. A study done in 2005 by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency showed that there were 1.9 million to 2.2 million tons of electronic waste discarded that year, with only 379,000 tons recycled, and the remaining 1.9 million tons put in landfills.[x] The electronic industry has a huge impact on the environment, and electronic companies are moving to make recycling programs to appease the consumer demand for better disposal of products.

In 2007, Sony partnered up with Waste Management and made an effort to boost electronic recycling by covering the recycling fees of their products. Sony and Waste Management hope that other companies will follow in Sony’s footsteps in promoting the importance of recycling. They hope that covering the cost of the recycling will give people more incentive to bring their old electronics to drop off locations.[xi] Between 2007 and 2011, Sony reported that their program had recycled over 50 million pounds of Sony products in the United States.[xii]

The Safety and Health department at Sony Electronics said, “We support the recycling of our products in the same respect we have when we create them, and our ultimate goal is to take back one pound of eWaste for every pound of product we make.”[xiii] Sony made a commitment to the U.S Environmental Protection Agency to promote environmentally sound management of electronic waste through recycling products.

In 2011, Sony announced that they made it even easier to recycle old or unwanted products on their website, www.sony.com/ecotrade. It is designed to help consumers find the best way to trade-in or recycle Sony products for credit towards new products. The website has a drop-off locator, which shows customers the nearest recycling center where they can bring their unwanted electronics. The website is easy to use, and asks for your Zip Code and the type of product you wish you drop off. To test the locator, I entered the Tulane University Zip Code, 70118 and selected “portable audio player” so that I could see where to recycle my Sony Walkman and CD player.

The site came up with multiple locations, the closest of which is in Houston, Texas about 313 miles away:

If a location is far away, the website claims that Sony will ship your item free to the drop-off location for products that they manufactured.[xiv] However, this makes recycling old devices less environmentally friendly because the shipping process produces gas and the box to ship the products in create waste as well. I called Sony’s customer service at: 1-(877)-865-7669 to ask about the recycling program and found that they would not cover the shipping cost of my Sony product to the drop-off in Houston. I inquired about where the items go after reaching the drop-off location, and was told that they go to another warehouse in Texas. However, my customer service representative was unable to get in contact with anyone involved in that warehouse to ask further questions.

It is unclear where Sony products are actually recycled. It is possible that they are recycled in that warehouse in Texas. However, it is known that in some cases, recycling is sent out of the country to be dealt with. According to Barbara Kyle, the national coordinator for the Electronics TakeBack Coalition about 50 to 80 percent of electronic waste that is brought to recyclers goes to China and other developing countries. She does say, however, that manufacturers themselves are more likely to have responsible practices[xv], so Sony’s recycling may be better than this outsourcing.

It is comforting to know that as consumers, we have options about what to do with our “techno-trash.” Companies have responded to demands about being environmentally friendly with programs for recycling their products. It is important that we recognize these options and utilize them, but stay objective and realize that these recycling processes may be different than we image. As long as technologies are surrounded by myths, we will continue upgrading and buying new devices. We must learn how to keep the environment safe as our society keeps modernizing, creating new products and adding the outdated castoffs to the ever-growing heap of techno-trash.

[i] Maxwell, R., & Miller, T. (2012). Greening the media. New York: Oxford University Press. (p. 4)

[ii] IBID (p. 22)

[iii] Sony Corporation Global Headquarters. (n.d.). Retrieved March 10, 2015, from http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/CorporateInfo/History/history.html

[iv] Maxwell, R., & Miller, T. (2012). Greening the media. New York: Oxford University Press. (p. 43)

[v] Tabuchi, Hiroko. (2012) “How Sony lost its place in the Sun; Drought of hit products and a lack of focus weigh on the electronics giant.” The International Herald Tribune. LexisNexis Academic. Web.

[vi] Zaun, Todd. “Sony Says Year’s Sales and Profit Will Miss Targets.” The New York Times. (2005). LexisNexis Academic. Web.

[vii] “Eclipsed by Apple.” (2014, July 12). Retrieved March 10, 2015, from http://www.economist.com/news/business/21606845-electronics-companies-japan-are-starting-turn-themselves-around-they-are-shadow

[viii] Edwards, Cliff and Yasu, Mariko. “Sony Said in Talk to Sell Japan PC Unit to Investor Group.” Bloomberg Business. (February 2014). http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-02-04/sony-said-holding-talks-to-sell-japan-pc-unit-to-investor-group

[ix] Maxwell, R., & Miller, T. (2012). Greening the media. New York: Oxford University Press. (p. 43)

[x] Richgels, Jeff. “Sony to Cover Recycling Fees.” The Capital Times. (2007). LexisNexis Academic. Web.

