I really appreciate their effort to go towards more recycling, but to me a lot of this is completely moot as long as they don’t provide a stronger incentive to surrender your old devices for recycling. It’s actually really simple to reach $0 trade-in value due to absolutely silly things like a scratched display. Why would I be giving you back my iPhone for free when even glass bottles are $0.5 when recommissioned…
It's all just marketing fluff, their 2030 goal is carbon neutrality but their gross emissions are 15 million tons a year and they only offset 70 thousand. They'd probably achieve more just by putting HDMI, DisplayPort and Target Display Mode into their monitors and iMacs.
Of course they are, and the order "reduce, reuse, recycle" are in that order for a reason-- reuse (via resale) is superior to recycling the product itself.
Not having a phone in the first place is the best for the environment. Failing that, having someone else reuse that phone is best. Only if all else fails is recycling the preferred option.
So of course people are going to concentrate on the problem of people just throwing these things away. And that's for anything. Not just phones.
Only in some areas, and only voluntarily (perhaps except for CA) - Apple will take a computer I believe, but sometimes you get $0 'value' from it.
If they offer even anything, you'll get a lot more pickup - everyone will learn "get a discount at the Apple Store if you bring in an old PC" and reduce the amount of electronic waste.
However, done too well or for too much, and you could greatly reduce the availability of older still-working machines.
It could be a low bar for "you can't bring in a destroyed remains of a Mac Classic and get the discount" - but actually, allowing that would be a net good for the world, and wouldn't cost more than the (easily gamed) EDU discount anyway.
You know the reason why you get five cents back for a recycling a glass bottle, right? It’s because the government taxed you when you bought the drink and now you’re getting the tax rebate for recycling It’s not related to the value of the materials.
I know this is mostly marketing, but I appreciate the discourse and effort they seems to put into this. Companies are a poor choice for governance/directions to avoid a tragedy of the common anyway, the answers should come from a governmental body, so any unforced effort put on recycling by companies are good.
Recycling is mostly greenwashing. I mean, it is good, but the order is Reduce, Reuse, Repair, Recycle. Recycling is the last option, when everything else has failed and the thing is heading for the landfill (or worse).
Every device they take for "recycling" is a failure of the first 3 "R"s, especially if it is still working or it is just a dead battery, but is good for their business, so no wonder they insist on recycling.
I really like their work on packaging though. Not just because it reduces the plastic waste produced by Apple, it is not much in the grand scheme of things, but it also sets an example. Apple has always been a trendsetter when it comes to design, and their packaging is given a lot of attention.
I don't have the numbers of other manufacturers, but 30% doesn't sound like outrageously much to me. That still is an overwhelming majority of non-recycled materials. An improvement is good, but 30% is nothing worth writing home about.
The shipped nearly 250 million phones last year plus millions of other products. Having 30% recycled materials across a production line of that scale is massively impressive if you ask me.
Does anyone know of a trustworthy third party that scrutinizes Apple's claims? I'm accusing Apple of lying, but I'd like to get more context than "100 percent recycled cobalt". That sounds great, but what about all the other metals? What does 'recycled' mean here, exactly? And so on.
To see previous ones, simply change the year in the URL.
You can get to that from apple.com/environment or apple.com/2030 (which redirects to the former). Near the end, right before and in the appendix you can find third-party independent reviews and assessments.
Now, are those trustworthy? I don’t know. But it gives you the context to start looking. The broader document will also probably help answer the other specific questions.
I suspect the OP made a mistake and forgot the word “not” in “I'm accusing Apple of lying, but I'd like to get more context than” (otherwise the “but” makes little sense).
I expect they are asking in good faith if there are audits, not accusing the auditors of being corrupt.
It really comes down to whether we trust Apple to do the work; auditors can be found that will certify anything you need even if not at the fraud levels of Arthur Anderson.
And this kind of thing can be hard to independently verify.
Given Apple’s track record I suspect they actually do care about this internally and spend the effort to make sure it is “real”.
Framework is the industry benchmark. To me, anyone doing anything less than full modularity doesn’t actually care about e-waste.
Framework has proven that it is possible to make a great machine that is modular as well as forward and backward compatible, and they’ve done it with a comparatively tiny group of employees.
