Apple's anti-repair and anti-refurbishment practices

❗Article Status Notice: This Article is a stub

---

This article is underdeveloped, and needs additional work to meet the wiki's Content Guidelines and be in line with our Mission Statement for comprehensive coverage of consumer protection issues. Learn more ▼

Issues may include:

• This article needs to be expanded to provide meaningful information
• This article requires additional verifiable evidence to demonstrate systemic impact
• More documentation is needed to establish how this reflects broader consumer protection concerns
• The connection between individual incidents and company-wide practices needs to be better established
• The article is simply too short, and lacks sufficient content

How you can help:

• Add documented examples with verifiable sources
• Provide evidence of similar incidents affecting other consumers
• Include relevant company policies or communications that demonstrate systemic practices
• Link to credible reporting that covers these issues
• Flesh out the article with relevant information

This notice will be removed once the article is sufficiently developed. Once you believe the article is ready to have its notice removed, please visit the Moderator's noticeboard, or the Discord (join here) and post to the #appeals channel, or mention its status on the article's talk page.

Since the inception of the iPhone in 2007, Apple has contributed severely to the production of e-waste from its products by blocking consumers in various methods. This has ranged from authorized repair, to the blocking of sideloading 3rd-party software, and disposing of legacy apps and legacy appstore access.

Relevant incidents

Greenwashing

Apple claims to be environmentally friendly and invests significant amounts of funds in corresponding PR campaigns, but the reality is not quite as green.

Customers are lead to think that their purchases and frequent replacement of their devices do not have a negative impact on the environment, which is not the case.

Green energy sharing

Apple shares manufacturing capacity at Chinese companies FoxConn and Pegatron with other companies. If Apple uses a hypothetical 20% of their manufacturing capacity, and company B, C, D, and E also each take up 20%, and the company doing the manufacturing runs on 20% renewably generated energy, now Apple as well as companies B, C, D, and E will each publicly claim that their manufacturing runs 100% on renewable energy. In other words, each company will claim the 20% renewable energy was used for their production.

CO2 Certificates and forest projects

…

The packaging trick

Apple, like many companies, regularly emphasises how environmentally friendly their packaging is and highlight advancements in this area.

This deliberately distracts from the fact that only a negligible fraction of the environmental footprint of an electronic device, being made of siginificant amounts or rare earth minerals, metals and mined components and consuming vast amounts of energy and water, comes from the packaging.

Some of the environmental advancements touted by Apple could also be argued to be environmentally beneficial side effects of purely economic decisions aimed at maximizing profit, such as shipping iPhones without chargers.

Underpowered base models

Most contemporary Apple devices do not have upgradeable or replaceable storage and memory.

Apple sells many of their base models with storage and memory specifications that are well below the industry average, despite the memory having to do double duty as both main memory and graphics card memory. This gives users the choice between an underpowered base model, or paying a multiple of common industry prices for higher-specc'ed versions. It should be noted that the price difference for the components that Apple would pay in manufacturing are within a few cents.

This leaves buyers in a difficult situation: Either they user has to pay significantly more at the time of purchase, or the user has to buy a new device much earlier than would otherwise be necessary. Some models even have limits for the amount of memory the user can choose, thus forcing them into more expensive models if they want more.

A significant number of non-technically inclined users with only moderate requirements hence chooses the base model in the trust that Apple would only sell them a reasonable configuration.

Since many of these devices are not user upgradeable, this floods both the used market and the landfills with unnecessarily underpowered devices that could otherwise be used for many more years.

Blocking third party apps

Apple only allows apps to be installed on their mobile devices through their own App Store (there are exceptions to this in the European Union, but due to what many have called Malicious Compliance, this possibility is more of theoretical nature).

When a device loses manufacturer support and the App Store stops working, or when Apple deletes or blocks versions of apps from the store which are compatible with that version of the operating system, the user no longer has any way to install or re-install any software on their devices.

This also means that if devices are factory reset to be handed to other people or to be sold on the used market, the built-in first party apps are the only ones that remain accessible.

Moreover, Apple does not appear to always test new versions of apps on old hardware, so sometimes the last update to an app breaks it for that device, sometimes due to bugs, sometimes due to increased memory requirements.[1] Since the App Store allows no downgrades, this leaves the user with an app that is unusable on that model of device. If Apple allowed either app downgrades or independent installation of apps, these devices would remain completely functional for users of those apps.

Blocking third party browsers

Apple does not allow other browser engines other than their own Safari engine on their mobile operating systems. While the EU is an exception due to regulatory constraints, Apple has put conditions in place that make this so unattractive for both developers and users that at the time of writing, no browser vendor offers their engine to Apple's mobile devices.

Unlike third party browsers, the version of Apple's own Safari browser is always tied to the operating system. It is not possible to update system apps like the browser or the Mail application independently.

Therefore, once Apple stops supporting a device with updates, the browser can also no longer be updated, leaving users vulnerable to security flaws and causing more and more compatibility problems with modern websites over time.

If Apple allowed users to install a third party browser or browser engine, this would significantly extend the time the device is usable for browsing the web and open up other possibilities that involve web browsers, such as repurposing an iPad as a control display for Home Assistant.

Lawsuits

If applicable, add any information regarding litigation around the incident here.

Claims

Main claims of the suit.

Rebuttal

The response of the company or counterclaims.

Outcome

The outcome of the suit, if any.

---

Add your text below this box. Once this section is complete, delete this box by clicking on it and pressing backspace.

Consumer response

Summary and key issues of prevailing sentiment from the consumers and commentators that can be documented via articles, emails to support, reviews and forum posts.

---

Add your text below this box. Once this section is complete, delete this box by clicking on it and pressing backspace.

References

Add a category with the same name as the product, service, website, software, product line or company that this article is about.

The "Incidents" category is not needed.

---

Add your text below this box. Once this section is complete, delete this box by clicking on it and pressing backspace.