[xi] IBID

[xii] “Sony Rolls Out New Trade-In & Recycling Web Site.” India Retail News. (2011). LexisNexis Academic. Web.

[xiii] IBID

[xiv] IBID

[xv] Munoz, Sarah. “Electronics Recycling Starting to Heat Up; Manufacturers, Retailers Beginning to Provide Ways to Dispose of Old Gadgets.” The Wall Street Journal. (2008). LexisNexis Academic. Web.

WORKS CITED

Belson, Ken. “Sony Says Profit Tumbled 25% From a Year Ago.” The New York Times. (October 24, 3003). LexisNexis Academic. Web.

Eclipsed by Apple. (2014, July 12). Retrieved March 10, 2015, from http://www.economist.com/news/business/21606845-electronics-companies-japan-are-starting-turn-themselves-around-they-are-shadow

Edwards, Cliff and Yasu, Mariko. “Sony Said in Talk to Sell Japan PC Unit to Investor Group.” Bloomberg Business. (February 2014). Retrieved March 10, 2015 from http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-02-04/sony-said-holding-talks-to-sell-japan-pc-unit-to-investor-group

Maxwell, R., & Miller, T. (2012). Greening the media. New York: Oxford University Press.

Mosco, V. (2004). The digital sublime myth, power, and cyberspace. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Sony Corporation Global Headquarters. (n.d.). Retrieved March 10, 2015, from http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/CorporateInfo/History/history.html

Tabuchi, Hiroko. (2012) “How Sony lost its place in the Sun; Drought of hit products and a lack of focus weigh on the electronics giant.” The International Herald Tribune. LexisNexis Academic. Web.

Zaun, Todd. “Sony Says Year’s Sales and Profit Will Miss Targets.” The New York Times. (January 21, 2005 Friday). LexisNexis Academic. Web.

Each night, we would gather by the TV and while my mother would casually sit down and begin to eat her meal, my father and I could feel each other’s eyes scanning the room for that big grey remote control. It was a nightly competition; whoever could find it first had all the power in the situation, that is to say the choice of what we were going to watch. I always preferred cable to DVDs, whereas my dad usually had a movie already in mind for us to watch. Whoever found the remote first, however, almost always had the privilege of choosing what we were all going to watch. This is when I was older, however, because when I was younger than say 10 years old, the remote was always something that belonged to my father. Once I got a bit older however, he made room for me to enter into the game of hide-and-seek. There were certain nights when I cheated (and hid the remote beforehand) and others where I am sure he did as well. Regardless, as Turkle discusses, holding this almost identical remote in my hands once again brought back swarms of memories of these family dinners that always meant so much to me yet I had seemed to forget about over time. This is the “special” quality of things or objects; as put by Turkle, the intense emotional attachment to them resulting from the fact that “we fall in love with objects that put us in touch with these ideas.”

The picture I uploaded includes the SANYO remote that plays a lead role in my childhood story sitting beside the Apple TV remote currently used by my roommates and I. It is interesting to see the sheer size difference between the two, but the emotions that they carry are similar in several ways. In the same way my father and I used to fight over the SANYO remote, my roommates and I have developed a similar dynamic surrounding the Apple TV remote. Whoever finds it first (which is even more of a challenge due to its size and tendency to disappear), gets to choose what we watch. This is something we engage in almost every day, but that I would never have thought to connect back to my childhood and my father had I not come across the SANYO remote.

The company which manufactured the remote control that I found in my house is called “SANYO”, and is a Sydney-based technology firm that has seen huge declines in profits over the past couple of decades. According to Chris Jenkins , SANYO has recently cut more than 14,000 jobs from its world-wide companies. The company had also planned to closed down 20 percent of its factories in Japan. This is a clear indication that the company has suffered an economic downturn. This article claims that the decline in profits stem from major competition in digital cameras, an item which is also quickly becoming obsolete (with the clarity of the camera on the iPhone 6, for example). However, many sources attribute the gain of zero net profit to the rapid rise of the Yen. Even after selling their cellphone business to Kyocera Corp. in 2008, Sanyo would have “fallen into the red” so to speak. This term is used in business to indicate when a business/company has fallen so far into debt that they cannot keep track of how much money they owe, for example. In struggling to avoid a shut-down, SANYO has cut off ties with fourteen of its “debt-ridden affiliates” (Bloomberg,1997). All of this information previously discussed is that which I have extracted from articles written from the years 1997-2006. It was very difficult to find any relevant articles regarding SANYO profit and sales in the year 2014, which further supports the notion of its obsolescence. Upon locating an article written in 2014 through Lexis Nexis by GlobalData, I discovered that Panasonic Corporation (a much more well-known company) has acquired 50.19% of SANYO’s shares (GlobalData Ltd., 2014). This fact illustrates the necessity for SANYO to sell its shares in order to survive, and perhaps attempt to jump-start new innovations, although at this point the chances of their revival seems unlikely.