Same deal with Fairphone. Apple can brag about sustainability the day they ship a phone, wireless earbuds, or smartwatch with a battery that the user can replace with a basic screwdriver or less.
If tiny companies like Fairphone and Framework can manage to put out products like this, imagine what a company with the kind of resources Apple has could do with the same concept.
Also, at a moment when "AI" appears in practically all tech marketing, in this environmental impact report they manage to not mention at all the impact of their ChatGPT integration or their plans for an upgraded Siri.
I’d trust their assessment more than a vague “everyone knows”. There’s nothing “everyone knows”.
Should Apple be better at repairability? Absolutely! But let’s criticise accurately and in good faith. When we don’t, points are easily dismissed and no one takes the valid parts seriously.
So no, it’s not what the above scores tell, because you were actively selective. If you scroll down the list in good faith (with is sorted from Newest to Oldest) what you see is that Apple is not the worst and has been getting better starting with the 15.
> Polite reminder that companies don't care about us if we love them or support them or not. Especially online.
You don’t have to tell me that, I’m an active critic of Tim Cook and the current state of Apple.
I’m also pretty vocal about not shilling for corporations and billionaires which would sell your nuts in a heartbeat. But I do care about criticism being valid, because when it’s not people ignore the valid points.
Again, Apple should absolutely do better and so should other companies. But lets call them out on what they actually do (or don’t), false accusations don’t help.
How do those numbers look with similar products from Huawei, Samsung, etc...? Fairphone/HMD are competitors focused on repairability above other factors so it's not really a fair comparison.
> But let’s criticise accurately and in good faith.
Apple pioneered some huge anti-repairability measures like e.g. soldered-in RAM.
Wasn't always that way though. I recall repairing a late 2011 MBP, so contemporary to the first soldered MBAs. Really easy to work on, with the battery held in place with just two triangular screws. That was four years ago and the user is still using it.
In doing an "everyone knows" assessment, you should analyze iFixit scores over time, which is what reputation is built on, rather than a point in time. Additionally, we're talking about Apple as a whole, not just one product. They've had several Macbooks that had scores of 1/10, and the Airpods received a 0/10. Even a recent iPhone had its score reduced from a 7/10 down to a 4:
I have machine washed my Airpods multiple times and they still work, and I use them for 3+ years. Seems like a good enough product, based on the alternatives available in the market.
However if we're going to talk about "eco progress" specifically we do have to talk about repairability. To be fair though, a long lasting product is probably more "green" than any easily repaired one in many circumstances.
Not op but that's missing the forest for the tree. Those devices are not meant to be e-waste conscious at all, which is the undertone here: you can't replace the battery yourself, you can't expand storage when you need, you can't safely expand their life when they are outside of Apple support period because they are soft and hardware black boxes. Instead, you just buy anew.
True, Apple is no more no less guilty of this than the competition, but they are also not shifting the needle while pretending to do so, with so many untaped opportunities.
Not true at all. I have a close friend (not an electronics or programming nerd in any way) which has replaced the battery (and a screen) on multiple iPhones with nothing more than iFixit instructions.
> you can't safely expand their life
Again, not true. See above.
> with so many untaped opportunities.
Which is obvious I agree with, since I said they absolutely should be better at repairability. But consider the dismissive tone of the original comment, which is justified with false information.
To give you an exaggerated example, let’s say someone is telling you about all the awful practices Nestlé engages in. All of them are true, but then they end with “and their CEO is literally Hitler, who survived and changed his face due to an agreement with the Beelzebub, and is going to control humanity through chocolate”. At that point most people would dismiss them as a nut job and ignore the other true valid points as fabrications too.
Which is why we should criticise, yes, but based on truth, not lies and rage bait.
They didn't say "nobody can replace the battery themselves", and "you" here was probably intended to mean "a normal consumer". Relative to items with replaceable batteries (a TV remote control, a camera, a pre-iPhone mobile phone), the batteries are extremely hard to replace.
The batteries are also not safe to replace, relative to items with replaceable batteries. There is a very low chance of me accidentally damaging my TV remote control while replacing the batteries.
None of the information you're responding to is false, and it's perhaps worth asking yourself why you're here defending Apple.
There's an easier argument that is simply "But Samsung!".
> and "you" here was probably intended to mean "a normal consumer".
Which is why I used a normal consumer as an example.
