> I consider the statements of Apple about the environment friendlyness of their devices phony, as long as a keyboard defect can total the device or at least mean, that large parts of the device have to be changed, which aren't defective.
It's a tough question to definitively answer. Are there greater environmental costs to producing and using screws rather than rivets? If so, how does that balance against the environmental costs of replacing failed computers?
It's possible that a fixed keyboard could be the correct choice if their new keyboard fails in low enough numbers.
The numbers would need to be very low to make that difference. There are other reasons to change your keyboard beyond defects: language adjustments. Here in Europe we have over 20 different languages with different keyboard layouts...
And in any case, even if it were a theoretical environmental gain - should the burdon for that lie on the consumer, who randomly looses her or his device, just so that every laptop is a tiny bit more efficient (and the effect would be really tiny)? Shouldn't in this case Apple carry the additional cost for repairs?
It's a tough question to definitively answer. Are there greater environmental costs to producing and using screws rather than rivets? If so, how does that balance against the environmental costs of replacing failed computers?
It's possible that a fixed keyboard could be the correct choice if their new keyboard fails in low enough numbers.