I mean, I'm not against repairability laws as a matter of consumer protection, but I think it's pure conjecture to jump to the conclusion that it is undoubtably better for the environment.
If you add 10% of material to the average device to gain 5% average lifetime, you're not decreasing waste. I don't think it would add any lifetime personally, as repair and refurbishment shops already know how to open phones that are glued together and there is a huge industry that refurbs these phones already. I doubt screws will increase the average lifetime of the average phone, it'll just increase the number of screws in the landfill.
Legislation should set a minimum on quality, repairability helps on setting quality standards. This goes for many appliances as well as phones.
I'd rather have iron screws in landfills than extra glue.
I appreciate your cost focused perspective on this. I really do. What I'm trying to argue is that it is necessary to stop doing this. I foresee that just like the EU forcing USB-C into the iPhone, we could also see more repair-ability to combat climate issues, e-waste, etc.
The world is going to have a hard pill to swallow, not everything is about profits. Sometimes things need to be done because they are good for us and our society.
> If people want an iPhone, then the Fairphone is not a solution to that problem either.
I don't think the Fairphone is necessarily the solution either. That was never what I was arguing about. I'd appreciate it if you'd stop bringing it up. I'm not talking about the Fairphone. I'm explicitly talking about why an iPhone user might care about repair-ability.