> None of the information you're responding to is false, and it's perhaps worth asking yourself why you're here defending Apple.
I’m not defending Apple, I’m defending accuracy. When someone says something inaccurate about someone or something I oppose, I try to correct that too. It’s important that arguments are based on truth, because when they are not people start dismissing the true with the false.
My comment history shows I’m an Apple user but am constantly criticising its current state and Tim Cook. You’ll find more comments of mine criticising than praising them.
Perhaps it’s worth asking yourself why you see someone making an argument once and immediately assume they may have ulterior motives, and why you’re actively ignoring the arguments which do not feed your view, including my clear and repeated assertions in the thread that Apple should absolutely do better.
> There's an easier argument that is simply "But Samsung!".
Which was not once my argument. I abhor whataboutism.
If I never have to open it up and repair it before it’s genuinely obsolete, then repairability is much less important to me. Part of why I buy Apple products for decades is that they seemingly never break and I take good care of my stuff. I don’t even bother getting AppleCare anymore because I never end up using it.
Apple products last longer, retain their value longer, and are supported longer than their peers virtually across the board.
AppleCare is extremely cheap and comprehensive. I have had one Apple product fail in at least fifteen years and it was replaced without hesitation. It’s been nearly a decade since I’ve had an iPhone screen crack from dropping, and that used to be a regular occurrence. And if I do, again, it’s covered under AppleCare.
There are many harsh criticisms to be leveled against the company. This is not one of them.
There's nothing wrong with planning for a certain device lifespan, provided it's long enough. But there's a bell curve here: it doesn't make sense to plan for 20 years of support if 99% of the devices are broken or replaced by their users by then.
Also, Apple repair prices are high, but not outrageous. There will always be someone claiming they can do it for less, but not many that will give the same guarantees Apple does.
Of all the major phone and computer manufacturers Apple is the least guilty of planned obsolescence IMO. Their hardware lasts forever if you take good care of it. And they provide software updates for much longer than anyone else.
I really appreciate their effort to go towards more recycling, but to me a lot of this is completely moot as long as they don’t provide a stronger incentive to surrender your old devices for recycling. It’s actually really simple to reach $0 trade-in value due to absolutely silly things like a scratched display. Why would I be giving you back my iPhone for free when even glass bottles are $0.5 when recommissioned…
It's all just marketing fluff, their 2030 goal is carbon neutrality but their gross emissions are 15 million tons a year and they only offset 70 thousand. They'd probably achieve more just by putting HDMI, DisplayPort and Target Display Mode into their monitors and iMacs.
https://images.apple.com/environment/pdf/Apple_Environmental...
> Why would I be giving you back my iPhone for free
As opposed to what? trashing it? You'd rather throw your iPhone in the trash than just hand it to them when you're in the store already?
Excuse my ignorance, I have always been an Android user, but are iPhones not resalable?
Of course they are, and the order "reduce, reuse, recycle" are in that order for a reason-- reuse (via resale) is superior to recycling the product itself.
Resale or sticking it in a drawer "just in case"
Not throwing it away is a win though.
It's the throwing it away that is the problem.
Not having a phone in the first place is the best for the environment. Failing that, having someone else reuse that phone is best. Only if all else fails is recycling the preferred option.
So of course people are going to concentrate on the problem of people just throwing these things away. And that's for anything. Not just phones.
Sticking in a drawer "just in case" is throwing it away while it takes up space in your house and can't be recycled.
Since they offer the EDU discount they might as well offer a blanket “it boots get $100 off” deal for returned machines.
Though the cost of responsibly recycle and dispose of an old computer might make the $0 offer actually a decent one.
They already do that in the UK https://www.apple.com/uk/shop/trade-in
Google do similar, as do most electronics retailers.
Is that not not a thing in the US? Perhaps it ought to be.
Only in some areas, and only voluntarily (perhaps except for CA) - Apple will take a computer I believe, but sometimes you get $0 'value' from it.
If they offer even anything, you'll get a lot more pickup - everyone will learn "get a discount at the Apple Store if you bring in an old PC" and reduce the amount of electronic waste.
However, done too well or for too much, and you could greatly reduce the availability of older still-working machines.
If they’re recycling it, what does it matter if it boots? The aluminum is worth nothing? I’m sure there’s bits of gold and other things.
