Remember, such criticisms exposing Apple's weak and hollow commitment to "right to repair" is essential to maintain public pressure on the regulators and the corporates to protect consumer rights. For example, activists and regulators should now highlight how ridiculous it is that you need ridiculous, expensive and specialised tools for Apple devices for simple repairs like battery replacement, when tried and tested alternatives designs for removable battery are already doable. Or how just using screws instead of adhesives, easily increases the repairability of devices. The pressure should be to make Apple (and other BigTech) to ensure ease of repairability should be a focus during the design of the product. E.g. the FrameWork laptop ( https://frame.work/ ), and not just an after thought to get around regulatory requirement.

One way regulators can go about ensuring this is to tag an additional "e-wastage" tax inversely tied to the "repairability index" ( https://repair.eu/news/the-french-repair-index-challenges-an... ) of a device . The less repairable a device is, the higher the "e-wastage" tax should be. This should appeal to some who think the consumer should be allowed to spend their money as they want. If some really want to splurge on a device that is hard to repair, let them also bear the burden for the environmental impact the waste creates.

Disaster ensued because he did the steps out of order.

> It had been destroyed. Because we had not initially removed the two security screws, the screen had been held in place while I was trying to pry it open, which had caused damage.

Not saying Apple's kit or program is ideal, but the disaster was 100% user error. He did it correctly with a test iPhone, but then when he went to fix his real iPhone he skipped Step 1 and ended up breaking the screen.

Much better than the verge’s article