Works Cited:
Analysts see profit potential in Sanyo; AROUND ASIA’S MARKETS; BUSINESS ASIA by Bloomberg
The International Herald Tribune, June 7, 2006 Wednesday, FINANCE; Pg. 23, 578 words, Wes Goodman
Sanyo slashes 14,000 jobs
The Australian, July 6, 2005 Wednesday All-round Country Edition, FINANCE; Pg. 24, 414 words, Chris Jenkins

Sanyo to cut operating profit forecast by 40 percent; see no net profit
Kyodo News International (Tokyo, Japan), January 10, 2009 Saturday, BUSINESS AND FINANCIAL NEWS, 314 words, Kyodo News International, Tokyo

For my high school graduation gift, I got a new laptop. The realization that I must get rid of my old, trusty computer was a scary one. Yes, all I did was complain about how slow it was, but my computer had been with me through so much, it almost felt like a part of me. It had begun to symbolize the future. As a young girl being able to type up documents felt grown up, and as I became older it transformed into the tool that would help me start the rest of my life, college essays. At the same time, I understood that my laptop had done its job and was ready to retire.

One thing that never crossed my mind is what would happen to my old laptop once it had been replaced by a newer, shinier version. And the answer is simple, nothing. It still sits dormant in my room waiting for someone to use it. I keep it in case of an emergency, but in all actuality, I am not even sure if it would even turn on at this point.

I know that soon I will have to find a way of disposing my old laptop, but I have no idea how. In high school, I volunteered at an organization that collected old technology, fixed what was broken, and then donated the gadgets to families in need. But, for the life of me, I cannot remember the name of the organization. After spending over thirty minutes on Google trying to find the organization, I have come to the conclusion that it no longer exists. I did find a few other places to drop off old technologies in my hometown, Houston.

The best option for technology donations in Houston is Goodwill or Compucycle. These donation centers, though not centrally located, accept items from PCs, servers, laptops, and game consuls to old cell phones, PDAs, tape drives, and cords. From my research, it seems as if donating my laptop would be the best way of disposing it. It would allow someone else to squeeze a few more good years out of it. But what happens after that is a question that has been running through my head nonstop. Although I do not know where my laptop will end up, I can only hope that what is now my beautiful machine of memories will not end up as pollution in a third world country.

My old laptop is an Apple Product. Apple is one of the largest technology distributer’s in the nation and has around 92,600 employees. The company was founded in 1976 by Steve Jobs and is now headquartered in Cupertino, Ca. The company mainly produces personal computers, portable digital music players, and mobile communication devices. While reviewing the list of products that Apple makes its crazy to see the variety of different technologies the company encompasses. It makes everything from iTunes (music listening service) to fonts to software and telecom technologies. The company has so many different products people could subsist solely on Apple and not lack for anything. In 2014, Apple made $182,795,000,000 in sales and had a net income of $39,510,000,000 (Corporate Affiliations 1). Even though Apple has so many resources available to them its sad to learn that recycling/disposal of products is not a higher priority. On its website, there is a page that walks users through the processing of sending back reusable products. Their website boasts that Apple meets the requirements of the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal. The site also says that Apple recycles “key components” of their products, but fails to mention what happens to the material that cannot be reused in new products? Another interesting part of Apple’s website is the list of unaffiliated places to recycle in both American and the rest of the world. But, in the United States section, Apple only give places to recycle in 14 out of the 50 states. Clearly Apple is aware that technology recycling is an important part of their industry, but there is still much work that must go into making disposal of technology more common and accessible.

Sources

“Apple – Recycling Program for IPod and Mobile Phones.” Apple – Recycling Program for IPod and Mobile Phones. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Feb. 2015.         <https://www.apple.com/recycling/ipod-cell-phone/>.

LexisNexis® Corporate Affiliations™. (February 9, 2015): LexisNexis Academic. Web.            Date Accessed: 2015/02/19.

Getting an iPod opened up a whole new chapter in my life– an era of musical discovery. To me, the secret power of the iPod was the power to discover. Now that I had this small, portable thing that would hold my music, I could search the Internet for new bands and purchase the music I found with a click of a button. I no longer had to pester my mom to drive me to the nearest record store (a now foreign concept!) to pick up a CD, but rather could just get on the computer and click to purchase whatever my heart desired, even if just one song! While some people may look at this device and just see an iPod, I look at it and see the beginning of a new chapter in my life, one that I still am in now. It was the first time I really began to understand and appreciate music and culture. I loaded this thing up with everything from Ciara to The Phantom of the Opera songs.

