Sadly this is again just PR. Apple is notoriously bad in this regard. Example:
According to their year-long investigation, Apple iPhones and MacBooks aren’t “recycled” in any meaningful sense. Instead, they’re completely destroyed, by Apple’s specific order. The Cupertino-based company handles almost none of its own recycling, instead farming it out to various third parties, and they forbid any reuse or resale of any components. Everything is shredded down to commodity-grade bits of metal, plastic, and glass, with Apple handling just a fraction of their own materials processing.
Link:
https://www.extremetech.com/electro...-materials-refuses-allow-iphone-mac-recycling
Despite this, your position is ill-informed. The best way to minimize impact is to reuse. Recycling is not that efficient (notably for many rare earth elements that cannot really be recovered). The best case is always reuse. Again, Apple could have have provided two paths (one optimized like current iPhones, one optimized for reusability), but chose a single path solely based on shareholder returns - many will posit this their fiduciary responsibility. If so, stop with the facetious PR campaign, and just stop pretending there have not been huge costs imposed by Apple's strategy.
Why is it that there are always only two potential futures for a piece of tech? You seem to think that the only options are to repair or dispose. Have you never considered that apple products are highly recyclable? Minimal plastic, minimal toxins, minimal heavy metals; you don’t have to pitch an apple computer like you do others, you can scrap it for materials and get a small sum back for your would-be garbage. Repairing doesn't solve any environmental problems, it only kicks them down the road and creates just as many waste parts that will never be recycled when was the last time you recycled your broken ram responsibly? My bet’s on never