It could be a low bar for "you can't bring in a destroyed remains of a Mac Classic and get the discount" - but actually, allowing that would be a net good for the world, and wouldn't cost more than the (easily gamed) EDU discount anyway.
You know the reason why you get five cents back for a recycling a glass bottle, right? It’s because the government taxed you when you bought the drink and now you’re getting the tax rebate for recycling It’s not related to the value of the materials.
It’s not like recycling through other means is hard, is it?
I expect most of that 30% recycled material is from other sources than traded in devices.
I know this is mostly marketing, but I appreciate the discourse and effort they seems to put into this. Companies are a poor choice for governance/directions to avoid a tragedy of the common anyway, the answers should come from a governmental body, so any unforced effort put on recycling by companies are good.
If they want "eco progress" they should make their devices repairable.
Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. *In that priority*
Reduce & Reuse by making it repairable!
See: https://www.epa.gov/recycle
Well Reduce is really more "Why do you need this (device/pair of shoes/car/shirt/whatever) in the first place?"
But the Reuse part is definitely served, at least in part, through repair.
Recycling is mostly greenwashing. I mean, it is good, but the order is Reduce, Reuse, Repair, Recycle. Recycling is the last option, when everything else has failed and the thing is heading for the landfill (or worse).
Every device they take for "recycling" is a failure of the first 3 "R"s, especially if it is still working or it is just a dead battery, but is good for their business, so no wonder they insist on recycling.
I really like their work on packaging though. Not just because it reduces the plastic waste produced by Apple, it is not much in the grand scheme of things, but it also sets an example. Apple has always been a trendsetter when it comes to design, and their packaging is given a lot of attention.
I don't have the numbers of other manufacturers, but 30% doesn't sound like outrageously much to me. That still is an overwhelming majority of non-recycled materials. An improvement is good, but 30% is nothing worth writing home about.
The shipped nearly 250 million phones last year plus millions of other products. Having 30% recycled materials across a production line of that scale is massively impressive if you ask me.
Ah, good morning HN. Eager to read all the negativity about something that's on its face positive. XD
Good job Apple. Now more to do.
[dead]
Does anyone know of a trustworthy third party that scrutinizes Apple's claims? I'm accusing Apple of lying, but I'd like to get more context than "100 percent recycled cobalt". That sounds great, but what about all the other metals? What does 'recycled' mean here, exactly? And so on.
Not sure if it's trustworthy, but they ran into trouble advertising this in Europe: https://9to5mac.com/2023/10/24/carbon-neutral-apple-watch-cl...
Check their annual report.
https://www.apple.com/environment/pdf/Apple_Environmental_Pr...
To see previous ones, simply change the year in the URL.
You can get to that from apple.com/environment or apple.com/2030 (which redirects to the former). Near the end, right before and in the appendix you can find third-party independent reviews and assessments.
Now, are those trustworthy? I don’t know. But it gives you the context to start looking. The broader document will also probably help answer the other specific questions.
They include their auditor's reports in their document, around page 100: https://www.apple.com/environment/pdf/Apple_Environmental_Pr...
Do you also distrust those?
> Do you also distrust those?
I suspect the OP made a mistake and forgot the word “not” in “I'm accusing Apple of lying, but I'd like to get more context than” (otherwise the “but” makes little sense).
I expect they are asking in good faith if there are audits, not accusing the auditors of being corrupt.
It really comes down to whether we trust Apple to do the work; auditors can be found that will certify anything you need even if not at the fraud levels of Arthur Anderson.
And this kind of thing can be hard to independently verify.
Given Apple’s track record I suspect they actually do care about this internally and spend the effort to make sure it is “real”.
Framework is the industry benchmark. To me, anyone doing anything less than full modularity doesn’t actually care about e-waste.
Framework has proven that it is possible to make a great machine that is modular as well as forward and backward compatible, and they’ve done it with a comparatively tiny group of employees.
Same deal with Fairphone. Apple can brag about sustainability the day they ship a phone, wireless earbuds, or smartwatch with a battery that the user can replace with a basic screwdriver or less.
If tiny companies like Fairphone and Framework can manage to put out products like this, imagine what a company with the kind of resources Apple has could do with the same concept.
Phone screens dont need to be user-swappable but apple should be forced to sell each module (screen, frame, camera board, main board, etc).