Sadly, as with all technologies, the time came when I had to give up my cool, blue iPod Mini. After a bit of time (I would say around 3-4 years) the battery stopped holding a charge, and I was forced to upgrade. At this point, I had already had the battery replaced once under my handy protection plan, and didn’t want to go through the hassle of doing it again. For my next birthday, I once again found myself asking for an iPod. At this point, it had become such an integral part of my life that I could not imagine living without it, and therefore decided to go through with the replacement. At this point, the “hot model” was the iPod Video, recently rebranded as the iPod Classic. It boasted more storage and the ability to play video. Although I didn’t need most of the features on it (I still do miss my Mini), I went for the purchase. Against all odds, I was able to keep this iPod working for the next few years, up until I got my first iPhone in 2009. While it was hard to part with, it did find a good home with my mom, who used it after my departure. Shockingly, unlike most Apple products, this one did not fall to the curse of planned obsolescence. While I did have to replace the battery after exactly two years (which I never gave much thought to until now), the device itself kept on working for many years after.

As I grew up (and, sadly, grew out of my Mini), I still found myself relying on my iPod and the entire iTunes system in general. Now, I could not imagine life without it. Whenever I travel back home, go to the gym, or even drive in my car, I find myself using my iPod. It allows me to be constantly entertained, and prepared for whatever musical situation I may find myself in. I have been loyal to Apple music products ever since, and am now on my second iPhone and 5^th total device. I still, however, think about my Mini and all of the joy it brought me. It reminds me of a great time in my early teenage years, and always will have a special place with me. But, the question still remained, if I didn’t want to keep this, where do I recycle it? Who profits from my iPod, and would they want to recycle it?

As it turns out, a little tech giant called Apple, who has been rolling out the devices for over a decade, created my beloved iPod. While the company recently discontinued their “Classic” iPod model, which featured a click wheel and a non-touch screen, their profits are still skyrocketing. In my research, I found a document by a company called Hoover’s, which keeps records of major companies’ financial statements. As of 2014, Apple was number 5 on the Fortune 500 ranking, racking up $65.2 million dollars in the United States in that year alone. In this time, however, the sales of iPods went down almost 50%, but the company was still able to make a large profit off of them.

The majority of Apple’s sales, however, come from the iPhone, which can be seen as a fancier and more alluring version of the iPod. iPhones have taken over the market once occupied by iPods, due to the fact that they can play music as well as a variety of other features. iPhones racked up $101.9 million dollars for Apple worldwide in 2014, which is quite a bit more than the $2.2 million coming from iPods.

Overall, Apple controls much of the overall digital market. Products such as the iPhone, iPad, and MacBook are dominating the playing field, and generating a huge amount of revenue for Apple. In order to keep up with the demands of their customers, and to ensure that people continue to buy the products they put forward, I believe that it is important for Apple to have some sort of recycling strategy in place. It turns out, this belief is correct.

Apple rolled out a recycling program way back in 2005, due to complaints from consumers. The program promised a discount towards a new Apple device with a trade in of the old one. According to a news release (published in 2005), the recycling program “emphasized that any hazardous material would not be shipped overseas for processing.” This, however, was 10 years ago. The press release also did not specify where the products would be recycled, only that they could be brought to a store and shipped away. So, has the process changed in the past 10 years?

Now, when you Google “Apple product recycling,” there are a multitude of sites that appear. Apple’s recycling program is one of the first hits, and much like the 2005 initiative all the consumer needs to do is bring (or send) in their device and they will receive credit towards a new one. Online, consumers click on which product they are trading—iPhone, iPad, or Mac. When selecting iPhone or iPad, you are brought to the page of a company called Brightstar Corp. For Macs, the recycling is done by PowerOn recycling. So, who are these companies? Where do the products go once they are sent in to the great recycling unknown?

Brightstar Corp. is a telecommunications company that provides wireless services and products around the world. In addition to this, they also offer trade in and recycling services for companies like Apple. According to their website, Brightstar is able to resell 95% and then “responsibly recycle” the remaining 5%. This is still pretty ambiguous. Searching where the products go via Google only leads to pages where the majority of people are complaining that they did not get the value that they expected. People were outraged with the money they were getting back, but not one questioned where their phones were actually going?

Next, I looked into PowerOn. Unlike Brightstar, PowerOn only focuses on recycling and repurposing electronics. Their website boast the “environmentally friendly” nature of the company, but once again does not say where the products are going once they are sent in.

The agreement that Apple has with its recycling companies provides a bit more insight into what happens to the products. Apple requires that any usable material is repurposed and made into something that could be used for future production. Nothing can be contracted to third parties, and nothing can be shipped outside of the U.S. without the written consent of Apple. The company must submit a report back to Apple upon completion.

