Talk:Apple's anti-repair and anti-refurbishment practices: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

VisualWikitext

Add topic

@@ Line 22: / Line 22: @@
 ::::::Just looking at your contribution on this page, I think you might be better off putting the greenwashing stuff on apple's main page, and then linking to this page when you discuss how apple's anti-repair practices undermine its claims of being eco-friendly. (and also there's some question about how anti-consumer greenwashing is in the first place. I think it does fix the wiki, but should be approached from a 'misleading marketing' angle rather than an 'environmental damage' angle) [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 21:23, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
 :::::::Fit*, not fix.  [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 22:46, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
 :::::::I thought about the same thing. Maybe at some point a dedicated page might even make sense.
 :::::::I'll move those parts over to the Apple page for now.
 :::::::How relevant ecological aspects are with regards to consumer rights is indeed an interesting question. I'd say disposable an non-repairable design of electronic devices, greenwashing, emissions and pollution are ultimately part of the same problem. It's just that the ecological problems simply affect a larger range of people than just the buyer of a particular model or product. [[User:MrTuttle|MrTuttle]] ([[User talk:MrTuttle|talk]]) 15:34, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
+::::::::Yeah, I think I'm starting to move towards framing the wiki's scope in terms of the seller-consumer relationship, and that it should be possible to directly link incidents/practices to that relationship.
+::::::::Unrepairability? Needlessly makes the device a consumer has purchased worse, causes the consumer to have less control of their device, and can cause the user to experience unnecessary costs when the device needs to be repaired.
+::::::::Greenwashing? Misleads a consumer into buying something when they otherwise wouldn't by giving them a false impression of a company's ecological credentials. Notably this means that under this definition greenwashing can be done in a non-anti-consumer way (maybe depends on your definition of greenwashing). E.g. a scheme where a company planted a tree for every phone they sold and advertised this fact would only be anti-consumer if the tree planting scheme being used was one of those dodgy ones that doesn't actually plant trees, or claims to be 'panting' trees by just owning land and not cutting down as many trees as they say they would otherwise. If things are properly represented and above board, then in my mind it's probably not anti-consumer.
+::::::::Emissions and pollution I feel like are a bit out of scope, unless lied about in a way that falls under misleading marketing. Like employee rights, they're  very important, but not directly related to consumer protection. I don't think we should be making an article every time a factory is built in China. I think an exception can be made where the ones doing the polluting are those directly responsible for delivering a service of clean water or similar to consumers (mostly thinking about water companies when saying this). [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 11:01, 17 September 2025 (UTC)