Yes that’s completely true. However repairability only matters environmentally because it helps the device have a longer useful lifetime. iPhones have the longest useful lifetimes of any smartphones anyway though, so they’re still clearly the best choice overall.
My one criticism of the a Greenpeace report I think is that they don’t really put enough weight on average device working lifetime. It’s a direct multiplier on every other factor.
>iPhones have the longest useful lifetimes of any smartphones anyway though, so they’re still clearly the best choice overall.
Not exactly, because other phones can be repaired which extends their life.
Apple's doesn't do board repair themselves, and blocks others from doing it as well. This means more components end up in land fills. Apple's own extended warranty program makes billions of dollars. And the repair industry itself is quite large - millions maybe hundreds of millions of dollars per year. Apple products clearly fail and need repair at some point or another.
I hope you'll join everyone else in demanding Apple stop opposing right to repair legislation.
Repairability isn’t a significant metric because beyond battery replacement, which is very reasonably for iPhones since Apple halved their battery replacement prices a few years ago, very few phones are ever repaired.
“..researchers found that brand, an intangible property, is more important than repairability or memory size in extending the life of a product.”[0]
The article found that Apple phones last on average a year longer than Samsung’s.
The average for all smartphones is estimated as from 2 to 3 years, but bear in mind that includes many Apple devices, so non Apple devices must average the low end of that.[2]
The fact is repairability simply isn’t a significant factor in environmental impact overall. I do completely accept that wanting it as an individual right is entirely reasonable. There are plenty of solid arguments in favour of repairability, but environmentalism isn’t one of them. If you care about the environment more than right to repair, Apple devices win by a very large margin.
I posted direct quotes from Greenpeace. You're linking to ZDNet, and a random study that has no published data as far as I can tell. Note that I am not easily swayed by studies - I work in Vaccine R&D and I read tons of research papers, and many of them are junk. A study doesn't mean something is true. I'd trust Greenpeace knowing about the environment more than ZDNet.
>The fact is repairability simply isn’t a significant factor in environmental impact overall.
This is not a fact. Every single environmental group on this planet agrees that repair is significant component in reducing environmental impact. By definition it means fewer devices need to be re-purchased, fewer devices end up in landfills, more local repair jobs, more support-economy jobs, etc. I don't think I will be able to convince you otherwise. I will let you have the last word. Have a nice day :)
https://www.fastcompany.com/40561811/greenpeace-to-apple-for...