Overall, the process of recycling is pretty ambiguous. As Maxwell and Miller discuss, a majority of the burden is put on the consumers. Apple makes the consumer return the product to the site, and does not make the whole process clear. They entice consumers with a cash discount, but do not reveal exactly where the recycled goods are going. The third party recyclers do an even worse job of revealing where things go, opting for ambiguous terms. This makes the process of recycling tech very murky and unclear.

The reason I wanted that specific Motorola Razr was because it was the hip phone to have at the time. All the kids in my class wanted one, so naturally I had to have it. However as I got older, so did the coolness of my Razr. Influxes of upgraded and high tech phones were hitting the markets, and everyone wanted the next best thing. My next cell phone was the LG Envy, which I got two years later in 7^th grade. Although they were only two years apart, the look of the devices was distinctively different. The Envy opened up from the side to expose a keyboard, making texting far easier compared to its flip phone counterpart.

By 9^th grade I had the Blackberry. It became the biggest deal to have one because everyone in my school used Blackberry Messenger (BBM) to communicate rather than texting. The times and the technologies were changing, and I always had to keep up with them.

I used various versions of the Blackberry throughout high school until my senior year, when I got the holy grail of modern technology, the iPhone. My first iPhone was an iPhone 4s, and I was so happy to hop on the Apple bandwagon. Last year I got the iPhone 5s, and I’ve used it ever since. I have been very happy with all my cell phones throughout the years at the time of their use, but I am by far most obsessed with my iPhone because it is like a portable computer that you carry around with you 24/7.

I never really considered what had happened to my old mobile devices, the ones I once cherished so dearly. When you think about what a cell phone is used for, to communicate, my hot pink razor should still be perfectly fine for people to use today. However, due to planned obsolescence, the desire for consumers to buy something simply because it is better and newer, my Razor was thrown away and disregarded after a year or two of using it. It has now come to my attention how wasteful I have been with my products despite the fact that they were perfectly functional. Most of my old cell phones sit in an old bin in my attic, or used as a toy for my little sisters to play with.

The wastefulness of technology that our culture has become so prone to is more detrimental then most believe it to be. While the cell phones of my past sit around my house collecting dust, I could still be using them today if I had taken better care of them or not bought into the desire of the “next best thing.”

One of my most outdated obsolete devices is the Razr cellphone. The phone was created by Motorola as part of their 4LTR line in July 2003, and was released in the market in 2004.

Compared to where the company was when I first got my Razr in 2005, its cell phone division is struggling. Unlike 10 years ago when the sleek flip phone was fashionable and in high demand, today the company has to compete with iPhones and other smartphones.

As of 2011, the company split into two firms, Motorola Mobility, which covers handsets and set-top boxes, and Motorola Solutions Inc., which sell police radios and barcode scanners to government and business customers. Google purchased the company for $12.5 million dollars in 2011, where they helped launch Moto X, Motorola’s first smart phone (The Telegraph 2013).

Only three years later Google sold it to China’s Lenovo for less than $3 billion dollars. According to Google’s CEO Larry Page this decision was because “The smartphone market is super competitive, and to thrive it helps to be all in when it comes to making mobile devices.” (Forbes 2014). However the purchase was not entirely advantageous because as of May 1, 2014, the profits of the company fell 8.7% percent from 2013 (Marketwatch 2014).

The history of Motorola from the birth of the Razr to today shows how changing modern technology is, and how consumers constantly want the next best thing. The disposal of the Razr and the Motorola cellphone division clearly hurt the company’s profits over time.

With the growing number of technological devices being thrown away or covered with dust in an attic somewhere, there has been an increase in environmentally damaging e-waste. The public has become more and more aware of the dangers of discarded electronic waste and Motorola has taken note of the public’s concern for the environment.

As of 2009, Motorola announced it was offering a free take back and recycling program for all of its enterprise mobility equipment. This program allows companies and users to responsibly dispose of electronics once their use has expired, rather than allowing them to contribute to an unhealthy planet.

Takeback is free for companies, and the program accepts a wide variety of Motorola-branded equipment from radios to desktop computers to cell phones, as well as non-Motorola products. Motorola has also set up takeback bins in service centers and retail outlets all over the world, expanding the companies recycling projects.

The steps to return a cellular device or other electronics are made very simple. A user simply has to download a postage label from the Motorola website, mail their packaged device to the headquarters, and it will then be refurbished for resale or recycled.

I think that this push towards recycling technology is a smart move on Motorola’s part. They appear to be very eco-friendly which is a good marketing tool for gaining the acceptance of the public. But that is exactly the problem. Some might argue that this corporate support for environmentalism is actually masking the branding opportunities for retailers and advertisers. This is referred to as the green commodity discourse, which promotes the fusion of environmentalism and the growth of profits and pleasure. Motorola’s effort to recycle e-waste makes the company looks reliable and ecofriendly, a very good business move.