Just the battery would be a great start.
For a laptop, nearly everything should be modular.
This sounds like classic greenwashing PR.
From the company that popularized completely unrepairable earbuds with non-replaceable batteries.
What other company has ever sold wireless earbuds with a replaceable battery?
Fairphone. https://www.fairphone.com/fairbuds
Fairphone has the Fairbuds
They missed out on the massive trademark lawsuit over “Fairpods Pro”.
Also, at a moment when "AI" appears in practically all tech marketing, in this environmental impact report they manage to not mention at all the impact of their ChatGPT integration or their plans for an upgraded Siri.
Can we stop posting Apple's PR pieces here? Everyone knows they score the lowest on repairability so this really means shit.
> Everyone knows they score the lowest on repairability
Tell that to iFixit.
https://www.ifixit.com/repairability/smartphone-repairabilit...
I’d trust their assessment more than a vague “everyone knows”. There’s nothing “everyone knows”.
Should Apple be better at repairability? Absolutely! But let’s criticise accurately and in good faith. When we don’t, points are easily dismissed and no one takes the valid parts seriously.
I'm confused. In the link you shared:
iPhone Air - 7/10 (Provisional)
iPhone 17 Pro - 7/10 (Provisional)
Fairphone 6 - 10/10
HMD Fusion/Skyline - 9/10
> But let’s criticise accurately and in good faith.
Isn't that what the scores above tell (which I brought up in my original comment)?
Plus, this is only for their smartphone line up. What about their headphones and other products? Airpods Pro Max is a 6/10, for example:
https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/AirPods+Max+Teardown/139369
Polite reminder that companies don't care about us if we love them or support them or not. Especially online.
> I'm confused. In the link you shared
Also in the link I shared:
* Google Pixel 10: 6
* Nothing Phone 3: 3
* Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 7: 3
* Samsung Galaxy S25 Edge: 5 (Provisional)
And many more.
So clearly Apple does not “score the lowest”.
> Isn't that what the scores above tell
So no, it’s not what the above scores tell, because you were actively selective. If you scroll down the list in good faith (with is sorted from Newest to Oldest) what you see is that Apple is not the worst and has been getting better starting with the 15.
> Polite reminder that companies don't care about us if we love them or support them or not. Especially online.
You don’t have to tell me that, I’m an active critic of Tim Cook and the current state of Apple.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
I’m also pretty vocal about not shilling for corporations and billionaires which would sell your nuts in a heartbeat. But I do care about criticism being valid, because when it’s not people ignore the valid points.
Again, Apple should absolutely do better and so should other companies. But lets call them out on what they actually do (or don’t), false accusations don’t help.
How do those numbers look with similar products from Huawei, Samsung, etc...? Fairphone/HMD are competitors focused on repairability above other factors so it's not really a fair comparison.
> But let’s criticise accurately and in good faith.
Apple pioneered some huge anti-repairability measures like e.g. soldered-in RAM.
Wasn't always that way though. I recall repairing a late 2011 MBP, so contemporary to the first soldered MBAs. Really easy to work on, with the battery held in place with just two triangular screws. That was four years ago and the user is still using it.
I consider soldered-in RAM a reliability win. It's more shock resistant and a connector that doesn't exist can not fail.
Was that ever an issue for you?
I have broken the connectors that held in RAM on a Mac.
In doing an "everyone knows" assessment, you should analyze iFixit scores over time, which is what reputation is built on, rather than a point in time. Additionally, we're talking about Apple as a whole, not just one product. They've had several Macbooks that had scores of 1/10, and the Airpods received a 0/10. Even a recent iPhone had its score reduced from a 7/10 down to a 4:
https://www.ifixit.com/News/82493/we-are-retroactively-dropp...
(I'm a happy Apple user across all of their products, but I have no illusion that they're easily repairable)
Are there tradeoffs to repair-ability?
I have machine washed my Airpods multiple times and they still work, and I use them for 3+ years. Seems like a good enough product, based on the alternatives available in the market.
Absolutely. Durability, size, etc.
However if we're going to talk about "eco progress" specifically we do have to talk about repairability. To be fair though, a long lasting product is probably more "green" than any easily repaired one in many circumstances.
