Um, why, because someone with a moneymaking interest in certain coatings says so? Re-use is great, as is anything that prevents or at least reduces the flow of used handsets into the child-slave-labor-fueled knocking shops, but so is Apple's robotic technology ( http://mashable.com/2016/03/21/apple-liam-recycling-robot/#eQuugJx.F5qM ), which at least feeds disassembled iPhone parts into a decent, healthy facility with workers paid living wages. I don't view recyclable items as disposable, as long as the recycling can be done in an environmentally sound way, with workers paid living wages.
Um, why, because someone with a moneymaking interest in certain coatings says so? Re-use is great, as is anything that prevents or at least reduces the flow of used handsets into the child-slave-labor-fueled knocking shops, but so is Apple's robotic technology ( http://mashable.com/2016/03/21/apple-liam-recycling-robot/#eQuugJx.F5qM ), which at least feeds disassembled iPhone parts into a decent, healthy facility with workers paid living wages. I don't view recyclable items as disposable, as long as the recycling can be done in an environmentally sound way, with workers paid living wages.
"I don't view recyclable items as disposable"
It's "disposable" in inverted commas. The issue is that while you engineer for non repairability any failure becomes a potential reason to get rid of the device.
If you engineer for repairability it means the device will probably have an opportunity for a longer life instead of 'disposed' of.
It doesn't matter if Apple has robots to disassemble the phones. The question is making them reach the robots later rather than sooner because for every device recycled, another takes its place. That scenario is slowed down by repair.
The link to the coatings was for two reasons.
1. To offer a counter argument to the suggestion that perhaps repairability would not be feasible on waterproof devices.
2. To show that green process engineering is not an option. It is. That why I said devices should be designed for repairability.
It can be done and there is no technical reason not to.
Comments
It's "disposable" in inverted commas. The issue is that while you engineer for non repairability any failure becomes a potential reason to get rid of the device.
If you engineer for repairability it means the device will probably have an opportunity for a longer life instead of 'disposed' of.
It doesn't matter if Apple has robots to disassemble the phones. The question is making them reach the robots later rather than sooner because for every device recycled, another takes its place. That scenario is slowed down by repair.
The link to the coatings was for two reasons.
1. To offer a counter argument to the suggestion that perhaps repairability would not be feasible on waterproof devices.
2. To show that green process engineering is not an option. It is. That why I said devices should be designed for repairability.
It can be done and there is no technical reason not to.