Even if these recent programs developed by corporate technology companies are created with the idea of profit rather than environmentalism, I still think they are putting us in the right direction. By recycling their products or refurbishing them for resale, Motorola is making money while at the same time creating less damage to the environment: it is a win-win situation.

Works Cited

“Moto X: A New Start for Motorola?” By Laura Leichtfried, The Telegraph August 1, 2013

“Google Profits Billions With Motorola Sale to Lenovo, Keeps Patents” By Jean Baptiste Su, Forbes January 26, 2014

“Motorola Solutions Profit, Sales Drop; Project Revenue Decline” By MarketWatch May 1, 2014

“Greening The Media” By Richard Maxwell and Toby Miller. Oxford University Press 2012

“Motorola Expands E-Waste Takeback As Awareness Problem Grows” By Greener Computing Staff, Green Biz November 25, 2009

A cell phone has become like a lifeline for many people—a way to communicate with those who may be far from you, or who may be right next to you. I use my phone to call my mom who is 600 miles away, but I also use my phone to text my suitemate even if she is sitting in the next room. The way in which I, and many of my peers, use our cell phones reminds of the way in which Sherry Turkle describes us as technological “cyborgs” (52). We do not simply use our devices, we have become one with them. My cell phone is like an extension of me, and in this way it holds a “secret power” over me that many other technologies in my life may not be able to do. When I look at my phone, or hold it in my hand, I think of the power that this tiny device holds within. An iPhone can call, text, tell me what time it is, tell me where I am, tell me when Abraham Lincoln was born, tell me who the actor is in that show that I was just watching—you know the one? No? Well here, let me look it up for you.

Before there was the iPhone, there was the flip phone, and after the flip phone came the Sidekick, and after the Sidekick came the BlackBerry. I have been through my fair share of cell phones in twenty short years, and at times switching from one device to the other could be difficult. However, more often than not I planned the obsolescence of my phone by simply opting for an upgrade. Teenagers get bored with many things—hair, clothes, boys, and phones are no exception. My first was a Samsung flip phone that I inherited from my dad. When this one bit the dust, I was rewarded with a pink Sidekick. I cherished that phone until the very end, or at least until I got my BlackBerry. I would have each of my phones for about two years before an upgrade, and in those two years that phone would become like my child. It went everywhere with me, took up a lot of my attention, and made loud noises early and often. Unfortunately, almost every single one of my old phones was returned to Verizon, where they either recycled or mailed it off to an undisclosed location. The only dead phone that I was permitted to keep was my BlackBerry, which my mother and I located this winter while cleaning out my closet—a virtual burial ground for all of my old technologies. The BlackBerry is like a fossil of my adolescence; a physical record of texts sent and calls received. This now extinct phone is a secretly powerful little archive of the me I used to be.

It is unclear to me at this point in time why I decided to keep my BlackBerry, out of all of the phones that I have possessed and used over the years. However, it is one of the more “popular” of my devices. In other words, before the iPhone came along, and still for many people today, the BlackBerry is and was the smartphone of choice. The device itself is designed, manufactured, and distributed by BlackBerry Limited, a large corporation which provides multiple technological assets to its users, such as, but not limited to: instant messaging, email, Internet, texting, applications (apps), and a special type of message-sending service known as BBM, which allows BlackBerry owners to communicate with other BlackBerry owners free of the normal service charge (“BBM Shop About to Open” 2014). The company has made this service available to both Apple iOS and Android users in an effort to generate profits, according to the Ottawa Citizen, a Canadian newspaper. The CEO of BlackBerry Limited, John Chen, believes that BBM and its increased user base could be a needed source of revenue for the company, which in 2014 lost $423 million after shifting its focus from smartphones to software (“BlackBerry Revenue Falls” 2014). He hopes to see the results by the 2016 fiscal year (“BBM Shop About to Open” 2014).

BlackBerry Limited mainly creates revenue by marketing BlackBerry wireless devices such as smartphones and tablets, and by providing users with software that allows them access to email and other mobile services that require data. The sale of BlackBerry smartphones decreased from 28,100,100 in 2013 to 13,700,000 devices in 2014, although they are still partnered with 665 different distributors in over 170 countries. Overall, the company operates two large centers in Waterloo, Ontario, which serve as the headquarters for engineering, manufacturing, research, and development. There are multiple smaller facilities located around the globe in Montreal, Quebec, Texas, North Carolina, the Middle East, Africa, and Asia, to name a few. Most of the company’s actual manufacturing is outsourced. As far as profits go in 2014, the net income totals more than 5.87 million U.S. dollars, while the operating revenue is over $6 million (“Financial Post Corporate Survey” 2015).

