Platform Lessons for the Circular Economy: Apple vs. Android
Exploring Structural Advantages and Disadvantages
Introduction
The iPhone (iOS) and Android are iconic examples of platform business models. Both are widely credited for connecting millions of users with third-party app developers, creating vast ecosystems that generate billions of dollars in value far beyond the core physical product of the smartphone. As a result, iPhone (iOS) and Android have become staple business school cases of successful platform business models, thanks to their scale and the lessons they provide for digital ecosystems.
Yet these two platforms are far from equal when it comes to going circular. Apple is significantly ahead of Android. Multiple independent analyses consistently rank Apple as the leader in sustainability and circular economy practices among smartphone manufacturers. Refurbished Apple products, particularly iPhones, command higher resale values and are more in demand than those of other manufacturers. One recent survey found that 1 in 4 iPhone users plan to trade in or exchange their phone, compared to just 1 in 10 Android users.1 Research also indicates that Apple consumers typically keep their phones longer than Android consumers.2
Playing Catch Up
Google is accelerating its efforts in circularity. One example is found in the new features introduced to the Android 16, which is expected to be released in June 2025.3 A new “trade-in mode” called the Android Debug Bridge (ADB) aims to streamline the device trade-in process. Traditionally, the process has been slow because phones running Android must be factory reset, requiring technicians to go through the full setup process before running diagnostics. With Android 16, technicians can bypass this setup and access diagnostic tools directly, significantly reducing waiting times for users to get their device value assessed and paid out.4
These changes support Google’s broader circular economy goals, which focus on keeping products in use longer and reducing electronic waste by making it easier and more attractive for users to trade in and refurbish devices.5 Additional features include built-in tools for checking battery and storage health, which help buyers and sellers make informed decisions about device condition. Android 16 will also provide software features to clarify where specific devices are compatible, addressing network portability issues across regions.6 These improvements are part of Google’s broader push to support the secondary market and promote sustainability by extending device lifespans and making trade-ins and resales easier and more transparent.
Still, it remains to be seen if these features are enough to win parity or potentially surpass Apple’s lead in circularity.
Why Apple Outperforms Android
Apple’s circular economy leadership is often attributed to consumer behavior or brand loyalty. However, there are other reasons for Apple’s superior performance. There are deep structural differences between Apple’s and Android’s business models, which impact circularity. Three stand out in particular.
First, Apple’s platform architecture is highly integrated and centrally controlled.7 Apple designs and manages both the hardware and software for its devices, which allows the company to implement standardized programs for trade-in, repair, and recycling across its entire product lineup. This integration ensures that new circular initiatives-such as diagnostics, refurbishment standards, and resale processes-can be rolled out quickly and uniformly, maintaining consistent quality and consumer trust. In contrast, Android’s platform is open and decentralized, used by a wide range of manufacturers who each make their own hardware and software modifications.8 This fragmentation makes it much harder to coordinate and standardize circular economy practices across the Android ecosystem, leading to slower adoption and more variable user experiences.
Second, Apple’s approach to product design emphasizes network compatibility and standardization. iPhones are typically built to work across multiple carriers and regions, and Apple uses standardized components across different models and generations. This makes it easier to refurbish, resell, and reuse Apple devices on a global scale, and it streamlines repair processes. On the other hand, Android devices often differ significantly in hardware configurations and network compatibility, depending on the manufacturer and market. This diversity complicates the refurbishment and resale of used devices, and makes it more difficult to implement universal trade-in or repair programs.
Finally, Apple’s centralized control dramatically lowers coordination costs for implementing circularity strategies. With one company overseeing the entire ecosystem, Apple can align diagnostics, repairs, and resale processes efficiently, reducing complexity and ensuring a consistent consumer experience. Android, by contrast, requires coordination among Google, device manufacturers, carriers, and third-party partners, each with their own policies and infrastructure. This raises costs, adds complexity, and slows down the rollout of new features and programs designed to support the circular economy.
So, while user engagement and brand loyalty help drive Apple’s circular economy success, it is the company’s integrated platform architecture, standardized product design, and low coordination costs that fundamentally enable Apple to outperform Android in achieving circular economy objectives. These structural advantages allow Apple to offer more effective, scalable, and reliable circular programs, setting it apart as a leader in sustainability within the smart device industry.
Key Principles for Scaling the Circular Economy
While only one case, the differences between Apple and Android point to lessons for expanding the circular economy.
To begin, an integrated platform architecture enables efficiency and scale. Platforms that are centrally managed and tightly integrated-where a single entity has control over both hardware and software-are better positioned to implement and scale circular economy initiatives. Integration allows for standardized processes in trade-ins, repairs, and resales, which ensures consistent quality and reliability across the product lifecycle. This centralized approach makes it easier to introduce new circular features, quickly roll out updates, and maintain high standards for diagnostics and refurbishment.
Standardized product design facilitates reuse and refurbishment. When products are designed with standardized components and broad compatibility, it becomes much easier to refurbish, resell, and reuse devices. Standardization supports efficient repair processes, enables the use of interchangeable parts, and maximizes the value that can be recovered from used products. This approach also helps create robust secondary markets and extends the useful life of products, which are core objectives of the circular economy.
Finally, lower ecosystem coordination costs make it easier to accelerate circular initiatives. The costs and complexity of coordinating circular strategies across an ecosystem are critical factors in determining success. Platforms with centralized control can align stakeholders and processes more easily, reducing delays and inconsistencies. In contrast, fragmented ecosystems where multiple independent manufacturers or partners are involved face higher coordination costs, slower implementation, and greater variability in user experience. Lowering these coordination costs is essential for scaling up take-back, repair, and resale programs.
Conclusion
So to summarize, Apple’s superior circular economy performance is enabled by its integrated platform architecture, standardized product design, and lower coordination costs. These structural advantages allow Apple to deliver more effective, scalable, and consistent circular programs than the fragmented Android ecosystem, making it a clear leader in the transition to a circular economy for smart devices.
The implications are clear: platforms are not created equal when it comes to enabling the circular economy. The underlying architecture and degree of integration within a platform directly influence how easily circular strategies, such as take-back, repair, refurbishment, and resale, can be implemented and scaled. Integrated and centralized platforms like Apple’s make it much simpler to standardize processes for diagnostics, repair, and trade-in, ensuring consistent device quality and compatibility. This integration also lowers coordination costs across the product lifecycle, builds consumer trust, and helps maximize resale value.