Not op but that's missing the forest for the tree. Those devices are not meant to be e-waste conscious at all, which is the undertone here: you can't replace the battery yourself, you can't expand storage when you need, you can't safely expand their life when they are outside of Apple support period because they are soft and hardware black boxes. Instead, you just buy anew.
True, Apple is no more no less guilty of this than the competition, but they are also not shifting the needle while pretending to do so, with so many untaped opportunities.
> you can't replace the battery yourself
Not true at all. I have a close friend (not an electronics or programming nerd in any way) which has replaced the battery (and a screen) on multiple iPhones with nothing more than iFixit instructions.
> you can't safely expand their life
Again, not true. See above.
> with so many untaped opportunities.
Which is obvious I agree with, since I said they absolutely should be better at repairability. But consider the dismissive tone of the original comment, which is justified with false information.
To give you an exaggerated example, let’s say someone is telling you about all the awful practices Nestlé engages in. All of them are true, but then they end with “and their CEO is literally Hitler, who survived and changed his face due to an agreement with the Beelzebub, and is going to control humanity through chocolate”. At that point most people would dismiss them as a nut job and ignore the other true valid points as fabrications too.
Which is why we should criticise, yes, but based on truth, not lies and rage bait.
They didn't say "nobody can replace the battery themselves", and "you" here was probably intended to mean "a normal consumer". Relative to items with replaceable batteries (a TV remote control, a camera, a pre-iPhone mobile phone), the batteries are extremely hard to replace.
The batteries are also not safe to replace, relative to items with replaceable batteries. There is a very low chance of me accidentally damaging my TV remote control while replacing the batteries.
None of the information you're responding to is false, and it's perhaps worth asking yourself why you're here defending Apple.
There's an easier argument that is simply "But Samsung!".
> and "you" here was probably intended to mean "a normal consumer".
Which is why I used a normal consumer as an example.
> None of the information you're responding to is false, and it's perhaps worth asking yourself why you're here defending Apple.
I’m not defending Apple, I’m defending accuracy. When someone says something inaccurate about someone or something I oppose, I try to correct that too. It’s important that arguments are based on truth, because when they are not people start dismissing the true with the false.
My comment history shows I’m an Apple user but am constantly criticising its current state and Tim Cook. You’ll find more comments of mine criticising than praising them.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
Perhaps it’s worth asking yourself why you see someone making an argument once and immediately assume they may have ulterior motives, and why you’re actively ignoring the arguments which do not feed your view, including my clear and repeated assertions in the thread that Apple should absolutely do better.
> There's an easier argument that is simply "But Samsung!".
Which was not once my argument. I abhor whataboutism.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
I’d appreciate if you didn’t straw man.
If I never have to open it up and repair it before it’s genuinely obsolete, then repairability is much less important to me. Part of why I buy Apple products for decades is that they seemingly never break and I take good care of my stuff. I don’t even bother getting AppleCare anymore because I never end up using it.
How about stop making planned obsolence products? How about not charging outrageous prices when their computers need repair?
Apple products last longer, retain their value longer, and are supported longer than their peers virtually across the board.
AppleCare is extremely cheap and comprehensive. I have had one Apple product fail in at least fifteen years and it was replaced without hesitation. It’s been nearly a decade since I’ve had an iPhone screen crack from dropping, and that used to be a regular occurrence. And if I do, again, it’s covered under AppleCare.
There are many harsh criticisms to be leveled against the company. This is not one of them.
In my experience, Apple phones are pretty good at not being obsolete.
I gave my old iPhone X to my father who's still using it, 9 years later, with software updates to iOS.
Compare that to the Google Pixel 2 (which came out in the same year), got it's last software update 3 years later.
Iphone x hasn't received ios updates since 2023. That's better than 3 years, but it's not receiving updates any more
It hasn't gotten a major update since 2023, but it still gets security updates and bug fixes.
There's nothing wrong with planning for a certain device lifespan, provided it's long enough. But there's a bell curve here: it doesn't make sense to plan for 20 years of support if 99% of the devices are broken or replaced by their users by then.
Also, Apple repair prices are high, but not outrageous. There will always be someone claiming they can do it for less, but not many that will give the same guarantees Apple does.
Of all the major phone and computer manufacturers Apple is the least guilty of planned obsolescence IMO. Their hardware lasts forever if you take good care of it. And they provide software updates for much longer than anyone else.