After doing some research on the actual structure of BlackBerry Limited, I decided to look into the policy that the company withholds regarding the disposal of their products once they are no longer functioning. A Google search revealed that the company actually has a rather substantial sustainability policy, which includes measures taken to ensure supply chain reputability, the use of environmentally safe materials and packaging, a reduction of the ecological footprint of both creation and product use, and a recycling plan for devices that have reached their end. I have included a graphic below, which is located on the corporation’s “Sustainability at BlackBerry” page:

As one can see from the picture, BlackBerry Limited seems to be fairly committed to the mission that Richard Maxwell and Toby Miller so expertly highlight in their book, Greening the Media. Not only does the company claim to ensure the use of safe labor and production, it also insists that its products are created to have the least possible environmental impact through the implementation of eco-friendly materials and resources. Blackberry Limited provides a link on its site to the BlackBerry Policy for Control of Substances in Products, which includes a list of banned, restricted, and reportable substances that will not be used or used only in secure amounts in the making of your device (which is still mildly alarming despite the regulation). The site also mentions the topic of planned obsolescence, or the pre-determined expiration of certain products by their makers. Maxwell and Miller also address this phenomenon and its harmful effects on the environment by forcing the increased manufacture and use of technologies before they are even necessary. However, BlackBerry Limited asserts that its products are made with this issue in mind, and the site explains further that products are “built to last” through software updates, reuse and refurbishment, warranty, and recyclability.

By perusing the site, I learned that BlackBerry provides users a way to recycle their phones by packaging them up and mailing them to a provided address, where they will be “responsibly recycled.” I was unsure of exactly what this phrase entailed, so I decided to call the number provided to me on the site for more information on the company’s management of e-waste. I wanted to know where exactly the devices would be sent to after they were received and processed. After listening to some disastrous music, I was put through to a very nice man named Tom, who was baffled by what he referred to as my “very particular question.” Tom asked if he could do some research, and put me on hold for about ten minutes, continuously thanking me for my patience. When he got back to me, he informed me that the devices will be taken apart, and the individual pieces will be used to make new products. Those parts that cannot be directly used in this process will be sent back to the manufacturer where they will most likely be used to refurbish old devices. Tom was not able to tell me specifically what would become of the potentially unusable parts, but he implied that it is a rare occurrence for any of them to be rendered completely obsolete. Tom was incredibly helpful and was genuinely impressed with my environmental awareness. He told me that it was “encouraging to know that people like me still exist.” Although it is important to question the integrity of this information, I hope that my and Tom’s findings are indeed truthful, and that BlackBerry Limited does practice sustainable business.

Works Cited

BlackBerry revenue falls below a $1 billion, The Bismarck Tribune, March 29, 2014 Saturday, MONEY; Pg. 6D, 573 words

BBM Shop about to open; BlackBerry believes Messenger can be a profit generator Ottawa Citizen, March 26, 2014 Wednesday, BUSINESS &; TECHNOLOGY; Pg. D1, 648 words, Matt Hartley, Financial Post.

Financial Post Corporate Survey, BlackBerry Limited, Ticker: BB; BBRY, 2197 words.

Maxwell, Richard, and Toby Miller. Greening the Media. New York: Oxford UP, 2012. Print.

“Sustainability at BlackBerry.” Product Sustainability. BlackBerry Limited, n.d. Web. 12 Mar. http://us.blackberry.com/company/about-us/corporate-responsibility/product-sustainability.html#sustainable-at-the-source&gt

Turkle, Sherry, (Jun 9 2007), “The Secret Power of Things We Hold Dear,” The New Scientist, 50-52.

When I was four years old we moved out of our apartment to our house that we now live in. Our VHS films also got a big upgrade when we designated three drawers in our TV unit for our Disney films. Our family traditions of watching the films carried on until we purchased a new TV. With the new, bigger flat screen TVs on the market; we decided to replace our small low quality TV. With the TV came brand new features such as a CD player so we can play our Disney music rather than just dancing along to the films. Unfortunately, the TV only came with a player for our DVDs and not for our videocassette devices. We now rented the same exact movies that we had on the Sony VHS tapes in the DVD form since we did not have the technology to play them. While we could convert some old home video VHS films into DVD form, we could not with our Disney films due to copyright violations. Tarleton Gillespie, author of “Wired Shut: Copyright and the Shape of Digital Culture” would reason that my family could not convert the Disney videocassette films into DVDs because they are “trusted systems.” Regulatory systems are built in the videocassettes to control and prevent users from illegally replicating the copyrighted material. If my family could have easily transferred our Disney films into a DVD format, there would be no financial incentive for Disney and Sony to bring their DVD form of the films into the marketplace and would discourage them from sharing their material with the consumers.

Sony, like my family, also struggled shifting their technology production with the changing times. The Sony VHS format of films boomed until the production of the DVD form in 1997. Although the evolution from VHS to DVD was slow, the final step in the promoting the new form of technology was in August 2006. 20^th Century Fox and Lucas Film announced the first major skip from VHS, straight to DVD for the Star Wars: Episode III movie (Contra Costa Times 2006). In 2007 Sony spent $24.2 billion on DVD’s and VHS combine; however, VHS only accounted for $100 million of the spending (Japan Times 2007). Finally after the videocassette tapes rapid declined over the years, they have become obsolete in Sony’s present day production.

Sony’s profits began rapidly suffering from the growing success of downloadable music and on-demand movies. In order to save money, in October 2010 Sony transferred all their DVD, VHS, and CD manufacturing to one plant in Terre Haute Indiana and laid off 2.5% of its work force (The Tribune-Star 2010). Sony’s difficulty adjusting to new technology caused them a $1.1 billion net loss from it previous estimated 300 million-dollar in profits in 2014. This loss forced them to transfer a portion of their failing business, including smartphones, tablets, and PCs, to a new company established by Japan Industrial Partners. The business transfer will cause Sony to cut another five thousand jobs by March 2015 (China Daily 2015). Sony’s challenges of keeping up with new technology could eventually cause them bankruptcy.

Like Sony, my family too does not know what to do with our obsolete forms of technology. Now, years later our three drawers of Disney VHS films still sit, untouched in their respected places. The films are perfectly wound and their cases do not have a scratch. I can argue that I do not want to throw them away because it would be a waste of a quality movie. The truth lies in Sherry Turkle’s argument, I am holding on to these VHS films for their power of nostalgia. Every time I open one of the drawers I can see my dad spinning around our apartment with my sister on his shoulders dancing to the beat of Tarzan’s Trashing the Camp song.

Although it’s possible my films might be worth money one day, as they are the original versions of Disney films; however, there is no reason to hold on to these VHS films. I found that when people attempt to recycle their VHS tapes, normal recycling plants reject the material in fear the tape from the cassettes would break the machinery. Upon farther research, I discovered a new company called GreenDisk provides a pick up service to dispose of old VHS tapes. They are a national nonprofit organization that collects old pieces of technology anywhere from floppy disks to VHS tapes. They melt disks to be reused for auto parts and appliances as well as refurbish old inkjet cartridges and cell-phones. The GreenDisk website says that the technology that cannot be reused is broken down to its smallest components, such as metals and plastics, and almost 100% said material is reused for their product, GreenDisk diskettes. The website claims that no poisonous or obsolete products are sent overseas to third world countries like the majority of supposed “recycled” techno-trash. GreenDisk works with over 350 companies, including Microsoft and Boeing, to give them their recycled parts. While GreenDisk provides an eco-friendly service, Toby Miller, author of “Greening the Media” would argue that it is not their responsibility to provide safe methods of cycling the technology. Sony should make their products in a way for it to be safely recycled and reused. There will not be real ecological change by leaving individual customers responsible for discovering methods of recycling technology.

While I did find one successful and safe company to turn my videocassette disks to, I am not satisfied with my scarce results. Until I want to box up my Disney films and send them to GreenDisk, these numerous films will continue to waste space in the drawers. There needs to be an easier way to properly dispose of techno-trash.

Refs:

“Electronics Recycling Services CD Recycling Services DVD Electronics Video Tape.” Electronics Recycling Services CD Recycling Services DVD Electronics Video     Tape. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Mar. 2015.

Greninger, Howard. “Sony moving all of its DVD production to TH: Move will not      create new jobs in Wabash Valley.” The Tribune-Star (Terre Haute, Indiana). (March 2, 2010 Tuesday ): 351 words. LexisNexis Academic. Web. Date      Accessed: 2015/03/08.

Lisa, . “Company takes out the technotrash; GreenDisk makes it easy for companies and          individuals to recycle their floppy disks, cell phones.” Contra Costa Times        (California).    (June 11, 2006 Sunday ): 694 words. LexisNexis Academic. Web. Date Accessed:          2015/03/10.

“Sony announces $1.1b net loss, to sell PC unit.” China Daily. (February 7, 2014 Friday          ): 490 words. LexisNexis Academic. Web. Date Accessed: 2015/03/13.

Takahara, Kanako. “Sony sees 15% fall in profit for quarter.” Japan Times (Tokyo).     (January 31, 2007 Wednesday ): 467 words. LexisNexis Academic. Web. Date          Accessed: 2015/03/08.